Bussard Collector

[Myasishchev]

Cary, that's great stuff, but if you don't assume the magic quark-flipping device, the only use for protium (as opposed to deuterium) would be P-P fusion, less energetic by a factor of about 2000.

True, but the Trekkian technology is principally based around matter/antimatter annihilation, with fusion used solely as "supplementary" (or "auxiliary") power.

Given that m/am annihilation is central to the topic, you really have two choices... carry your own antimatter along with you (refueling either via "Space Texaco" or by some natural deposits found along the way), or generating it (with the "magic flipping device")

The only way that Treknology really seems to work, and be practical, is to have that "magic flipper."

And, of course, what this means is "you have to spend significantly less energy to create antimatter than you get from a m/am reaction."

So this is a conceit which I think is CRUCIAL to anything in "Treknology" being remotely practical.

If we want to talk about REAL technology... your point is entirely valid, of course.

I'm not sure anything we've seen demands quark flipping. Tankers could be carrying large stocks of AM from refineries to consumers on a daily basis. We know there is a large merchant marine, but antimatter is practically the only thing, given widespread, cheap and easy fusion, that any society would have to import.

We are told that a long-range explorer is meant to operate outside the Starfleet maintenance structure for long periods (years to decades) but it could still be serviced by long-range tankers which don't take meandering tours but instead shortest-distance trajectories toward a rendezvous. Alternatively, explorer captains may have limited ability to negotiate for refueling rights. Or, using their fusion reactors and a more suitable source for protium and/or deuterium and/or helium-3 power a particle collider in order to produce warp-grade fuel. This last option would permit the greatest freedom of action, since virtually any normal star would have a gas giant or two. I admit it's also the least plausible, since particle collision AM production is extraordinarily wasteful, and really only makes sense when the source of energy is free in the first place (x-ray binaries, for example). Nevertheless, I like it better than the flipper.

For what it's worth, we exceedingly seldom actually see a long-range explorer doing long-range exploring. I think the only time was the ship from "The Sound of Her Voice," which had been gone for eight years. Voyager may count, too.

But, hey, for what it's worth, it's impossible to say how much AM you need to get from point A to point B, because the energy requirements for any given warp factor are black boxed and unknowable.

Well, we have a clue to this given in "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

Remember, Mitchell notices something that Kelso missed, even though he saw it... that the "points in the impulse packs are decayed to lead."

What might this mean? I suspect that you're looking at some sort of fission-based initiator for the fusion system. Remember, hydrogen bombs are initiated by the use of an atomic bomb as a "detonator." I suspect that they use something along the same lines (albeit far better controlled) to initiate fusion... and that you need the fusion system running at full output in order to get the m/am system running (because combining it "cold" can do ugly things, it seems).

I'd forgotten about that line. A fission starter is a possibility, sure. But if so, it makes Spock look like even more of a jerk for his smarmy comments about our "dangerous flirtation with fission power." Like it wasn't bad enough the antimatter the BoP had onboard would kill half the population of California if it went up, a meltdown could've spread enough vaporized, ionized plutonium into the atmosphere to poison somewhere between half America and the entire planet.

Or rather, "real science" versus "Trek science." Trek science, at its best, is an extension of "real science" using a few mystical, magical "not yet discovered" bits of pseudo-science.

The "efficient flipper" is one of those. But then again, so is "warp drive." And "subspace." And "transporters." And on and on...

Yeah, but you've gotta have your warp drive. It's the most indispensable part of the premise. Handwaving away logistics, not as much, although I do see why it would be desirable.

Now, about "routes not having been cleared." This makes sense, it seems... but only if you have very tightly held, controlled "traffic lanes" and a LOT of traffic along them. Remember, space is big... really, really big. I wonder how many trillions of starships would it take to "clear" any area of space to any significant extent?

I dunno. When we were talking about frontages in the hundreds of thousands of kilometers squared, that made more sense. But eventually, you'd have to start going further and further out of your way to get at the hydrogen.

Good question. If everything else was equal, you're better off with the highest-density fluid you can get (which is why some ion engine designs are based around mercury as a propellant).

But remember, we're talking about BUSSARD COLLECTORS as a fueling method... so you don't need to carry fuel with you (except as a buffer). I doubt, very much, that you'll collect much in the way of anything but monoatomic hydrogen with such a system.

So, even if some heavier element is theoretically better for "low-energy storage," the whole point of the bussard system makes that sort of a moot point, doesn't it?

You'd still have to carry a lot of anything around for impulse maneuvering. Impulse is predominantly an in-system method, so why not use nitrogen or oxygen or methane picked up from a planet in-system, if it's available?