An Alternative Way Of Supplying Energy For FTL In Scifi...

[Spacescifi]

It is common for starships to do it by means of on board powerplant, presupposing that that the energy required is not astronomical.

When in reality it virtually is.

And yet I still wanna take a crack at this with scifi tech anyway just as a demonstration to see what... or even if we could do FTL warp shenanigans even with scifi tech.

Scenario: We figured out how to make a kind of  FTL hyperdrive.

We also figured out how to generate and store antimatter but due to it's inherent danger we won't be using it on our starship.

Supplying power: We covered the moon with tall solar panels, and via hyperspace link they generate power instantly to all our starships no matter WHERE they are in the universe. It also allows for instant communication

Main Question: Provided the energy cost is equivalent to Alcubierre's warp drive, could a moon covered in 99% efficient solar panels directly supplying power to a 500 ton starship generate the required energy to do it or not?

If so, how many 500 ton starships could it power for FTL simultaneously?

Since there would be a limit to how many it could power because the moon surface is not infinite.

[darthgently]

30 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

It is common for starships to do it by means of on board powerplant, presupposing that that the energy required is not astronomical.

When in reality it virtually is.

And yet I still wanna take a crack at this with scifi tech anyway just as a demonstration to see what... or even if we could do FTL warp shenanigans even with scifi tech.

Scenario: We figured out how to make a kind of  FTL hyperdrive.

We also figured out how to generate and store antimatter but due to it's inherent danger we won't be using it on our starship.

Supplying power: We covered the moon with tall solar panels, and via hyperspace link they generate power instantly to all our starships no matter WHERE they are in the universe. It also allows for instant communication

Main Question: Provided the energy cost is equivalent to Alcubierre's warp drive, could a moon covered in 99% efficient solar panels directly supplying power to a 500 ton starship generate the required energy to do it or not?

If so, how many 500 ton starships could it power for FTL simultaneously?

Since there would be a limit to how many it could power because the moon surface is not infinite.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?   Once you've decided the flat earth rests on a giant turtle (ignoring the intervening elephant for now), it's turtles all the way down

[farmerben]

You would not bother with lunar solar panels.  Just stick one end of the hyperlink inside a star and the other in the boiler room of your ship.

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

When in reality it virtually is.

I'm still trying to parse this, literally and figuratively

[Shpaget]

According to Wikipedia article on Alcubierre drive:

Quote

If certain quantum inequalities conjectured by Ford and Roman hold,[26] the energy requirements for some warp drives may be unfeasibly large as well as negative. For example, the energy equivalent of −1064 kg might be required[27] to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way—an amount orders of magnitude greater than the estimated mass of the observable universe. Counterarguments to these apparent problems have also been offered,[3] although the energy requirements still generally require a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale.[8]

So, even with the 99% efficient solar panels (max theoretical efficiency is not that high), your Moon sized solar panel is still about one entire galaxy of energy output short of providing enough energy for one ship.

[kerbiloid]

There is an object (say, a human), and its unique handle, assigned by the Universal Operating System.

If make an exact physical copy of you, it will be like you, but not you.
It will be an exact copy of you, with another unique handle, another "me", another memory area allocated to that object handle, so another personality (while originally exactly like-yours), and another memories (though originally the same, as the copy ancests the allocated memory area descriptors, copy-on-demand, you see).

So, to make the copy be you, its handle should be overwritten with the value from yours. Preferrably or necessarily, right in its constructor, to avoid lost memory areas, and thus the Universal Memory Leak. Obviously, two object can't have two squal handles, so the previous you should be unallocated.

Important: it doesn't mean killing the original right on the transmission completion.
It means that the very constructor of copy should receive the handle value and zeroize the previous one by reference, so your previous body gets assigned to a null handle, and will be later unallocated by garbage collector.

class CMe
{
private:
  CHandle m_hHandle = NULL_HANDLE;
  
private:
  CMe(CHandle & hRefHandle = NULL_HANDLE):
  	m_hHandle(hRefHandle)
  {
     hRefHandle = NULL_HANDLE;
  }
 
public:
  void move(CHandle const & hDestinationHandle)
  {
    CMe(m_hHandle);
  }
};

 

Basically, that's it. You should create an exact copy of your body (or maybe another type of body, compatible with your handle), and assign your handle to it on construction.

Then you don't need to send something to there, because it's much easier to send yourself to the something.

Time and space probably play no role here.