Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 3x10 - "The Last Generation"

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The TNGTM specifies ten kilometres per second per second. Not ten metres per second per second.

Typo, I'll go fix it.

 

[Sci]

I honestly think I'm more of a Star Trek fan than the majority of u

There is a distinction between being "more of a fan" and having attaching greater importance to minutiae. The former is about enjoyment; the latter is about fixation.

IIRC, DS9 was the only show that did that "effect" with it's ships (the Lakota as well), and I always thought it looked unrealistic. But that's just me.

I don't particularly see why it's unrealistic. It's not like these ships have air or water resistance to fight against in their turns.

 

[Macintosh]

Typo, I'll go fix it.

But...

The acceleration, assuming that it's 10 km/s² is only slightly above Earth's 9.80665 m/s² average gravity.

That's a acceleration factor of 1.0197162129779282425700927431896g

....10km/s² is FAR higher than Earth's 9.80665m/s² average gravity... it's 1019.7g

 

[jackoverfull]

Let’s not forget random helm ensign rolling the ship in the Jenolan sphere.
(It will turn out it was Ro, won’t it. Sob.)

No Ro in that episode, it was a truly random ensign, although one that got a totally forgettable background and a name in the novelisation (so forgettable that I forgot it already a few months after reading it, in fact I don’t even remember if it was a she or a he).

 

[Farscape One]

I think it was Ensign Rager in "Relics".

 

[Racefuel]

She was in several episodes actually.

 

[Farscape One]

She was. In the very next episode, "Schisms", she was named.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Are you doing a headcanon thing? There's nothing I'm aware of in Star Trek called a "CST (Constant Space Time) coil". I did the sums in my previous post – I showed the precise acceleration starships has been shown to achieve in canon using explicitly given times and known distances between two planetary objects. I don't understand what you're referring to above.

Spoiler: ST: TNG Technical Manual section on Impulse Drive

CST (Compact Space-Time) Driver Coil is taken STRAIGHT from the TNG Technical Manual.

But...



....10km/s² is FAR higher than Earth's 9.80665m/s² average gravity... it's 1019.7g

Yeah, I went through another pass, that's what happens when you post late at night when you're tired.
You make typos and errors, I went and corrected them.

 

[Racefuel]

Treknobabble is always so impressive sounding.

 

[Farscape One]

Until you get ridiculous sounding words like 'interferometric pulse'.

 

[fireproof78]

Until you get ridiculous sounding words like 'interferometric pulse'.

Looked it up and it doesn't mean what Voyager thought it meant.

 

[Farscape One]

Looked it up and it doesn't mean what Voyager thought it meant.

I know. But for years, I thought it was a stupidly named made-up thing. Imagine my surprise when I discovered, after over 20 years, that it was a real thing.

You could have knocked me over with a feather. (And I am more portly than I should be.)

 

[fireproof78]

I know. But for years, I thought it was a stupidly named made-up thing. Imagine my surprise when I discovered, after over 20 years, that it was a real thing.

You could have knocked me over with a feather. (And I am more portly than I should be.)

Oh, same here. I was like, "What a stupid thing to say" and then come to find out it is real and means something completely different and I was annoyed.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You make typos and errors, I went and corrected them.

Needs more correction:

The acceleration, assuming that it's 10 km/s² is only slightly above Earth's 9.80665 m/s² average gravity.

That's just wrong.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Needs more correction:

That's just wrong.

Ok, fixed it.

 

[thribs]

It's the Chin'toka system that really throws everything off. We have a good general idea where that is and know its quite distant from Earth. If that wasn't mentioned we could just argue everything else is relatively close and that the Richton system is just outside Federation space where the border is relatively close to Earth in that area.

 

[Racefuel]

Consider however that the Titan was travelling at Warp 9.99 everywhere.

 

[thribs]

Consider however that the Titan was travelling at Warp 9.99 everywhere.

I don’t think the ships work like that. The Titan can go at warp 9.99 but not for very long. It’s maximum cruising speed is the one to take note of

 

[Macintosh]

Spoiler: ST: TNG Technical Manual section on Impulse Drive

CST (Compact Space-Time) Driver Coil is taken STRAIGHT from the TNG Technical Manual.

Yeah, but nowhere do they abbreviate it as "CST". They refer to it consistently as a driver coil. Making up your own acronyms is JCAH (just confusing as hell).

Yeah, I went through another pass, that's what happens when you post late at night when you're tired.
You make typos and errors, I went and corrected them.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say here. As an example, "to have Fighter-Jet like acceleration to 0.25c from stand-still, you need to accomplish the acceleration in 2-digit seconds...". This is deeply confusing, not to mention confused. The plane with the best sustained acceleration ever built, the SR-71 Blackbird, can average an acceleration of only 1.5m/s² over 12 minutes (the time to go from standstill on the runway to its top cruise speed of 3951km/h). This acceleration would get you to 0.25c in about 1.5 years. Even during takeoff the fastest fighter jets can barely manage 3.5m/s². That's WAY slower than anything I was discussing. We don't need fighter jet acceleration, we need bullet-from-a-gun acceleration, and better. You keep missing multiple orders of magnitude.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Yeah, but nowhere do they abbreviate it as "CST". They refer to it consistently as a driver coil. Making up your own acronyms is JCAH (just confusing as hell).

Typing CST Driver Coil is faster than typing Compact Space-Time Driver Coil over & over.
It's like how the military loves their abbreviations & acronyms. It's just faster once you get used to it.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say here. As an example, "to have Fighter-Jet like acceleration to 0.25c from stand-still, you need to accomplish the acceleration in 2-digit seconds...". This is deeply confusing, not to mention confused. The plane with the best sustained acceleration ever built, the SR-71 Blackbird, can average an acceleration of only 1.5m/s² over 12 minutes (the time to go from standstill on the runway to its top cruise speed of 3951km/h). This acceleration would get you to 0.25c in about 1.5 years. Even during takeoff the fastest fighter jets can barely manage 3.5m/s². That's WAY slower than anything I was discussing. We don't need fighter jet acceleration, we need bullet-from-a-gun acceleration, and better. You keep missing multiple orders of magnitude.

I'm talking about how fast the average IRL Fighter Jet accelerates to Mach 1.0.

It's a comparative analogy as to "how long it takes" to get to a certain speed.

Having a similar "Performance Enveleope" or "Acceleration Time" to get to 0.25c since the common limit for impulse drive operation during the 24th century is 0.25c. That limit is dictated by the computer time synchronization issues going past 0.25c, not because the Impulse drives can't go faster, they can, but they won't due to the regulations to limit the impulse drive to 0.25c to prevent relavistic effects on the computers internal clocks and the desync issues it causes.

That matching of "Acceleration Time" to a IRL vehicle or vessel is what allows for similar performance characteristics seen on screen. It's because the time needed to accelerate is "Similar" to things we see in real life.

Otherwise you get slow & lumbering ships like from the age of sail where things aren't moving as dynamically as it is currently portrayed.