Can a warp field be engaged while sitting still?

[Draculasaurus]

Can a motionless ship engage its warp field?
-and if so, wouldn't warping space around a ship be far more effective protection than shields.
Why don't they ever try this in Trek?

[Christopher]

Supposedly, according to the TNG Technical Manual, shields are a distortion of space. That's really the only way they could deflect radiation and projectiles.

[Elias Vaughn]

I always thought this is what the 'static warp shell' from All Good Things was supposed to be.

[blssdwlf]

Well since there navigation deflectors work through warp fields and phasers, disruptors and torpedoes don't appear to be negatively affected by warp fields it would appear that a warp field doesn't give them the same kind of protection that full shields would...

[Angry Fanboy]

Loving the 'diagram'!

[T'Girl]

Elias Vaughn wrote:

---

I always thought this is what the 'static warp shell' from All Good Things was supposed to be.

And in Remember Me, wasn't Wesley working with a static warp bubble?

[Crazy Eddie]

Back in the days of TMP and early TNG, there was a distinction between "shields" and "deflectors." Shields were a forcefield that covered the hull of your ship and prevented radiation and destructive energy from touching it, while deflectors were a type of warp field that could propel massive objects -- asteroids, projectiles, etc -- away from your ship before they hit you. Over the years, the two concepts have been conflated as being the same thing, but the technical justification makes sense: if you can use your engines to propel yourself at FTL velocities, you should be able to propel your enemy's missiles and torpedoes away too.

[Tiberius]

Angry Fanboy wrote:

---

Loving the 'diagram'!

Me too! That's awesome!

[Captain_Amasov]

In Voyager the crew engaged the warp drive while stationary a couple of times; notably in Learning Curve and Fair Haven.

In the latter they used it to make an inverse warp field, due to an incoming neutronic storm, which was apparently analogous to dropping anchor.

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Thank you for that brief reminder of why I detest Voyager.

[Tiberius]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

^ Thank you for that brief reminder of why I detest Voyager.

No offence, but that's a pretty weak reason to detest Voyager. It's about the stories, not the technobabble.

[Crazy Eddie]

I agree. And the overdependence on technobabble is what made Voyager's storylines so incredibly lame. It's something I suspect even the writers themselves had become aware of when they sat down and wrote "Basics."

[KamenRiderBlade]

Why is it when Fringe uses all source of advance science terms, I'm ok with it, yet when Voyager does it, it feels like they don't even have a proper scientist proof read what they write.

[Timo]

In the latter they used it to make an inverse warp field, due to an incoming neutronic storm, which was apparently analogous to dropping anchor.

Subspace anchors are a technology that appears inherent in the structure of Star Trek. There exists an asymmetry of (sublight) propulsion: it takes power and time to accelerate, but no power and/or time to decelerate, which shouldn't happen in Newtonian-Einsteinian conditions where both efforts would be mirror images of each other. The ability to drop a drag anchor in subspace, a putative static frame of reference underlying all space, would perfectly explain the asymmetry.

The one thing dubious about "Fair Haven" is that they have to "convert" the warp core to achieve good anchorage. Perhaps adequate anchoring is typically achieved by the subspace components of the impulse engines, and using warp fields for the task is normally considered overkill?

Timo Saloniemi

[blssdwlf]

The instances where we know of that takes time to accelerate, is that because the ship is still building up power? Reason I ask is because in the instances where power is immediately available (like a warp engine implosion, or emergency reserve power prepped) there is no additional acceleration to get to max speed.