• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What powers what on a starship.

Vanyel

The Imperious Leader
Premium Member
I saw the thread about Voyager (and the Intrepid class in general) having a warp core and a spare. I got to thinking, what powers what?

The Warp Core, as the name implies, powers the warp nacelles allowing the ship to go to warp. Then there is an impulse engine(s) that are fusion reactors. They propel the ship at impulse.

But which powers the other systems, like the lights, the computer, environment, weapons, transporters, replicators and so on.

Of real interest to me is does the warp core power its own antimatter containment field? I was thinking that if it does, if they shut the core down the containment fields would fall and BOOM! There have been episodes where the Engine core was purged of antimatter then shut down. But still if it powered the containment field in the antimatter storage pods BOOM! So does the fusion reactor(s) power the containment field? If it does does it always do so, or is a "switch flipped" and the fusion reactor take over without a milliseconds interruption?

The fusion reactor always powering containment field, to me, would seem to make the most sense. For example in Nemesis the warp core goes off line but no boom. The antimatter is safe. We know the fusion reactors are operable because the ship is maneuverable. We can also presume the fusion reactors can power the weapons and shields because Enterprise was able to fight. However, just because it can power the weapons, doesn't mean it always powers the weapons.

From Hero Worship we learned warp power can be transferred to the shield grid and warp power can be channeled and directed by the Main Deflector dish. I seem to recall warp power being channeled through the phasers too. Why it doesn't always do that, I don't know. (Maybe that super phaser from All Good Things... is the final result of that idea and warp power can be sent sent directly to a high power emitter.)

One other thing we can presume is that the warp core cannot move the ship at impulse. No exhaust, no impulse. It may be able to power the nacelles to create a low level warp field that allows the fusion reactors to push a ship at 0.25c. But again, no exhaust, no movement.

Ok, I'm rambling. What powers what. And are the containment fields powered by the warp core itself or the fusion reactor?
 
It seem ridiculous to me that you would run a electro-plasma conduit to the mech that open and closes your bathroom door. Seriously? The ship probably has regular old fashion electricity to power the vast majority of the low power every day stuff on board.

Things like the warp drive, weapons, transporters, replicator, shields on the other hand use plasma from the warp core.

Antimatter bottle containment fields (imho) take years or centuries to "spin down" before exploding. Unless you deliberately turn them off ... or a computer virus does.

")
 
Antimatter bottle containment fields (imho) take years or centuries to "spin down" before exploding. Unless you deliberately turn them off ... or a computer virus does.

")

There has been talk of a containment field generator. If there is such a generator whatever powers it must stay on or the field would drop.
 
Again, "what powers what" was established in quite some detail more than twenty years ago, in Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. It wouldn't have changed much for Voyager according to Rick Sternbach's memos, although it's always possible that some of the TNG, DS9 or VOY episodes disagreed with the original specification. Also check out Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual.
 
I've always believed that there are electroplasma system (EPS) taps along the power transfer conduits that convert the raw energy from the warp core into whatever safe rating the many various systems aboard a starship can handle through its EPS grid. The energy required to open a door is substantially stepped down from the energy going into the warp nacelles, IMO.

But I also think the impulse engines are also used to power some systems as well.
 
Because I look at some of the topics here, and it seems as though people fail to realize how much of this has already been nailed down over the years. It's one thing to compare the manuals to the episodes and argue why X or Y isn't consistent with the show, and I fully support such investigations, but another thing entirely to pretend that the manuals never existed in the first place, or that they are as relevant as anyone's opinion here. The writers of those shows were continuously being given the same detailed information that ended up in the published manuals, so it's just a matter of looking up the necessary data and comparing it to the actual episodes.
 
Who are you to judge what is "wrong" or "right?" This forum has always been for people to speculate on things and bring forth their ideas, especially in lack of any real onscreen proof to the contrary. If you don't like people to speculate on stuff, then you're in for a tough time here.
 
Entities like Paramount or Pocket Books determine what's right and what's wrong. They expect writers of licensed sources to remain consistent with these manuals. I'm not sure why you would prefer to create a parallel universe where nothing but the show counts, where we can speculate on anything from scratch as opposed to merely filling in the blanks regarding vague areas, or fixing inconsistencies between the manuals and the show?
 
No. From my experience, people do prefer solid evidence to off-the-cuff speculation; it just takes someone to look it up.
 
Of course not, but unresearched speculation is always treading on shaky ground. I'm just offering commonsense advice on how to improve technical discussions. In this particular case, you're probably right, since there are EPS conduits, and there are power taps which are used for low-power systems, but a reference is always better than "I've always believed".
 
it seems as though people fail to realize how much of this has already been nailed down over the years
As was pointed out, this is a discussion board, this board has been in existence for over a decade, all this has been (probably) brought forward before. But people come and go, so the people discussing it here and now maybe haven't before.

And while I very much enjoy the tech manuals, unless the info in them was in a episode, they "nail down" absolutely nothing. They are the delightful opinions of the authors.

It was Paramount Boris that decided that authorized published materials weren't canon. Sorry sweetness, no where to go there.

Many are here just for the fun of it, poster who repeatedly say "go to the tech manuals - memory alpha - a novel" basically short cut others enjoyment in the pleasure of discussion and yes argument.

I do quote outside sources on occasion, but I also express "my beliefs" as well, extrapolation of my viewings and reading.

You might be happier in your time here if you take it down a notch, your choice of course.

:)
 
I didn't say the official manuals are canon, but you're wrong to think that they are irrelevant as secondary sources. Aside from the fact that they can easily influence canon (e.g. stardates 2230 and 2233 from the latest movie are actually years that were originally calculated for the Star Trek Chronology), writers of licensed works are expected to adhere to them. The writers of Starship Spotter, for example, needed to argue why the Defiant shouldn't be 171m long as stated in the DS9 tech manual. People who come should be brought up to speed on what has been discussed over the last twenty years, so they can carry the discussion further. It shouldn't get stuck in the same place forever, and any established information should be preserved as much as possible.
 
I didn't say the official manuals are canon, but you're wrong to think that they are irrelevant as secondary sources. Aside from the fact that they can easily influence canon (e.g. stardates 2230 and 2233 from the latest movie are actually years that were originally calculated for the Star Trek Chronology), writers of licensed works are expected to adhere to them. The writers of Starship Spotter, for example, needed to argue why the Defiant shouldn't be 171m long as stated in the DS9 tech manual. People who come should be brought up to speed on what has been discussed over the last twenty years, so they can carry the discussion further. It shouldn't get stuck in the same place forever, and any established information should be preserved as much as possible.

Boris - The whole point of this forum is to discuss the "what if's" and "whys", not quote page 77 of a tech manual. If somebody is flat out wrong about something, somebody will call them on it, but respectful discussion among all generations of Star Trek fans is welcome here. As somebody who is just about to turn 40, I remember well the days before the internet where fans of the tech side of Trek would just meet and talk and think about all different things. Even Gene Roddenberry wasn't consistent with his edicts, so a 20 year old tech manual isn't flawless or not subject to change. Trek fans talk and dream and think of new things. It is what we do. And considering how often the frequent posters here are credited by published authors, they do it very well.

Maybe you should create your own blog with requirements on what level of knowledge members can have. You might enjoy it more than the free flowing nature of this forum.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top