Bussard Collectors

[Timo]

...Then again, these works tend to limit the options of interpreting the onscreen stuff, thus actually creating contradictions when certain explanations and rationalizations are "made unavailable".

And while the shows are always tied to the time of their making, the background books tie them down even worse. The tech seems more futuristic when it's not chained by the written word of those who originally dreamed it up!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I disagree. As an engineer, I prefer having documentation that limits creative licensing and enforces a degree of uniformity. Realistic technology is more inspiring and plot solutions should be believable not to mention more based on ingenuity than techno-magic.

 

[Idran]

I disagree. As an engineer, I prefer having documentation that limits creative licensing and enforces a degree of uniformity. Realistic technology is more inspiring and plot solutions should be believable not to mention more based on ingenuity than techno-magic.

Because a machine that can reverse the charge of particles and violate conservation of electric charge certainly is realistic, not techno-magic.

 

[Timo]

Indeed, the manuals err in both directions: some of their supposed technologies are more implausible and contrived than the ones seen on screen, while others are quite plausible from today's point of view (or were from a 1970s or 1990s POV) but for that very reason don't really match what we see on screen.

We don't really want to enforce uniformity on basis of the technologically reasonable Shane Johnson idea that starships of the TOS movie era can open small holes in their shields for beaming heroes in and out. That's logical progression of technology all right - but it's disastrous for Trek drama. Proper dramatic uniformity is created by impopsing a barely technology-related writing rule about shields categorically preventing transporting - and then a nice episode can be written about beaming through shields by using an Interesting Trick (TM) pulled out of the writer's sleeve, without interference from offscreen publications that tell us exactly how shields work and why the Interesting Trick won't work.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I disagree. As an engineer, I prefer having documentation that limits creative licensing and enforces a degree of uniformity. Realistic technology is more inspiring and plot solutions should be believable not to mention more based on ingenuity than techno-magic.

Because a machine that can reverse the charge of particles and violate conservation of electric charge certainly is realistic, not techno-magic.

I was unaware starfleet could convert matter to antimatter.

 

[Timo]

They must get antimatter from somewhere, and it doesn't appear to be a natural resource even in the Trek universe. So the TNG Tech Manual explicitly says that fusion-powered doohickeys churn out antimatter, not through the full E=mcc routine, but by "cheating" with a technology that can flip the charge of matter at a fraction (say, 1/10) of the annihilation energy costs. A converter of this type is also reputed to be part of the gear of the Galaxy class starship; later articles by Sternbach establish its presence on the Intrepid class as well, explaining how the Voyager can recover its primary fuel stores by tanking up on mere deuterium (in "Demon").

Flipping of matter that way doesn't sound too futuristic when one considers how intricately Starfleet can manipulate matter with replicators and the like. Defeating of the supposed natural law on conservation of energy is a given anyway, for a culture that can generate weirdly directional artificial gravity and other such wonders.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

They must get antimatter from somewhere, and it doesn't appear to be a natural resource even in the Trek universe. So the TNG Tech Manual explicitly says that fusion-powered doohickeys churn out antimatter, not through the full E=mcc routine, but by "cheating" with a technology that can flip the charge of matter at a fraction (say, 1/10) of the annihilation energy costs. A converter of this type is also reputed to be part of the gear of the Galaxy class starship; later articles by Sternbach establish its presence on the Intrepid class as well, explaining how the Voyager can recover its primary fuel stores by tanking up on mere deuterium (in "Demon").

Flipping of matter that way doesn't sound too futuristic when one considers how intricately Starfleet can manipulate matter with replicators and the like. Defeating of the supposed natural law on conservation of energy is a given anyway, for a culture that can generate weirdly directional artificial gravity and other such wonders.

Timo Saloniemi

Not conservation of energy, conservation of electric charge. It's an entirely different conservation law, and I don't think it necessarily follows that being able to violate one conservation law necessitates being able to violate all. (Besides that, I just brush off violations of conservations of energy as being due to revolutions in physics that found an alternate conserved quantity anyway, since outright violating it isn't just impossible according to the laws of physics, but according to mathematics due to Noether's theorem. It's a lot harder to wave off a solid mathematical proof being overturned than a scientific result.)

Although I guess, now that I'm thinking about it, that if it's turning deuterium into antideuterium, then it's not violating conservation of charge after all, so I'll pull back on that objection. For some reason I was remembering it being just turning electrons into positrons.

 

[Tiberius]

The simple answer? There is no canon reference as to what the glowy red bits on a starship do.

I think that TNG: Night Terrors does pretty clearly indicate that those are the Bussard collectors, not that I've watched it recently.

Samaritan Snare too.

 

[Idran]

The simple answer? There is no canon reference as to what the glowy red bits on a starship do.

I think that TNG: Night Terrors does pretty clearly indicate that those are the Bussard collectors, not that I've watched it recently.

Samaritan Snare too.

No offense, but did you not see Timo's post immediately after the one you quoted?

There are two episodes where the glowy bits are called "Bussard collectors": "Night Terrors" and "Samaritan Snare".

There are two episodes where the glowy bits are used for venting out hydrogen: "Night Terrors" and "Samaritan Snare".

There is one movie where the glowy bits are used for both scooping in and venting out fluids: ST:Insurrection.

Terminology varies. In "Samaritan Snare", Data mentions "hydrogen collectors" in one scene, not necessarily related to the "Bussard collectors" mentioned in a later scene. In ST:INS, the device in singular is called "the ramscoop", and its functions involve "collecting" and then "blowing out" - and the latter is achieved by "releasing" the ramscoop, although we don't see any macroscopic device being jettisoned from the ship.

And that's pretty much it. Plenty of room for speculation, then.

 

[Tiberius]

Nope missed it. my bad.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Let me take this conversation in another direction. If the collectors are standard, why would the Oberths and certain shuttlecraft not have them? Wouldn't these examples prove them unnecessary?

 

[Timo]

Good angle, that. What might be a functionality that both the Oberth and the Type 6 shuttle can do without?

Neither of those was supposed to see much combat originally, and neither has visible phaser or torpedo emplacements. However, TNG "The Outcast" already establishes that the shuttle can operate phaser emitters, even though they are invisible. So if the collectors are combat tools, Type 6 ought to have them just like Type 7 does. And the Starfleet attack fighters also lack the red things...

It could also be that slow craft don't need these things. Shuttles are generally supposed to be fairly slow - the highest we ever hear quoted is warp four in "Resolutions". The Oberth isn't quoted with speed records, either, and might in fact well be a crawler in comparison with other starships (say, warp three, tops). But where does that leave runabouts, which are slower than the scoop-less attack fighters? Or all those shuttles that do have the scoops?

We could argue that the thing these designs can do without is range. The scoops would indeed be for fuel replenishment, then, be it from interstellar space or from somewhere more logical like the atmosphere of a planet. But Oberths certainly have range and endurance.

Ultimately, we must remember that the Excelsior class of mainline starships also lacks the red scoops. And so do the TOS movie ships with their "LN-64" nacelles. Perhaps every starship needs the scoops, but only some of them have the red model? And that leaves us at square one as regards the role of the scoops.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jonathan]

According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the main function of a Starfleet Bussard collector is to collect interstellar hydrogen atoms for fuel replenishment. The device consists of a set of coils which generate a magnetic field. Collected gases are compressed and stored in holding tanks.

 

[sojourner]

^Yep, we know, but still not canon.

 

[Vance]

[Loretta] Why do these powerful ships have bird traps at the front? How cruel is that! Sure, they're not pretty birds like robins or sparrows, but they're LIVING THINGS! Grinding them up in a matter/anti-matter engine is just SICK! SICK! What was Roddenberry and Jefferies thinking?[/Loretta]

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The bussard collectors came from Robert Bussard’s Bussard ramjet space propulsion system (this is real world). In star trek, these devises collect hydrogen, especially deuterium, for fuel replenishment where it is collected and stored in holding tanks. To work, they would need to be in a good forward line of sight to collect interstellar particles.

All correct so far. It's a sign of a poor design when there is limited, or partially obstructed, line-of-sight for the nacelle intakes.

Deuterium, or tritium for that matter, are rare isotopes of hydrogen (hydrogen with either one or two neutrons). The extra mass of the neutrons provides absolutely no benefit from an energy-generation standpoint. It could provide a benefit from a "propellant" standpoint, except that these isotopes of hydrogen are much rarer than "normal" hydrogen. It is silly to use deuterium in a matter/antimatter annihilation reaction. It is plausible, however, to use this in the impulse engine system, because the extra neutrons would be beneficial to fusion reactions.

Basically, you're looking at "technobabble" and it doesn't make sense, exactly, as seen/heard "on-screen."

Monatomic hydrogen is the most plentiful matter in the universe. That is what you'd be collecting, and what would be most beneficial for a matter/antimatter reaction.

However, the warp coils require warp plasma, not straight deuterium to work;

That's a debatable point.... for two reasons.

First off... what is plasma? It is not a separate material. This is a PHASE of matter... you have solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma. Those are the four phases of matter. Liquid, gaseous, and plasma are all "fluid" states, since the matter is not organized into a set structure. In liquid state, matter is closely held to adjacent atoms (or molecules) but can move freely relative to them. In gaseous state, the attraction between adjacent atoms (or molecules) is less than the repulsive forces, and they tend to move apart. In plasma state, the matter behaves very similarly to the gaseous state, except that the atoms are dissociated... the electrons are no longer tied to the nuclei.

By the way, there are really two solid states... metallic and crystaline. These are related to the material itself, though, more than the energy state. However, metallic solids have a lot in common with plasma, since in both cases some (or all) of the electrons are not tied to a specific nucleus.

The free state of the electrons in metals is what permits metals to conduct. The free state of the electrons in plasma is what allows plasma to conduct, as well. Plasma is a far better conductor than any "solid state" conductor.

See? You're assuming that the "plasma" is the fuel. There is nothing in Treknology which proves that. It might be that we're talking about hydrogen, superheated so that it's a plasma. Or, we might be talking about something else, superheated and used as an electrical conductor, unrelated to the hydrogen. Either is plausible.

also, the deuterium tanks are in the secondary hull. That being the case, wouldn’t the bussard collectors be better placed near the main deflector, not on the nacelles.

Well, I hate the ongoing "deuterium" term usage, but I'll blame Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda and the rest of the TNG team for that. They said that instead of just saying "hydrogen" only because it... well, it sounds cooler. But it's nonsensical.

As for where the tankage is found... generally, you store materials near where they'll be used, not where they're collected. It does no good for oil companies to store refined gasoline next to an oil well... they distribute it to gas stations, so we can get it "on demand" most easily."

That said... it's a FLUID. Thus, it's relatively easy to move it from any spot on the ship to any other spot.

Of course, I think that with TMP, they were thinking along the same lines you are. I've generally treated the "light ring" around the TMP deflector dish as a collector. (Your mileage may vary, of course.)

Also, why bother to collect matter if you aren’t going to collect anti-matter also? Without equal stores of both, you’re just hauling empty weight around.

Not true. But a valid point... albeit one which has been dealt with before.

First... the fusion system does not use antimatter. And the impulse thrust system does not use antimatter as a propellant. So, from the standpoint of these systems, bussard collection is entirely meaningful and practical.

From the standpoint of a matter/antimatter reaction, and from the standpoint of a field-drive-based propulsion system (like warp drive), you are correct. You need just as much antimatter as you need matter.

Again, I think Sternbach and Okuda screwed this one up in the TNG technical manual. I get why... they didn't want to have something that might seem like a "perpetual motion machine." But I think that they were wrong.

The idea I buy into is that you don't have to carry a "supply" of antimatter. Instead, that part of the whole FTL propulsion revolution was the discovery of how to "flip" matter... to convert matter into antimatter.

This makes the most sense with the simplest of matter... monatomic hydrogen (just one electron and just one proton to deal with).

So... you need a bit of "magic." Some way of converting conventional matter into antimatter... and then annihilation of the matter and the antimatter... at a net energy gain.

I treat this as a very energy-intensive process. For my own warp nacelle design, I've treated this as though the "antimatter generation" process consumes between 10% and 15% of the total power generation of the engine's reaction. You could still justify it, though, even if it took up 95% of the reaction's energy... it would still be a "net sum gain" process.

A starship cannot rely on "tankers" for fuel... period. It cannot rely on "filling up" at the gas station. It must be able to collect it's own fuel along the way. The math just doesn't work, otherwise.

A couple of years ago, in this forum, we did a study on the energy output of various types of reactions (matter/antimatter, fusion, etc) and the assumed density of interstellar hydrogen. There are a LOT of assumptions you need to make, of course... we've never actually been into interstellar space, have we? But the numbers can actually work out, IF you make certain assumptions (not necessarily matching those in Sternbach and Okuda's work) about the power requirements of warp drive, and about the nature of the collection system (most significantly... you need to review the "effective scoop area" as a projected region in front of the ship, significantly larger than the ship itself).

With these assumptions, you can determine the ideal "area" for self-fueling at impulse... and this is an actual, scientifically-sound conclusion. As for warp... that's all magic, really... but the ST-TNG Tech Manual numbers are dubious in this regard, I think...

 

[Bill Morris]

A few points:

(1) I would think the Bussard collectors don't normally collect hydrogen in interstellar space, since usually out there the vessel is at warp and wrapped in a warp bubble, with any hydrogen, dust, etc. not allowed entry. At impluse or when running on thrusters, sure, collect stuff if needed. And gases can be picked from the upper atmosphere of a gas giant, etc. if deemed useful at the time. Metal vapor can probably be taken in through the collectors if you heat up the right asteroids--whatever Engineering wants when the opportunity arises.

(2) If a large amount of hydrogen from space is needed, the Bussard collectors should cover a wide field, not just pick up what hits the surface as the ship moves along. That would be done with a magnetic field to attract atomic hydrogen ions. Even then, as already mentioned, it takes some doing to use that to fill the deuterium tanks, since neutrons are required.

(3) While we know there is atomic hydrogen in space, since it's fairly easy to detect with radioastronomy, it's very difficult the detect the stable form of hydrogen in space: the H2 molecule. And the Big Bang theory and the commonly held belief in the expansion of the universe, etc. are based on redshift calculations that took atomic hydrogen in space into account but not molecular hydrogen. But now molecular hydrogen has been detected out there (unless the ESA findings are wrong), yet people are still going on about Big Bang, dark matter, etc.--and perhaps even still crediting Marconi with invention of wireless communication, even though the Supreme Court overturned his patent in favor of Tesla's in 1943 after a long battle and a few months after Tesla's death.

Still, if extending a magentic net to increase intake coverage, as I suggested, the Bussard collectors would be favoring atomic hydrogen ions, while taking in the nearly negligible quantities of H2 that actually hit the collectors (within a star system, since that's where I think the collectors would normally be in use).

H2 in space:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Enjoyed your points, Cary brown.

 

[Timo]

Remembering that we have never seen these "Bussard collectors", "hydrogen collectors" or "ramscoops" scoop up hydrogen under any conditions, we can freely speculate how that "really" happens. It's probably fruitless to speculate if it happens, because the onscreen terminology is so very suggestive - some hydrogen collecting must be taking place. But the nature of the collecting or scooping may be very different from what the backstage books suggest.

I guess the technologically most plausible use for the scoops would be to suck in gas from a gas giant's atmosphere or some other dense and rich "lode". This would only happen very, very rarely, and for 99% of the time the scoops would be inactive; the red glow would indicate standby (or perhaps readiness to perform the much more common blowback function) rather than operation.

The curious positioning of the scoops might not be according to any warp or impulse flight criteria, then. Possibly the scoops are in front of the warp engines because their real mode of operation involves turning the warp engines themselves into components of the scoops? That is, the red things can only suck hydrogen if the warp engines cease propelling the ship and switch to a different mode of operation, one that allows the warp field to act like a giant funnel or Archimedes screw or conveyor belt or whatever, and push the hydrogen to the waiting maws of the red things.

Dialogue never mentions any refueling role for the scoops. This is perfectly consistent with us never seeing the scoops in refueling action. The action might thus only take place in very specific conditions, and would never take place during normal warp or impulse cruise; if it did take place in those common circumstances, we should have gotten at least some mention of the activity, at least in those episodes where fuel shortage was an issue (say, "Doomsday Machine" or "Demon").

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MatthiasRussell]

^Excellent thoughts. I suppose we could also imagine that perhaps the bussard collectors have some other role in the nacelles other than supplying fuel used to develop a warp field. When you look at engine compartments in various machines, there will be mechanisms in there that serve purposes that don't relate directly to propulsion such as heating, cooling, or power generation. We could postulate the gallactic particulate picked up by the bussard collectors or a process created with their collection serves a purpose in the nacelles other than warp field generation.