"Why are you still alive?"

If the Alignment looses the Felix wormhole (meaning the GA figure out it is their and the Alignment is using it) then their logistics get all screwed up on everything from communications with agents, sending out people and materials, doing anything with space travel in the known human traveled space.
Ok...there are several things that affect what the Alignment could do.
1) The Torch Wormhole could be used, probably sparingly, to move information around but even if Torch hasn't put any kind of observation on it (even as small as a automated recording passive sensor system., that's going to tell Torch and the GA that this was used in the past and one of the reasons Manpower was interested in Verdant Vista
2-and 3) The two shown but no information of where two other wormhole from the Darius end (and so Darius Junction- which the Alignment is never going to call it). We don't know what or where the other end of those are but given this is the Alignment, they have probably surveyed them but current plot structure doesn't yet need the termini. At the very least they are two otherwise unknown/undiscoverd wormholes to anybody else and while they may get Alignment traffic from time to time it hasn't (yet) been effective to use them.
4 and possibly 5) what are the odds that one of the Twins also is a junction? at this point it has sounded line one of the Twins (lets call it Twin 1) is the other end of the wormhole from the Darius Junction and the other (call it Twin 2) is the other end of the wormhole bridge to the Torch location.
----And right there you have the premier argument that the Alignment has also surveyed and explored the other two wormholes from the Darius Junction. They found THREE other wormholes with the Darius as nexus and did the work to look for and find the other wormhole bridge by the systems which they now knows has the Twins....and they found the other end of Twin 2 is by Torch.
6) This is the really long term one. The Alignment is going to have to be very very careful about using starships to get from Darius to anywhere close to the areas relative to the SL, Republic of Haven, Star Empire of Manticore or the Anderman Empire. This could involve a lot of dead-drops, clandestine transfers way the hell out from stars with occupied planets and in locations nobody is going to visit because there is nothing (but vacuum) there. They are also probably be compelled to set up one or more logistics bases to support the surge that will be needed at whatever time The Plan (as now being adjusted) gets back on track.
We have no idea where Darius is located relative to anything but ...so far...we also not seen any Alignment ships using any other route to get places since Mesa was devastated in the closing up of Houdini and the leadership of the Alignment shifted to Darius. Mesa at least had the benefit of a high traffic (even if it was considered a pariah Star Nation) because so many ships called there for all sorts of business- either Manpower etc related or just legitimate trade in interstellar commerce. Darius....not happening.

Brigade XO wrote:If the Alignment looses the Felix wormhole (meaning the GA figure out it is their and the Alignment is using it) then their logistics get all screwed up on everything from communications with agents, sending out people and materials, doing anything with space travel in the known human traveled space.
Ok...there are several things that affect what the Alignment could do.
1) The Torch Wormhole could be used, probably sparingly, to move information around but even if Torch hasn't put any kind of observation on it (even as small as a automated recording passive sensor system., that's going to tell Torch and the GA that this was used in the past and one of the reasons Manpower was interested in Verdant Vista

No, they couldn't, not if they've lost Felix. Darius isn't the Junction, Felix is. So if they lose the junction, the termini aren't useful, including The Twins.

I mean, they could fly via hyperspace to The Twins and then transit to the Congo System, to hide just how far Darius is, but it's wasteful. They can hide their location pretty well by inserting random delays in all transits above a minimum value so there's no good sphere intersection to locate them.

2-and 3) The two shown but no information of where two other wormhole from the Darius end (and so Darius Junction- which the Alignment is never going to call it). We don't know what or where the other end of those are but given this is the Alignment, they have probably surveyed them but current plot structure doesn't yet need the termini. At the very least they are two otherwise unknown/undiscoverd wormholes to anybody else and while they may get Alignment traffic from time to time it hasn't (yet) been effective to use them.

Incorrect information. Those are bridges from Felix, not Darius.

4 and possibly 5) what are the odds that one of the Twins also is a junction? at this point it has sounded line one of the Twins (lets call it Twin 1) is the other end of the wormhole from the Darius Junction and the other (call it Twin 2) is the other end of the wormhole bridge to the Torch location.

Unlikely. Or, alternatively said, it IS a junction: to Darius and to Congo. But yet another warp bridge somewhere in the same system that already has two previously unknown gravitic features?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:It's not that bad. A one-degree uncertainty after 100 light-years means 1.79 light-years laterally. But you don't have to first find the wormhole terminus. You have to only find the host star, and given stellar density, there are likely going to be 1 or at most 2 systems in that range (if that were pointing at Sol and Sol were at the extreme range at 1.8 light-years, it would still be the only star in that radius). In fact, given that every direction in the night sky does not end at a star, it's actually quite likely that a 1 degree search zone will have a handful candidates star systems over the known range of wormholes, which is less than 1000 light-years.

Unless it intersects a star cluster (an actual cluster, not the term used by the SL).

I had forgotten that we assumed that a wormhole was always associated with a star. Now that I have been reminded, I remember actually discussing that at some point in the forum (although I have not tracked that discussion down). What I still do not remember is why we had that assumption; where did the author state that was the case? After a brief search I did find this in the FAQs section of this website, but I an not sure that it is definitive. Do you have better textual evidence to support this?

Pearls of Weber: Hyperspace near a wormhole junction:

Any wormhole terminus exists in a fixed relationship with the star(s) with which it is associated.

I am not sure that excludes the case of a wormhole that is not associated with at least one star; since I read it as saying that if there is an associated star, then that relationship is fixed.

tlb wrote:I had forgotten that we assumed that a wormhole was always associated with a star. Now that I have been reminded, I remember actually discussing that at some point in the forum (although I have not tracked that discussion down). What I still do not remember is why we had that assumption; where did the author state that was the case? After a brief search I did find this in the FAQs section of this website, but I an not sure that it is definitive. Do you have better textual evidence to support this?

Pearls of Weber: Hyperspace near a wormhole junction:

Any wormhole terminus exists in a fixed relationship with the star(s) with which it is associated.

I am not sure that excludes the case of a wormhole that is not associated with at least one star; since I read it as saying that if there is an associated star, then that relationship is fixed.

It's proving a negative: that there don't exist any. We certainly haven't heard of any wormhole exiting into open space so far, so it's a very strong indication that they don't happen.

tlb wrote:I had forgotten that we assumed that a wormhole was always associated with a star. Now that I have been reminded, I remember actually discussing that at some point in the forum (although I have not tracked that discussion down). What I still do not remember is why we had that assumption; where did the author state that was the case? After a brief search I did find this in the FAQs section of this website, but I an not sure that it is definitive. Do you have better textual evidence to support this?

Pearls of Weber: Hyperspace near a wormhole junction:

Any wormhole terminus exists in a fixed relationship with the star(s) with which it is associated.

I am not sure that excludes the case of a wormhole that is not associated with at least one star; since I read it as saying that if there is an associated star, then that relationship is fixed.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:It's proving a negative: that there don't exist any. We certainly haven't heard of any wormhole exiting into open space so far, so it's a very strong indication that they don't happen.

I have now found this in "The Universe of Honor Harrington" within More Than Honor:

Moreover, wormhole junctions are primarily associated with mid-range main sequence stars (F, G, and K), which gives a high probability of finding habitable planets in relatively close proximity to their far termini.

That still is not saying that all wormholes are associated with stars, although that could be an inference.

But the fact that we have not heard of any is not "a very strong indication that they don't happen". Wormholes are generally going to be found by searching out from an inhabited planet and after a certain point people stop looking. When a wormhole is associated with a star then there is a resonance zone, which would make searching easier.

The Lynx end of the Manticore junction is 4.5 light hours from a M8 red dwarf; does that count as associated? That is about 65% of the distance between Manticore-A and the junction, but a G0 is about 12 times as massive as a M8 (and there is Manticore-B). What do we know about its possible resonance zone?

tlb wrote:But the fact that we have not heard of any is not "a very strong indication that they don't happen". Wormholes are generally going to be found by searching out from an inhabited planet and after a certain point people stop looking. When a wormhole is associated with a star then there is a resonance zone, which would make searching easier.

My point is that we haven't heard of the other terminus ending up in open space. No one is going to find a terminus in the middle of nowhere, they're always going to start their searches from a known starting point. But if termini did happen elsewhere, I'd expect to have heard of at least one by now.

However, all indications are that there are far more wormholes in the Honorverse than the few we've seen ships transit through or get talked about. So it's possible those exist and just haven't come um in dialogue.

The Lynx end of the Manticore junction is 4.5 light hours from a M8 red dwarf; does that count as associated? That is about 65% of the distance between Manticore-A and the junction, but a G0 is about 12 times as massive as a M8 (and there is Manticore-B). What do we know about its possible resonance zone?

If it's gravitationally bound and keeping its distance from that star as that star performs its orbit around the galactic centre, it's associated.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:If it's gravitationally bound and keeping its distance from that star as that star performs its orbit around the galactic centre, it's associated.

Do we know that is true that the Lynx end is gravitationally bound to the M8 red dwarf? Do we know that a wormhole that is not associated with a star will not move along with galactic rotation? I expect that the best indication of association is a resonance zone that is clearly set by both the wormhole and the star.

tlb wrote:Do we know that is true that the Lynx end is gravitationally bound to the M8 red dwarf? Do we know that a wormhole that is not associated with a star will not move along with galactic rotation? I expect that the best indication of association is a resonance zone that is clearly set by both the wormhole and the star.

Nothing is explicitly said one way or another.

tlb wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:If it's gravitationally bound and keeping its distance from that star as that star performs its orbit around the galactic centre, it's associated.

Do we know that is true that the Lynx end is gravitationally bound to the M8 red dwarf? Do we know that a wormhole that is not associated with a star will not move along with galactic rotation? I expect that the best indication of association is a resonance zone that is clearly set by both the wormhole and the star.

It's mostly undefined. Galactic rotation allows us to draw a few implications - because if wormholes stayed associated with their respective stars, then there should be vastly longer wormholes cris-crossing the galaxy after billions of years, plus any number of ejected extragalactic stars dragging their associated termini out for true bolthole systems.

The average bridge being approximately 400? light years in length tells us that they must be temporary and/or relatively localised phenomena which expire or change when their host stars move too far apart - after potentially millions of years.

I'm guessing that the Twins anomaly is undergoing that transition, with one of the star's termini gradually losing stability and leading to a second termini forming, which will move further away from the star as its precedessor collapses.

Or they're artificial.