6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkitekt]

It is *exactly* what you asked. You asked about the gap between the fact that (1) light has always the same velocity regardless of your reference and (2) FTL is impossible.

It's because they are both saying the same thing. If light comes at you at the same speed irrespectively of your own speed, then you cannot flee from it. If you cannot flee from it, you are not actually travelling faster than it, now are you?

You can also see this question in a completely different manner. You could say that you can indeed travel faster than 300.000km per second in your own reference point. The problem arises when you stop the travel and compare your history with the people who stayed put. Their own historical witness of your travel will report that never have you travelled faster than light. And that reference is the one which counts here, since it's no use to travel very fast on your own pov and still take centuries to travel between stars, that would not be a practical way to conduct an inter-stellar economy.

About your suspicion, it is based on some ignorance on your part. Space is connected with time, they are both dimensions of the same *thing*. Time slows down when you near lightspeed, reaching to a halt when you are actually travelling at lightspeed. If you were able to cross that threshold, maths indicate that the consequences would entail the possibility of time travel to the past.

Here: http://en.wikipedia....28FTL.29_travel

Time travel to the past causes all sorts of maddening contradictions (killing your own grandfather, etc.), and should be considered completely impossible!

[aznricepuff]

Alocormin wrote...

Light can be distorted. The "Mass Effect" is supposedly a field that distorts light such that its speed, and everything within it, is much faster.

How does this compare to other theories of FTL travel as seen in SF?

Even if you could somehow distort spacetime to raise the speed of light locally (within the mass effect field), this would only mean you could travel faster than c within that local space. It would still be impossible for the warped region of spacetime to travel faster than c through normal space without something else going on to make that possible.

FTL in scifi pretty much falls into one of three categories:

• Travel through wormholes (this is probably the most plausible technique with regards to our modern understanding of relativity, but still not that plausible because it still potentially violates causality - i.e. makes time travel possible)
• Travel through hyperspace/slipstream/subspace/... - basically you open up a wormhole to another region of space where relativity doesn't apply or the speed of light is higher and travel through there instead
• Warp drive a la Star Trek (real-world analogy is the Alcubierre Drive, which has since been pretty much shown to be impossible or highly impractical for a number of reasons)

[Arkitekt]

Alocormin wrote...

Light can be distorted. The "Mass Effect" is supposedly a field that distorts light such that its speed, and everything within it, is much faster.

How does this compare to other theories of FTL travel as seen in SF?

What other theories, lol? Most SF movies tell you that FTL is possible due to "Warp engines" or that your ship can go from x to z in less than twelve parsecs (lol).

About light distortion. The manipulation we can do with light has nothing to do with distorting its speed towards it being faster. As I said earlier, slowing down light is merely an illusion of refraction within an object. Light is really not "slowed down" one bit if you could check it by the microscope. However, variable light speeds have been theoretically proposed. They are extremely filled with problems of consistency when you try to consolidate that idea with all of the remaining physics and run to lots of problems fairly quickly (by problems I mean total crap). It's an idea that is discarded from all astrophysical evidence and the remaining theoretical physics. However, it is not as crappy as the remaining codex entry. One or two orders of magnitude less "crappy".

[Arkitekt]

aznricepuff wrote...

Even if you could somehow distort spacetime to raise the speed of light locally (within the mass effect field), this would only mean you could travel faster than c within that local space. It would still be impossible for the warped region of spacetime to travel faster than c through normal space without something else going on to make that possible.

Is that true? Spacetime itself is not constrained to lightspeed barrier. At least, that's what modern astrophysics depends on, in order to make the inflation model to work....

Modifié par Arkitekt, 21 septembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[aznricepuff]

Arkitekt wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...

Even if you could somehow distort spacetime to raise the speed of light locally (within the mass effect field), this would only mean you could travel faster than c within that local space. It would still be impossible for the warped region of spacetime to travel faster than c through normal space without something else going on to make that possible.

Is that true? Spacetime itself is not constrained to lightspeed barrier. At least, that's what modern astrophysics depends on, in order to make the inflation model to work....

Well the way I'm thinking about it in my head, to get that bubble of spacetime to move at FTL speeds would essentially require a version of warp drive. Which AFAIK doesn't work.

[RAF1940]

This isn't really Mass Effect-related anymore.

[100k]

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.

What if the photon compensates for the speed that you're traveling, creating the illusion of no change -- like aboard a ship?

[Arkitekt]

It's definitely mass-related

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.

What if the photon compensates for the speed that you're traveling, creating the illusion of no change -- like aboard a ship?

Explain better. I can't parse your question.

[aznricepuff]

100k wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.

What if the photon compensates for the speed that you're traveling, creating the illusion of no change -- like aboard a ship?

What?

EDIT: ninja'd

Modifié par aznricepuff, 21 septembre 2011 - 03:17 .

[Phaelducan]

I think it is, shrug. It's about one of the scientific elements of the game, and is talked about in the codex.

[Killjoy Cutter]

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.

I honestly don't think I can explain what I was asking, now that I think about it.  **shrug**

On the other point, how does getting somewhere faster than light would have, cause travel backwards in time?  I get how actually accelerating past the speed of light, if physically possible, could look like the opposite side of the slowing of time as one approached the speed of light.

But what about versions of FTL that bypass accelerating beyond local c, such as wormholes or "hyperspace" (setting aside any questions as to the plausibility of either).  How does taking a shortcut from A to B and beating a photon there cause any chance of travel backwards in time? 

[aznricepuff]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.

I honestly don't think I can explain what I was asking, now that I think about it.  **shrug**

On the other point, how does getting somewhere faster than light would have, cause travel backwards in time?  I get how actually accelerating past the speed of light, if physically possible, could look like the opposite side of the slowing of time as one approached the speed of light.

But what about versions of FTL that bypass accelerating beyond local c, such as wormholes or "hyperspace" (setting aside any questions as to the plausibility of either).  How does taking a shortcut from A to B and beating a photon there cause any chance of travel backwards in time? 

Let's say you create a wormhole linking a spacecraft to Earth. You fly around in the spacecraft at relativistic speeds for some time, then return to Earth. Because the spacecraft was traveling near c, time dilation effects cause the spacecraft end of the wormhole to age more slowly than the Earth side. So let's say the spacecraft end ages 10 years while the Earth end ages 100 years. Yet, the two ends of the wormhole have to match up with regard to time for someone traveling through it. So if you just walk onto the spacecraft after it has returned to Earth, then walk through the wormhole, when you come out the other side (on Earth) you will have traveled 90 years into the past (to a point in time when the Earth end of the wormhole has aged 10 years - the same amount it has aged on the other end when you walked through it).

[Iakus]

Arkitekt wrote...

iakus wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

"mass free space allowing instantaneous transit".

Wouldn't that be great. But wait a minute, light itself has no mass and is still confined to its own speed!

And iakus is fine with it because it has "verisimilitude"!

Stop it! Can't stop laughing! Please!

I'm fine with it because the relays are "Sufficiently Advanced" technology.  We aren't meant to understand them.  Heck the Reapers would probably prefer it if no one else ever figured out how they work.

Of course you are fine with it, since you are showing how you really do not understand how the explanation of FTL in mass effect is just insanely bad science. Hint: its not an engineering problem, it is a problem of being blatantly wrong, in the category of "earth is flat" wrong.

I've said before I don't care if it's bad science.  As long as it's consistent with the universe.   I'm fully willing to accept that the way the ME universe works is different from how our universe works, provided I know how the "space magic" functions.  

I'll take a "bad" answer over no answer for the sake of consitency.  You, however, would prefer no answer rather than a "bad" answer.  And seem to consider anyone who thinks otherwise to be mentally deficient.  Two differnt ways of approaching the material I guess.

[Iakus]

 While we're on the topic of science in Mass Effect, here's something Smudboy had to say about eezo:

www.youtube.com/watch

[Lotion Soronarr]

aznricepuff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
No, we don't know that. The human brain has never been recovered and recreated to the extent we are referencing. It is entirely possible that if the brain had any intact anything left, given the short amount of time, Lazerus could have completely restored Shep to the state they were in before the attack.

You "know" nothing in this case, it's all conjecture and theoretical, and you are applying 20th/early 21th century medicine and science as your basis.

The wrokings of the human brain won't change in the future. It works as it works.

And there isn't any scientific of medical discovery or technolgoy that can re-create something from nothing. Perdiod.
FTL is rock-hard science compared to that.

Why can't people just accept that Shepard's resurrection is just another plot device that can only happen in a science fiction world. I don't hear many people complaining about FTL travel, which is just as impossible.

Well, for one FTL travel is a more grey-ish area. At least according to some theories, it may be possilbe (for example - wormholes). This of course involves going around traveling trough normal space by some esoteric means (hyperspace, subspace, slipstrema drive, etc...)
But the main thing is that FTL is usually a requirment for the whole UINIVERSE to function. It is a a necessity.

Sheps death and ressurection in comparison aren't necessary. Even moreso, they aren't necessary to happen in the shape and format they did. Tehy could have handeled that part 10 times better.

You know, if a engineer creates/mantains a machine that operates only at 10% efficiency, you'd call him a bad engineer.
When a writer uses only 10% of the trope/narrative device potential, what do you call him?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


When you and Arhitekt finish patting yourself on the back about how everoyne who disagrees with you is the worst scum of humintiy, I'll be here, blowing holes in your arguments...

The shortcomings aren't immagined. The bad writing is there. Some people just couldn't care less about it or can't even recognize it. That however, is not my problem.

That's what you're telling everyone, yet you never do it.

The best you can do is making up some ridiculous claim and then say that you destroyed everyone's argument, as if you're the one to decide that.



P.S: You're not.

And you're not the one to decide I didn't do it.
No matter how much you wish your arguments are solid, so far, they have proven rather woobly and poor.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

They are going to do a suicide mission. It means they will probably die, and they know it. They are "professionals", meaning that they are paid to do what they do. "Professionals" do not equate to "machine zombies". I'm a professional, and if I have a serious personal problem, I'll lose my focus, it's as obvious as anything can ever be.

There is never the mentioning that without the loyalty missions, your comrades won't do their missions as best as they can. Quite the opposite. They have their own issues, but they follow you through hell. They show their professionalism by engaging this suicide mission. The only problem is that they will lack the necessary focus to survive the mission.

That's it. And it's amazingly simple and amazingly correct. It's probably the least problematic feature of Mass Effect 2.

Bollocks. A professional doesn't loose focus easily.
The loyality missions were fun adn well-made, but in general tehy should have no bearing whatsoever on the SM (with the exception of maybe 1 or 2)

If you are that easily distracted, then you're not a professional. If your mind wanders off in the middle of hte fight, you deserve a bullet.

There is an obvious third point. Players, which is you can happen to love the way Thane fights (his powers, weapons, etc.). This means you will choose Thane to go with you. This alone is sufficient reason to have him available. Idk if Thane is "necessary" to the plot, never tried to end ME2 without him, but he could be one of those which you can happen to ignore to pick up. And if you do so, you may do so because you don't even want him on your own team.

And people disagree with you here.
Player choice falls outside of the story/writing. By that logic, we could have had blasto...or a batarian bum. I'm sure some people would love the drunken kung-fu.
Point is, the story gives little justification as to why we're actually gathering half the people we do.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Thompson family wrote...

That's a little harsh, SWM. I remember at least one argument that LS rebutted rather well ....


... of course, it was his own argument that he'd misattributed to me.


I could probably find the link if you haven't seen it.


EDIT: Well, well. Look what I just found

It was your own argument you silly man.
OR should I say, you were arguing for me arguing someting I never said.

[Nashiktal]

Well to swing things back toward smudboys analysis like Iakus did, i'm going to post another of smudboys older videos. Retcons inconsistencies and segregation.

http://www.youtube.c.../26/SgY4hHgYJqQ

While I don't agree with all his points, and he makes a mistake here and there (like the conrad bug, he thought bioware resurrected him), he did reveal some interesting points that I missed completely.

For example the Guardian defense system on horizon. They were not working as Guardian lasers were described in the codex. Instead of lasers, they seem to be missles or rail guns. They also were not ignoring the collectors shield as they should if they were to work as normal, although I guess we could chalk that up to advanced barriers? (which only brings up questions on why the non thanix normandy can rip through its shields.)

[Lotion Soronarr]

Phaelducan wrote...
I'd just copy and paste the last post, but I don't think it will make any difference. No one samples millions of people for anything. The closest thing to that is a general election. For all other purposes, 2500 is a completely valid and quite large sample size. If you want to call into question the validity of all polling and statistical analysis? Feel free, but then it's about you, and not the sample size. 2500 is fine. Don't believe me? Go buy a stats book and read up on it. It's not my job to verify scientific methods to you. News services all over the world use samples of 1000 to represent millions. 2500 is perfectly reasonable to sample for 6 million. That's what margins of error and confidence levels indicate. I don't have to defend anything to you, I've put the numbers up, you clearly don't care. End of discussion.

When using a sample, the issue of sample validity comes up. The idea is that the sample should be representative of the larger group. There is no validity when it comes to this.

There is no industry standard (in fact, I can point you to several sites which use a different rating system)

End of discussion.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Thompson family wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
.... And there isn't any scientific of medical discovery or technolgoy that can re-create something from nothing. Perdiod.
FTL is rock-hard science compared to that.

Therefore, Shep's brain had to be not only physically intact but still funtioning, at the comatose level at least.

I'm not arguing here, LS. I'm accepting your conclusion, that once the brain completely stops functioning, it's "wiped," to use the term more commonly associated with computer hard drives.

There is some sort of stasis program built in to armor, (combat suits, whatever.) Why? Because otherwise, the Unity power would not work and you could not revive "dead" squadmates.

Just saying. The whole argument about wheter "is the head dead yet," as I've acknowledge before, is ludicrous.

Erm...no?

Since when does that have anything to do with Unity?
For one, unitiy is a gameplay mechanic (just like ammo powers) and exists outside of the story and universe (as far as I'm concerned)
And even if you do want to insist otherwise, when you use unity, your squadmates are "down" for a few seconds at most. They haven't been rotting for months. There is no need for a stasis. Not was there ever any mention of armor having it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...


LOL. You got to hand it to him though. He's got some serious balls for trying to pull that off.

Mighty right there, aznricepuff. Lack of balls was never his problem. I'll gladly give him that.

Perhaps he bought them. Quite expensive, the full package. Or so I heard.:innocent:

I got big, plentifull balls. And a big plentifull brain.

I do however wonder if you got anything in that skull of yours except a draft:P

[111987]

Nashiktal wrote...

Well to swing things back toward smudboys analysis like Iakus did, i'm going to post another of smudboys older videos. Retcons inconsistencies and segregation.

http://www.youtube.c.../26/SgY4hHgYJqQ

While I don't agree with all his points, and he makes a mistake here and there (like the conrad bug, he thought bioware resurrected him), he did reveal some interesting points that I missed completely.

For example the Guardian defense system on horizon. They were not working as Guardian lasers were described in the codex. Instead of lasers, they seem to be missles or rail guns. They also were not ignoring the collectors shield as they should if they were to work as normal, although I guess we could chalk that up to advanced barriers? (which only brings up questions on why the non thanix normandy can rip through its shields.)

The Normandy uses Javelin missiles against the Collector Ship, which I believe are multiple disruptor torpedoes packed in one pod. They use mass effect fields to enhance the mass of the torpedo so that it rips right through most standard kinetic barriers. We saw in the Battle of the Citadel that a single disruptor torpedo can take out a cruiser in one hit.

And there isn't a contradiction with the GARDIAN turret on Horizon. GARDIAN stands for General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network. Nowhere does it say GARDIAN is a laser. The GARDIAN systems on ships are called GARDIAN lasers; the turret was simply a different type of GARDIAN.

At least that's how I interpret it.

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...

And there isn't a contradiction with the GARDIAN turret on Horizon. GARDIAN stands for General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network. Nowhere does it say GARDIAN is a laser. The GARDIAN systems on ships are called GARDIAN lasers; the turret was simply a different type of GARDIAN.

Once again the codex pleas against you,

Weapons: GARDIAN
A ships' General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network (GARDIAN) consists of anti-missile/anti-fighter laser turrets on the exterior hull. Because these are under computer control, the gunnery control officer needs to do little beyond turn the system on and designate targets as hostile.
Since lasers move at light speed, they cannot be dodged by anything moving at non-relativistic speeds. Unless the beam is aimed poorly, it will always hit its target. In the early stages of a battle, the GARDIAN fire is 100% accurate. It is not 100% lethal, but it doesn't have to be. Damaged fighters must break off for repairs.

Lasers are limited by diffraction. The beams "spread out", decreasing the energy density (watts per m2) the weapon can place on a target. Any high-powered laser is a short-ranged weapon.

GARDIAN networks have another limitation: heat. Weapons-grade lasers require "cool-down" time, during which heat is transferred to sinks or radiators. As lasers fire, heat builds within them, reducing damage, range, and accuracy.

Fighters attack in swarms. The first few WILL be hit by GARDIAN, but as the battle continues, the effects of laser overheat allow the attacks to press ever closer to the ship. Constant use will burn out the laser.

GARDIAN lasers typically operate in infrared frequencies. Shorter frequencies would offer superior stopping power and range, but degradation of focal arrays and mirrors would make them expensive to maintain, and most prefer mechanical reliability over leading-edge performance where lives are concerned. Salarians, however, use near-ultraviolet frequency lasers with six times the range, believing that having additional time to shoot down incoming missiles is more important.

Lasers are not blocked by the kinetic barriers of capital ships. However, the range of lasers limits their use to rare "knife fight"-range ship-to-ship combat.