RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,381
Posts: 5,357,154
Members: 24,628
Currently online: 469
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 30 2013, 11:10 PM   #76
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
But that doesn't make sense. Communications signals come in on subspace carrier waves and if they couldn't detect them they'd never receive any messages.
So it does make sense after all? I mean, I just argued that subspace carrier waves are consistently detectable and this is because they are a long-duration phenomenon.

How does Nero get the drop on 47 Klingon ships?
He can kill a planet with, indeed, a drop. Catching a Klingon frontline garrison world by surprise would be a nice way to accomplish such a trick... There'd be no opposition afterwards, but OTOH a space detonation of red matter would leave planetside witnesses to spread the message of terror to Starfleet, thereby leaving Vulcan defenseless.

But if Nero really uses this as a ruse to get Starfleet away from Vulcan, then surely the battle site must be distant from Vulcan - while Nero himself has a slow ship... Which is why I still prefer the idea that there was no battle, merely a false message that indicated a horrible threat approaching from the direction of Laurentius which is nowhere near Vulcan or Nero's previous location.

That's probably the weakest approach, as starships have energy and power to burn. Escaping a planet is an established feat - starships even escape black holes in TOS and VOY! Towing a planet is a feat not yet established, but it should not be all that far beyond the capabilities of a single ship; Spock and Picard come close to achieving it in "Paradise Syndrome" and "Deja Q", respectively.

Whether starships move by using thrust is far from established. We have never heard of a "rocket blast" associated with impulse power, and indeed starships themselves appear immune to such things, as impulse engines often are facing starship structures without frying them. Perhaps impulse drive is purely gravity manipulation (that is, subspace trickery, as subspace fields remove inertia)? Even if it's not, Starfleet has gravity tech, and could direct the ship's power to gravitic landing and takeoff engines if need be.

...But nowhere the size of a Borg ship yet. And bigger things have lifted off planets in Star Trek...

The energy requirement to escape and in fact manoeuvre rather effectively and speedily within an atmosphere have nothing to do with real world physics any more.
Why is this a problem? Real world physics could not explain how the Enterprise got from Elas to Troyius in such a short time, let alone how she got to the Tellun system in the first place. Propulsion in Trek is fundamentally and consistently immune to currently known laws of physics.

That doesn't make it ill-conceived or contradictory, though. Not unless for some reason starships were unable to land on planets and lift off from them!

Now they can zip around in a planet's gravity like a TIE fighter.
If by "now" you mean "Tomorrow is Yesterday"...

Timo Saloniemi
Now you've lost me. In what way do you feel that detecting and intercepting a communications signal sent via subspace different from detecting and intercepting a a transporter signal sent via subspace? If you can detect the incoming carrier wave it should tip your automated systems off one way or another.

Yeah there are a few patches that you can apply to try and justify the Narada and why it takes so long to get to Earth, doesn't seem to have its shields up, or Why Spock and Kirk don't seem to bother to take steps to notify Starfleet Command what's going on etc etc. But monitoring stations along the Neutral Zone should have detected the creation of an artificial black hole so it's not a foolproof theory.

TOS science was based on real world physics even if the writers weren't required to write using a Trek tech bible back in those days. I don't think citing Voyager is a point in your favour and citing multiple occasions where writers clearly got it wrong just highlights why nerds are justified in continuing to moan! Do you want another Star Trek V on your conscience?

And I know you are exaggerating in Tomorrow is Yesterday. Firstly, they didn't have the special effects to make the Enterprise perform a u-turn and secondly the ship was performing more like a Vogon Constructor fleet - hanging in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't. Skimming the upper atmosphere isn't the same as dive-bombing a planet's surface.

Yes you can magic up an excuse but generally speaking starships were designed to be freaky and un-aerodynamic because they were built in space and stayed in space. Dumping those clunking great things into an atmosphere and making them zip around is silly. You may like it, but it's still silly.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 11:19 PM   #77
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

TOS science was based on real world physics even if the writers weren't required to write using a Trek tech bible back in those days.
A weird claim when there isn't a single TOS episode where the science would hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, any episode trying to evoke scientific jargon makes a hopeless mess of it: there isn't a single acceptable treatise of "antimatter", "gravity" or "temperature" there; the biology is all over the place; history is screwy at best; and even arithmetic seems to be off more often than not.

Skimming the upper atmosphere isn't the same as dive-bombing a planet's surface.
No, it's way harder. (Especially when the crew is unconscious and the ship is damaged, but never mind that part.) "Dive-bombing" is just applying engine thrust to correct your flightpath into something halfway acceptable; a steady hover such as the one seen calls for much more delicate control, as there is only one correct solution.

To date, there hasn't been a single episode or movie to suggest that starships couldn't cope with atmospheres or landings. Indeed, "Arsenal of Freedom" shows the E-D entering an atmosphere and then going through the extra effort of making it dangerous to the ship, so that a shadowing enemy ship would also be put to jeopardy.

..but generally speaking shuttlecraft were designed to be freaky and un-aerodynamic because they were built in space and stayed in space. Dumping those clunking great things into an atmosphere and making them zip around is silly.
Corrected the spelling. Again, silliness from day one...

Aerodynamics is overappreciated anyway. Nobody needs it if there's engine power available instead.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2013, 11:36 PM   #78
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
TOS science was based on real world physics even if the writers weren't required to write using a Trek tech bible back in those days.
A weird claim when there isn't a single TOS episode where the science would hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, any episode trying to evoke scientific jargon makes a hopeless mess of it: there isn't a single acceptable treatise of "antimatter", "gravity" or "temperature" there; the biology is all over the place; history is screwy at best; and even arithmetic seems to be off more often than not.

Skimming the upper atmosphere isn't the same as dive-bombing a planet's surface.
No, it's way harder. (Especially when the crew is unconscious and the ship is damaged, but never mind that part.) "Dive-bombing" is just applying engine thrust to correct your flightpath into something halfway acceptable; a steady hover such as the one seen calls for much more delicate control, as there is only one correct solution.

To date, there hasn't been a single episode or movie to suggest that starships couldn't cope with atmospheres or landings. Indeed, "Arsenal of Freedom" shows the E-D entering an atmosphere and then going through the extra effort of making it dangerous to the ship, so that a shadowing enemy ship would also be put to jeopardy.

..but generally speaking shuttlecraft were designed to be freaky and un-aerodynamic because they were built in space and stayed in space. Dumping those clunking great things into an atmosphere and making them zip around is silly.
Corrected the spelling. Again, silliness from day one...

Aerodynamics is overappreciated anyway. Nobody needs it if there's engine power available instead.

Timo Saloniemi
Lol I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't mind them fudging the physics a bit to make it futuristic. I dislike throwing physics out altogether to replace it with magical technology. Thus I prefer transporters and shuttles for landings and starships for travelling. And yes - a starship hovering fails the test big time but two wrongs don't make a right
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2013, 04:30 AM   #79
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
Actually, Klingons often transport when cloaked - Kirk used that ability extensively in ST4, and it played a role in "Unification" as well.

It's Romulans who insist on stopping everything else when cloaking, and conversely in dropping cloak when doing anything at all. This also affects the Defiant, with its cheap Romulan cloak.
That's true, which suddenly leads me to ask the question of why we don't see more Klingon ships trying to fire while cloaked.

Getting it to work is "new", and different from how regular transporters work, though.
It's new to Kirk and NuSpock. It's Trivia Night for SpockPrime, however.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2013, 04:48 AM   #80
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
To date, there hasn't been a single episode or movie to suggest that starships couldn't cope with atmospheres or landings. Indeed, "Arsenal of Freedom" shows the E-D entering an atmosphere and then going through the extra effort of making it dangerous to the ship, so that a shadowing enemy ship would also be put to jeopardy.
And previous Trek precedent: the still heavily damaged NX-01 making a strafing run on Nazi-occupied New York in "Stormfront Pt-II." In the 24th century, we see USS Voyager making a controlled landing on a planet on three separate occasions, and years later doing a low-altitude flyby of the Golden Gate Bridge to celebrate its homecoming. There's also USS Defiant jousting with Jem'hadar battle bugs in the atmosphere of a gas giant in Starship down; atmosphere and gravity conditions at least 100 times greater than any terrestrial planet.

Seems even relatively primitive starships can handle atmospheric flight easily enough.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2013, 08:26 AM   #81
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
To date, there hasn't been a single episode or movie to suggest that starships couldn't cope with atmospheres or landings. Indeed, "Arsenal of Freedom" shows the E-D entering an atmosphere and then going through the extra effort of making it dangerous to the ship, so that a shadowing enemy ship would also be put to jeopardy.
And previous Trek precedent: the still heavily damaged NX-01 making a strafing run on Nazi-occupied New York in "Stormfront Pt-II." In the 24th century, we see USS Voyager making a controlled landing on a planet on three separate occasions, and years later doing a low-altitude flyby of the Golden Gate Bridge to celebrate its homecoming. There's also USS Defiant jousting with Jem'hadar battle bugs in the atmosphere of a gas giant in Starship down; atmosphere and gravity conditions at least 100 times greater than any terrestrial planet.

Seems even relatively primitive starships can handle atmospheric flight easily enough.
I'm not saying I approve but those are all much smaller ships. For Voyager in particular, they confirmed right off the bat that the ship was designed for atmospheric landing. I still think it stretches belief but not to the same extent as something as big as the JJprise - thisnk speed boat vs ocean liner. Same with the klingon bird of prey.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2013, 01:36 PM   #82
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I'm not saying I approve but those are all much smaller ships. For Voyager in particular, they confirmed right off the bat that the ship was designed for atmospheric landing. I still think it stretches belief but not to the same extent as something as big as the JJprise - thisnk speed boat vs ocean liner. Same with the klingon bird of prey.
And the Enterprise is designed to be able to operate in an atmosphere.
This shouldn't stretch your belief any more than all the rest of the magic-wand-technology.
But it does, simply because it happens to be a fact in the films directed by Abrams.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2013, 05:48 PM   #83
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I'm not saying I approve but those are all much smaller ships.
Do you know enough about the design of starships to be able to predict how small a ship would have to be in order to operate in a planetary atmosphere?

Could the Enteprise-D's battle section do it?
Could the Ambassador class do it?
Could the Excelsior class do it?
Could the Sovereign class do it?
Could the K'Tinga class do it?

There's a range of ship sizes in every century, but it's important to note that larger ships have proportionately more powerful engines. They may not be optimized for atmospheric flight, but that's a far cry from saying they're incapable of it.

Data point: Marok explicitly says this in DS9 when he chooses to use a flight of Bird of Preys instead of battle cruisers, arguing the cruisers are "too unwieldy." The operation in question turns out to involve a series of low-altitude strafing runs by the Klingon ships on Jem'hadar ground targets, implying that otherwise a Vorcha or K'Tinga class cruiser would be required to do this and being slower and less agile in an atmosphere would have a lot more difficulty getting out of dodge.

I still think it stretches belief but not to the same extent as something as big as the JJprise - thisnk speed boat vs ocean liner.
Considering we're talking about spaceships here, it's more like Space Shuttle vs. OTV. Curious, then, that both of them are able to operate in an atmosphere despite the difference in size.

Actually, let's reflect on that for a moment. Every space ship ever made in history has had some capability to operate in an atmosphere; at a bare minimum, they've been equipped with parachutes and float devices. More advanced concepts have had wings and landing gear for glide landings, and SpaceX is developing capsules capable of propulsive landings at a prearranged landing site. Is it really all that strange to think that that same basic capability wouldn't be preserved and enhanced over two hundred years?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2013, 11:57 PM   #84
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Actually, let's reflect on that for a moment. Every space ship ever made in history has had some capability to operate in an atmosphere; at a bare minimum, they've been equipped with parachutes and float devices. More advanced concepts have had wings and landing gear for glide landings, and SpaceX is developing capsules capable of propulsive landings at a prearranged landing site. Is it really all that strange to think that that same basic capability wouldn't be preserved and enhanced over two hundred years?
Every spaceship in history has been tiny compared to the Enterprise and if you look at how much energy it takes to get them up and out of the atmosphere and scale that up to the size of the JJprise and other starships it must be obvious where I'm coming from. I realise that you can invent magical technology that overcomes the energy needed to lift something that heavy but that isn't the science on which impulse power is based. They are actually trying to build one too:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ls-warp-drive/

"This engine, currently under development at the University of Hunstville by a team working in collaboration with Boeing, NASA and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, would by comparison be about twice as fast as the best current technology.

According to Txchnologist, General Electric’s online tech magazine, this fusion reactor would be fueled by “a few tonnes” of deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) and lithium-6 (a stable molecule of lithium) in a crystalline structure — hence the “dilithium crystal” claim. Technically, dilithium is a molecule with two covalently bonded lithium atoms, while lithium-6 features six bonded atoms, but we can forgive them for the temptation of using a little poetic license. When the deuterium and the lithium-6 are forced together under high pressure they undergo a fusion reaction — a process which they’re still trying to turn into a net producer of energy. While fusion isn’t yet a viable fuel source, recent developments in the field seem to indicate that we can’t be far away.

The engine, dubbed the “Charger-1 Pulsed Power Generator”, would be constructed in space along with the rest of the spaceship to avoid the tricky engineering difficulties of getting all that delicate fusion equipment up through the atmosphere — just like the International Space Station. Once ready, the reactor would be engaged, and millions of amps are passed through super-thin lithium wires in 100 nanosecond pulses — this could generate up to three terrawatts of power. Those wires vaporise into plasma, which is collapsed onto the core of deuterium and lithium-6, inducing a fusion reaction.

The energy from that would be forced out the back of the ship in a so-called “z-pinch” using a “magnetic nozzle”, a component which the team are also developing. The engine’s potential top speed? Over 100,000km/h. That’s roughly the same speed at which the Earth orbits the Sun."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...-in-the-works/

"The fusion fuel we're focusing on is deuterium [a stable isotope of hydrogen] and Li6 [a stable isotope of the metal lithium] in a crystal structure," Txchnologist quotes team member and aerospace engineering Ph.D. candidate Ross Cortez saying. "That's basically dilithium crystals we're using." Let's pause and savor that for a moment. Dilithium crystals. Awesome.

Plenty of obstacles will need to be overcome during the development process. The issue of harnessing fusion is prominent, but there is also the question of turning the power generated by fusion into thrust for an engine. The craft using the impulse drive would also need to be assembled in space, much like the International Space Station.

"Imagine using a 1-ton TNT equivalent explosive and putting it out the back end of a rocket. That's what we're doing here," Cortez says in a press release about the project. Now we can all practice saying "full impulse power" to our imaginary starship navigators."

I'd pity the Iowa farms caught in that backwash.

Oooh - and I found this in-universe theory too which looks fun. Once again though, the backwash would be pretty devastating on a planet's surface:

http://orbitalvector.com/Deep%20Spac...e%20Drives.htm

Impulse drives come from the Star Trek Universe, and like most Star Trek tech it is based on fairly exotic physics concepts. Source material from Star Trek, which now spans over 35 years, is sometimes notoriously inconsistent, and the exact nature of the Impulse Drive often changes on a scriptwriter’s whim. However, I’ve run across two "official" (i.e., approved by owning company Paramount) explanations, listed below.

GRAVITY WAVE IMPULSE DRIVE
Tech Level: 19

The gravity wave scheme is probably the neatest (in every sense of the word) explanation for how the Impulse Drive works. It seems likely that it was created by the show’s science advisors and then promptly ignored and/or dumbed down by numerous scriptwriters. It is, however, the best fit in describing the capabilities of the drive as seen on the various shows through the years.

First of all, an impulse drive is NOT a conventional fusion or ion reaction drive as many people (and even some older source material) assume; those are reserved for a Federation ship’s "maneuvering thrusters." In fact, its proper name is the Inertial Magnetronic Pulse Drive--or more simply the I.M.Pulse, or impulse, Drive.

The drive works as follows: a pellet of deuterium-deuterium fusion fuel is fused in a high-energy reaction (perhaps by a Daedalus-like system with crossed high-energy particle beams) that is contained and modulated in a "magnetronic" field. What exactly a magnetronic field is, and how it differs from a plain ol’ magnetic field, is not explained. Judging from how its used, though, it may be a magnetic containment field merged with a strong nuclear force or gravitic force field. (Not a "force field" in the Star Trek sense, but a small region of space where the strong nuclear force or the gravitic force is enhanced on a quantum level.)

Basically, the magnetronic field contains and focuses the fusion implosion to such a degree that it generates a substantial amount of gravitic as well as electromagnetic energy. These powerful but short-lived gravity waves are used to push or pull the ship in various directions. By "pulsing" the drive thousands or even millions of times a second, a Federation ship can achieve the insane accelerations we often see on the show.

The "focusing" of a high-energy fusion reaction to produce gravity waves may sound odd, but it is actually based on solid theory. Certain types of black holes called kugelblitzes (German for "ball lightning") can be created solely by extreme energy densities, just as conventional singularities can be created by extremes of matter density. Kugelblitzes are thought to have been formed in the wake of the Big Bang. The impulse drive may, in fact, be constantly creating extremely short-lived, or "virtual," microscopic kugelblitzes that evaporate after a few microseconds, living just long enough for the ship to use their gravitational influence.

According to Star Trek’s canon, Impulse Drives operating all-out at peak efficiency ("full impulse") can achieve 25% of lightspeed, often within a few seconds. It is possible to go even faster, but at an ever-increasing cost to engine efficiency. Ninety percent lightspeed or so is supposedly the theoretical maximum, and the ship would have to be pouring all its power for hours into the drive to sustain ever-tinier increases in acceleration.

Needless to say, a gravity wave Impulse Drive is an extremely powerful and versatile form of sublight propulsion. Since the gravity waves produced can be either attractive or repulsive (like anti-matter, anti-gravity --theoretically-- exists, but is not generally found in nature) a ship equipped with an impulse drive can accelerate or decelerate without changing it orientation.

The Impulse Drive exhaust ports shown on the Enterprise are not used in the same way conventional rockets exhausts are; they are used solely to vent the plasma the fusion pulses generate, and only add relatively small amounts of acceleration to the ship compared to that generated by the Impulse Drive proper. It should be noted, however, that even this ‘waste’ exhaust would still be dozens of times more powerful than any conventional rocket that exists today.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631

Last edited by Pauln6; June 1 2013 at 12:08 AM.
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 02:32 PM   #85
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

It's new to Kirk and NuSpock. It's Trivia Night for SpockPrime, however.
That's an interesting question, actually. Does transwarp beaming work in the era where Spock Prime spent his last moments trying to stop a supernova? Or is it merely a harebrained theory by Spock's old friend, showing promise but only in Spock's personal opinion - something to be tested in a hopeless situation because there's no point not to?

Every spaceship in history has been tiny compared to the Enterprise
...But also equipped with much feebler engines and less efficient power sources.

(Although no, not all spacecraft till now have been atmosphere-capable. Many have been designed for operation in vacuum exclusively, and cannot withstand either takeoff or landing or both. Of these, the Lunar Module of Apollo is a rare crewed example, but several large and complex cargo-hauling spacecraft also exist that can only operate in freefall and utter emptiness.)

and if you look at how much energy it takes to get them up and out of the atmosphere and scale that up to the size of the JJprise and other starships it must be obvious where I'm coming from.
Frankly, I have no idea where you are coming from. This "much energy" can be fairly easily quantified, but it barely registers on the scale of the other, well-confirmed starship achievements. We don't know how much energy warp or teleportation consumes (because obviously they consume nowhere near what today's physics would suggest, so different physics are at play), but whatever the figures, our heroes can ignore them in everyday operations as inconsequential. We do know how much energy it should take to accelerate these starships from planet to planet, or across dialogue-specified distances, and this puts mere puttering out of a Class M planet's gravity well to complete shame.

It's also a matter of thrust. A starship can demonstrably do minimum acceleration, including one gee, for days at an end. There is nothing to stop her from doing that to lift off a planet, except perhaps ground blast damage - but we never hear of any blast associated with starship acceleration, so that point is moot.

According to Star Trek’s canon, Impulse Drives operating all-out at peak efficiency ("full impulse") can achieve 25% of lightspeed, often within a few seconds.
No such thing in canon. "Full impulse" is never either quantified or even indicated to be a speed. It's just a throttle setting - but it can be maintained apparently indefinitely. (Or for a handful of hours in "The Doomsday Machine", for some reason, perhaps having to do with the weird properties of the local subspace environment in that episode.)

Reaching a known speed in seconds is extremely rare in Trek, and generally involves walking-pace movement (say, a few examples from DS9). Reaching an appreciable fraction of lightspeed at impulse is not seen in Trek, although we can derive from the lack of information some limiting conditions for what the ships can or cannot do there.

It should be noted, however, that even this ‘waste’ exhaust would still be dozens of times more powerful than any conventional rocket that exists today.
In what sense? From canon, we have no information that it would be moving in any particular direction; from backstage material, we learn that it can be vectored. So, for takeoff, why not vector it away from the ground?

If that doesn't work, simply put something in front of the exhausts. Such as warp nacelles; it works fine with designs such as the E-B or the Steamrunner.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 04:11 PM   #86
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
Frankly, I have no idea where you are coming from. This "much energy" can be fairly easily quantified, but it barely registers on the scale of the other, well-confirmed starship achievements. We don't know how much energy warp or teleportation consumes (because obviously they consume nowhere near what today's physics would suggest, so different physics are at play), but whatever the figures, our heroes can ignore them in everyday operations as inconsequential. We do know how much energy it should take to accelerate these starships from planet to planet, or across dialogue-specified distances, and this puts mere puttering out of a Class M planet's gravity well to complete shame.

It's also a matter of thrust. A starship can demonstrably do minimum acceleration, including one gee, for days at an end. There is nothing to stop her from doing that to lift off a planet, except perhaps ground blast damage - but we never hear of any blast associated with starship acceleration, so that point is moot.
But that is exactly where I am coming from. Those 'well-confirmed starship achievements' involved massive power usage and TMP had it right - you should not really be warping space inside a solar system if you can avoid it (despite them doing it multiple times in the shows - it makes sense that it isn't smart because - well, you are warping space).

For example - look at the shockwave that rattled peoples houses in Russia when that meteor hit. Look at the terror of the family in their car about a mile away when a fuel silo went up. Just because Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, and the Joker can ignore the massive shockwave from gigantic explosions for the sake of story convenience doesn't mean I shouldn't think it's silly. The same hold true for Trek. Or at least, that's my preference. I preferred it when they had energy limitations, when resources couldn't be resolved with the push of a button on a replicator, and when power consumption and fuel consumption has consequences.

It is a personal preference. Maybe it's born out of the frustration of our modern throwaway society. I don't like magical technology much because we pretend there's no cost, no side effects, etc. I'd rather the tech had warts and all. It clearly doesn't bother the writers and if it doesn't bother you then groovy but it does bug me a bit.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 05:08 PM   #87
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
It is a personal preference. Maybe it's born out of the frustration of our modern throwaway society. I don't like magical technology much because we pretend there's no cost, no side effects, etc. I'd rather the tech had warts and all. It clearly doesn't bother the writers and if it doesn't bother you then groovy but it does bug me a bit.
What's this got to do with the technology in STID?
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 05:30 PM   #88
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
It is a personal preference. Maybe it's born out of the frustration of our modern throwaway society. I don't like magical technology much because we pretend there's no cost, no side effects, etc. I'd rather the tech had warts and all. It clearly doesn't bother the writers and if it doesn't bother you then groovy but it does bug me a bit.
What's this got to do with the technology in STID?
I'd prefer it if transporters sent crewmen down to planets and starships took them strange new worlds rather than the other way round. We just got into a debate about the energy that would be needed in STiD it lift a starship the size of the JJprise in a gravity environment.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 05:38 PM   #89
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
But that is exactly where I am coming from. Those 'well-confirmed starship achievements' involved massive power usage and TMP had it right - you should not really be warping space inside a solar system if you can avoid it (despite them doing it multiple times in the shows - it makes sense that it isn't smart because - well, you are warping space).
Planets warp space, too. What difference does it make if an itty-bitty starship warps the space a little bit more?
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 05:41 PM   #90
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
Pauln6 wrote: View Post
It is a personal preference. Maybe it's born out of the frustration of our modern throwaway society. I don't like magical technology much because we pretend there's no cost, no side effects, etc. I'd rather the tech had warts and all. It clearly doesn't bother the writers and if it doesn't bother you then groovy but it does bug me a bit.
What's this got to do with the technology in STID?
I'd prefer it if transporters sent crewmen down to planets and starships took them strange new worlds rather than the other way round. We just got into a debate about the energy that would be needed in STiD it lift a starship the size of the JJprise in a gravity environment.
Not to mention the energies required to propel a starship at FTL-speeds through the universe.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.