At what point should a Starship not be able to do barrel rolls?

[Timo]

In one Voyager episode (I believe it's "Fury") They said that at warp you can only go in a straight line. So in order to change direction they have to slow down to impulse first.

The most amazing thing about this IMHO is the persisting idea that it even warrants debunking!

I mean, in "Fury" it is presented in the form of a nursery rhyme, the "first thing" one learns when introduced to warp navigation. It should be obvious that it's not even a rule-of-thumb but rather just the starting point from which the discipline of warp maneuvering unfolds - the rule that is broken as a rule, with a strong "when possible" caveat. Also, it's something Janeway has to bring to the attention of Paris the superb pilot on this specific occasion.

The associated technical specs and continuity issues are thus dramatically secondary to what we learn off the bat: that this is just about the only time in Starfleet history where the nursery rhyme holds any practical significance. Which is the very definition of "automatic continuity compatibility", the specific exception that by the very virtue of being an explicit exception confirms the existence of the implicit rule (in this case, "faster than light means agile flight, while slower than light makes you clumsy in a fight").

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Discofan]

The most amazing thing about this IMHO is the persisting idea that it even warrants debunking!

I mean, in "Fury" it is presented in the form of a nursery rhyme, the "first thing" one learns when introduced to warp navigation. It should be obvious that it's not even a rule-of-thumb but rather just the starting point from which the discipline of warp maneuvering unfolds - the rule that is broken as a rule, with a strong "when possible" caveat. Also, it's something Janeway has to bring to the attention of Paris the superb pilot on this specific occasion.

The associated technical specs and continuity issues are thus dramatically secondary to what we learn off the bat: that this is just about the only time in Starfleet history where the nursery rhyme holds any practical significance. Which is the very definition of "automatic continuity compatibility", the specific exception that by the very virtue of being an explicit exception confirms the existence of the implicit rule (in this case, "faster than light means agile flight, while slower than light makes you clumsy in a fight").

Timo Saloniemi

The fact that it's a nursery rhyme suggests to me that they start learning these things in kindergarten, why else presenting it in that form? Plus you don't need mnemotechnic learning for things that you use constantly, usually, when you need it it's for things that you rarely, if ever, use. For example, my pin codes are firmly engraved in my mind. I can type them without even thinking the numbers.

 

[DSG2k]

Your examples actually go along with @STR's comment, "You go from warp 9 to dead stop instantly when the warp field collapses." I think @STR's comment about TNG and other warp drives outside of TOS is that when their engines' warp field collapses they are observed to come to a near complete stop or a very very slow sublight speed. (Or perhaps the ship reverts back to the sublight speed it had prior to going to warp?)

My quibble was with the "instantly" part.

 

[blssdwlf]

My quibble was with the "instantly" part.

I don't think it's "instantly" as well. But looking at "The Wounded" where the Phoenix banks away from the E-D while at warp I'm wondering if there is still some warp momentum? If there was no momentum then the slightest change in course should of sent the Phoenix rapidly departing from the E-D's course but instead it makes a nearly 50 degree turn while traveling along the E-D's course.

It would appear that TNG's warp behavior includes warp momentum but dropping out of warp reverts the ship back to their initial speed prior to entering warp.

 

[Timo]

Or then warp engines are used for active braking as a matter of routine.

Space oughtn't have asymmetry, yet in Trek, sublight acceleration seems more difficult than deceleration. Perhaps the latter is achieved via a subspace "drag chute" that grabs the static subspace ether for stopping the ship, even though this cannot be applied for acceleration? And perhaps the drag chute is what you get out of subspace coils unless you apply power to them, so it's a surefire safety measure. But also a handicap, making you "wallow like a garbage scow" if you can't power your coils and stop them from dragging you to your doom when the Klingons start strafing.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

I'm not sure there is any asymmetry. When a TNG ship goes to warp it accelerates rapidly to warp speed (towards the starburst) and when it drops out of warp it rapidly decelerates. Seems symmetrical to me.

If we look at cases where a ship loses it's warp engine like "Nemesis" we can see the ship get knocked out of warp and it seems to rapidly decelerate just as if it were not damaged. (No apparent "active braking".)

I think the TNG ships keep their initial sublight speed when the warp engines "jump to" warp and when they "drop out" of warp the ship returns to her prior sublight speed.

On a side note I found in "Descent Part 2" a scene were the E-D performs an "emergency deceleration" to drop out of warp at the last possible moment to avoid the Borg ship that was guarding the planet. The deceleration appeared to be much faster than the normal drop out of warp and the crew had to brace for the sudden stop. Would that qualify as evidence that there is some kind of internal warp inertia that the ship has to deal with or perhaps this could be attributed to the emergency deceleration during the sublight portion of the stop?

 

[DSG2k]

For sublight, an old concept is mass lightening . . . a smaller-scale version of the warp field a la "Emissary"[DSN1] that allows the ships to zip about at impulse without massive visible gas plumes and such. The TNG TM, IIRC, suggested the reverse of this, with spacetime driver coils accelerating the reaction products to high speed. Both could be true.

Regarding symmetry, then, the disabling of mass lightening system would cause the ship to slow suddenly as if an anchor had been dropped, matching events where the writers seemed to think a loss of engines would stop a ship in space.

As for FTL, I concur that the pre-warp and post-warp sublight velocities are believed to be maintained, though I haven't really reviewed things in the sense of trying to argue the reverse.

Loss of warp field generation usually involves a period of time coasting down to sublight, as I noted previously. I'd add the debris from "Affliction" or "Divergence"[ENT4] from Trip's transfer to that, but the Nemesis example does suggest a mechanism that might allow for a sudden stop without reversing engines (a normal requirement as per WNOHGB). I don't recall if Worf's anti-graviton maneuver from DS9 caused such sudden stopping, but maybe that could be related.

 

[Kerock]

Discovery had Spore Drive that allowed it to jump.

 

[blssdwlf]

Loss of warp field generation usually involves a period of time coasting down to sublight, as I noted previously. I'd add the debris from "Affliction" or "Divergence"[ENT4] from Trip's transfer to that, but the Nemesis example does suggest a mechanism that might allow for a sudden stop without reversing engines (a normal requirement as per WNOHGB). I don't recall if Worf's anti-graviton maneuver from DS9 caused such sudden stopping, but maybe that could be related.

Good memory - I checked and it's from "Divergence". The cabling device fell down and then coasted backwards when it went between the two warp fields. Something similar is VOY "Day of Honor" where the warp core ejected from Voyager seemed to have slowed down faster than Voyager which also immediately dropped out of warp but coasted (impulse engines also damaged) to a "stop" some "millions of km away". Weird that the core didn't coast the same distance along with Voyager...

There is also ENT "Silent Enemy" like "Nemesis" where their warp drive was knocked offline and they dropped out of warp (uncontrolled) about the same amount of time it took them to go to warp.

So thinking about the coast time and distance for TNG warp... what if the distance and time from the moment of warp engage to the point the ship reaches the starburst is the same also when dropping out of warp? "Reversing [warp] engines" would then be a way to brake quicker to decelerate from warp.

 

[DSG2k]

Actually, Nemesis and Silent Enemy share a trait . . . the enemy ship was right on top of them at warp. I suspect that has something to do with the rapidity of the deceleration. Perhaps the Enterprises started to slow then were caught in the opposing ship's warp field which was then reversed? That would explain both cases while maintaining consistency with the coasting examples.

Of course, we also don't know what happened in Silent Enemy. The ship rocked and dropped out of warp, but only a few seconds later were the engines reportedly down, with the weapons then the rest of the ship going dark shortly after. It's not inconceivable that the badguys induced a reverse engine event with the same tech they later used to jack with the ship's systems.

In "Day of Honor" they started at warp 2.3 and experienced issues for a bit before the core dump. I suspect they may have slowed some, but in any case coasting to sublight from 2.3 is not going to take long compared to the two minutes at high warp, so it generally fits, too.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure there is any asymmetry. When a TNG ship goes to warp it accelerates rapidly to warp speed (towards the starburst) and when it drops out of warp it rapidly decelerates. Seems symmetrical to me.

Warp acceleration and deceleration seems to be, yes. I was merely tangenting on sublight maneuvering, and the phenomenon of "all stop" and coming to a halt relative to something the ship originally wasn't at rest with even when power is lost. If a system exists for braking at power loss, why does one need power to accelerate? A symmetry-ruining static subspace frame of reference solves that one neatly enough.

I think the TNG ships keep their initial sublight speed when the warp engines "jump to" warp and when they "drop out" of warp the ship returns to her prior sublight speed.

Here I'd refer to Cochrane's original experiment, where acceleration to warp (after the bit where Cochrane says "Engage!" and LaForge confirms the warp field is at work) took minutes as opposed to the more modern split second. Deceleration nevertheless was instantaneous even there!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DSG2k]

Near-instantaneous deceleration from warp one is to be expected from a coast-to-sublight perspective. More notable is the seeming ease of coming about and apparently being headed the right way (toward Earth) after the flight.

That is to say, there's definitely something afoot even at sublight, because if sublight velocity is maintained relative to the subspace aether, then since the Phoenix was at high sublight before jumping to warp it should've still been going hella-fast away from Earth upon "throttle-back". Presumably he was getting a speed boost from the subspace field (mass lightening) and "throttle-back" simply took him back below lightspeed while still allowing the non-Newtonian aircraft-like steering so common of Trek spacecraft.

 

[blssdwlf]

Warp acceleration and deceleration seems to be, yes. I was merely tangenting on sublight maneuvering, and the phenomenon of "all stop" and coming to a halt relative to something the ship originally wasn't at rest with even when power is lost. If a system exists for braking at power loss, why does one need power to accelerate? A symmetry-ruining static subspace frame of reference solves that one neatly enough.

I'm not sure i follow. What's an example of this behavior?

Here I'd refer to Cochrane's original experiment, where acceleration to warp (after the bit where Cochrane says "Engage!" and LaForge confirms the warp field is at work) took minutes as opposed to the more modern split second. Deceleration nevertheless was instantaneous even there!

I forgotten about that example! It's actually an interesting TNG warp effect breakdown because we see the acceleration to warp happen very slowly vs the modern TNG jump to warp where its hard to discern all the components.

1. We have the initial "engage" where the ship is traveling under 20,000 km/s activates it's warp field
2. The acceleration to near light speed / warp threshold
3. The cross-over into warp with the TNG-style stretch and boom into the starburst (exterior camera view)
4. Streaking stars at warp
5. "Throttle back. Take us out of warp." If Cochrane cut the warp field and if the ship reverted back to it's initial sublight speed then it is likely to be around 20,000 km/s (from the point the warp field engaged). It doesn't appear that the ship is anywhere near the speed of light when it drops out of warp.

If we compare it to a modern TNG jump to warp we see steps 1-3 occur very rapidly so that the acceleration to the warp threshold is very quick and similar to the speed that a ship decelerates out of warp and back to it's original sublight state. Another interesting reference is a compilation of TNG warp jumps from the ship's perspective that someone put together on youtube that looks interesting.

Near-instantaneous deceleration from warp one is to be expected from a coast-to-sublight perspective. More notable is the seeming ease of coming about and apparently being headed the right way (toward Earth) after the flight.

That is to say, there's definitely something afoot even at sublight, because if sublight velocity is maintained relative to the subspace aether, then since the Phoenix was at high sublight before jumping to warp it should've still been going hella-fast away from Earth upon "throttle-back". Presumably he was getting a speed boost from the subspace field (mass lightening) and "throttle-back" simply took him back below lightspeed while still allowing the non-Newtonian aircraft-like steering so common of Trek spacecraft.

If we assume the ship's initial sublight speed was <20,000km/s at the time the warp field was first engaged then when it dropped out of warp (turned off it's warp field) it should not be going fast at all.

To check this I've been looking for examples where we observe the ship's initial speed before entering warp and then exiting warp in an uncontrolled fashion to see if it naturally returns to close to it's initial speed. "Silent Enemy" seems to have an example like this since it takes a near 180 turn at sublight before jumping to warp and then later is knocked out of warp.

 

[DSG2k]

For comparison to the Phoenix coming out of warp and swinging around toward Earth, here is what an approach to Earth looks like at .75c:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies