Four warp engines: Why?

[Timo]

as long as the increasingly expensive jet fuel currently in use remains, this won't happen

Plus there's the sonic boom problem, serious enough that major research is being conducted on it despite nobody actually planning on building supersonic transports (and few planning on building supersonic anything for the civilian market). Powering the transports with hydrogen or something else harmless wouldn't mean a breakthrough yet, not even if the technology proved to be dirt cheap to manufacture and use.

I doubt analogous problems would plague high-warp shipping, as space is big enough to swallow all pollution and congestion ever created by all the Trek sapient cultures combined. (The "warp eats holes into subspace" thing wouldn't be a concern yet, and probably will be ignored for millennia to come anyway, since it only applies to extremely congested spacelanes.)

It makes sense that unimportant freight would travel at lower speeds.

The funny thing is, all the civilian transports we have seen in the Federation era have been tiny things, supposedly hauling high-value, compact goods and items, and often quoted with high speeds (much higher than those of Kivas Fajo's pleasure cruiser, say). But bulk transport at glacial speeds might still survive - after all, there are references to galactic food shortage and to agricultural worlds, the combination (and its proposed solution through Genesis creating more of the latter) requiring extensive shipping of food.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nebusj]

I think that the reason that nuclear powered civilian vessels aren't in use is because we just can't accept the risk of a containment leak, lethally injuring the crew and passengers (if any), not to mention the effect radioactive contaminants would have on the environment.

Radioactive contamination is a problem, yeah, but the core issue is that it's just not economical. A fission-powered boat doesn't get you increases in speed or reliability or economy that make it worth spending money on that instead of on better conventional engines.

The U.S. Air Force fathomed the possibility of nuclear-powered bombers, but dropped the idea, presumably due to similar concerns.

Project Pluto, as in the lord of death. The nuclear ramjet --- which would not only deliver nuclear bombs to the target but would leave a swath of poison all through the enemy's territory along its way --- died from several causes, one of which was there wasn't any sane way to test the full-size thing without horribly polluting your own territory. When it won't pass the environmental standards of the Air Force of the 1950s you know there was a problem. Also, intercontinental rockets got to be good enough, in terms of reliably launching and accurately reaching their target, that the ramjet wasn't much worth the cost. Add to that the fear that developing one would encourage the Soviet Union to create its own copy and that's an easy weapon to decide isn't really all that useful.

The point is that we do have the technology to create supersonic transports that could travel at least as fast as the current typical airliner, but as long as the increasingly expensive jet fuel currently in use remains, this won't happen.

There's also a matter of travel time. A flight between New York City and Singapore --- which I'll take as proxy for ``the longest flight any appreciable number of people will need'' --- gets you about 9500 miles over the course of 19 hours, near enough 500 miles per hour. It's a rough flight (I've done it repeatedly) and you need a day or more to recover from it. But if you doubled that speed ... and took a bit under eleven hours for the flight, would it be that much an improvement? You'll still be wiped out for the next day (and have a thirteen-hour time zone difference working against you).

If they could cut the trip down to, say, five hours then you'd have something worth paying attention to, but a passenger jet that can average 2,000 miles per hour? At anything like a reasonable cost? That's multiple generations of research away and, really, unless you're taking the trip more than once a month it's not much benefit.

 

[Timo]

...'Course, you can just skip it. That is, you can skip out of the atmosphere for the duration of the flight, a technology that certainly is worth developing for multiple other applications.

Something like SABRE shouldn't be generations away (unless we're talking about cell phone generations). Yet I fear it nevertheless will be.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JES]

...'Course, you can just skip it. That is, you can skip out of the atmosphere for the duration of the flight, a technology that certainly is worth developing for multiple other applications.

Something like SABRE shouldn't be generations away (unless we're talking about cell phone generations). Yet I fear it nevertheless will be.

Timo Saloniemi

Yeah, I've had thoughts about that too. Go out of the Earth's atmosphere where there isn't any friction. You get to go faster while spending less fuel maintaining that speed.

Trouble will be the fuel source being inexpensive enough to justify, not to mention the hardware/aircraft itself.

 

[JES]

as long as the increasingly expensive jet fuel currently in use remains, this won't happen

Plus there's the sonic boom problem, serious enough that major research is being conducted on it despite nobody actually planning on building supersonic transports (and few planning on building supersonic anything for the civilian market). Powering the transports with hydrogen or something else harmless wouldn't mean a breakthrough yet, not even if the technology proved to be dirt cheap to manufacture and use.

Timo Saloniemi

I've read that they've actually made it so that if you use the right fuselage curvature/nose shape, you can significantly reduce the sonic boom.

In fact, Boeing was planning a supersonic business jet several years ago, but that was cancelled.

I agree that the technology would need to prove cost efficient enough to replace subsonic use, let alone supplement akin to the Concorde.

And by the Federation Era, it makes sense that technology would've advanced enough to allow modern transports high speeds.

 

[JES]

The point is that we do have the technology to create supersonic transports that could travel at least as fast as the current typical airliner, but as long as the increasingly expensive jet fuel currently in use remains, this won't happen.

There's also a matter of travel time. A flight between New York City and Singapore --- which I'll take as proxy for ``the longest flight any appreciable number of people will need'' --- gets you about 9500 miles over the course of 19 hours, near enough 500 miles per hour. It's a rough flight (I've done it repeatedly) and you need a day or more to recover from it. But if you doubled that speed ... and took a bit under eleven hours for the flight, would it be that much an improvement? You'll still be wiped out for the next day (and have a thirteen-hour time zone difference working against you).

If they could cut the trip down to, say, five hours then you'd have something worth paying attention to, but a passenger jet that can average 2,000 miles per hour? At anything like a reasonable cost? That's multiple generations of research away and, really, unless you're taking the trip more than once a month it's not much benefit.

Maybe if the technology to make Mach 2 travel affordable were to become feasible, maybe travel at Mach 4 might also be possible, or even hypersonic speeds.

Though if even basic common supersonic travel is generations away, I have to wonder if we'll even live to see the latter.

And yeah, thank God that they were smart enough to discontinue Project Pluto.

 

[Timo]

...The more realistic prospect was using a controllable fission reactor to drive turboprops - say, those of a Tu-95 or a B-36.

Hypersonics sounds like a technology worth pursuing today, as it also automatically caters for the rapid orbital insertion market and the intercontinental but recallable and retargetable bomb delivery system market. And if that one works, there's little need for supersonics - the exclusive group of travelers in need of rapid insertion to downtown Sydney in the morning and downtown Chicago in the evening could take, and pay for, the suborbital "skipper".

As for the sonic boom issue, variable geometry noses are promising as a partial solution, but there's also an aggressive campaign to develop software that will allow pilots to choose flightpaths of least complaints... Not to mention more esoteric experiments with counter-noise.

The Trek universe might have progressed in a completely different fashion. Sometime in the 1980s, high speed interplanetary travel becomes available and commonplace, suggesting novel options for suborbital global travel; then there are these global wars, and then Erickson invents (or refines) the transporter, potentially doing away with many uses for vehicles altogether (although passenger transport has to wait for a few decades).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

There seems to be several robotic freighters in the TOS era that are used for moving food stuffs. Though there speed in not clear outside attempting to use a pair of them against a Klingon battlecruiser. They don't seem super huge, as Enterprise was able to take all the grain from one onboard, though the containers did start to fill the corridors.

One wonders is these robotic freighters replaced the likes of the barely warp 2 Horizon and Fortunate Son from the 22nd century.

 

[Timo]

There seems to be several robotic freighters in the TOS era that are used for moving food stuffs.

Interestingly, the drones in "More Tribbles" were said to be moving quintotriticale to Sherman's to cope with crop failure. Sounds like Starfleet was aiding with growing food there (that's what the quadrotriticale originally was for), rather than just hauling in emergency foodstuffs. Superseeds would be a more compact type of goods than production grain.

One wonders is these robotic freighters replaced the likes of the barely warp 2 Horizon and Fortunate Son from the 22nd century.

...And also if these could be used as tugs for more sizeable containers, as often shown in fan interpretations of the design.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tomalak]

The funny thing is, all the civilian transports we have seen in the Federation era have been tiny things, supposedly hauling high-value, compact goods and items, and often quoted with high speeds (much higher than those of Kivas Fajo's pleasure cruiser, say). But bulk transport at glacial speeds might still survive - after all, there are references to galactic food shortage and to agricultural worlds, the combination (and its proposed solution through Genesis creating more of the latter) requiring extensive shipping of food.

Timo Saloniemi

But by the 24th century, food supply is no longer an issue thanks to the replicator, which is a frighteningly powerful invention. (And also the reason we hear no more of Project Genesis, along with the expansion of the Federation - the TNG universe hardly seems lacking in Class M planets). As I understand it, you have a big tank of generic "matter", from which the replicator creates items by recombining this matter using transporter technology.

In the 24th century, the only things you'd need to move about would be unique, high-value consumer items that can't be adequately fashioned in a replicator, organic items, complex pieces of machinery (such as the replicators themselves!), and the sludgy matter. Those could easily be catered for with a combination of small, fast couriers, and slower bulk transports. The power of the replicator is immense when you consider a pair of industrial models were supposed to rebuild Bajor after decades of occupation, and a dozen could sort out the Cardassian Union after the Klingon invasion.

The only limitation is energy, which isn't really a limitation at all in a galaxy of micro-fusion reactors and warp cores. Replicators recycle bits that aren't used and return them to the matter tank to make something else. It's quite an efficient system. If nothing else, it brings horrifying clarity to Rom's visits to "waste extraction".

 

[Timo]

As I understand it, you have a big tank of generic "matter", from which the replicator creates items by recombining this matter using transporter technology.

...Basically, Genesis in a box.

Nevertheless, farming continues in the TNG era, up to and including the existence of dedicated farming worlds. Nobody on Earth makes their own food any more; replication is the near-absolute norm. OTOH, even the diehard colonists that would become Maquis use food replicators extensively. So does a "farming world" exist for self-sustenance, or as a hobby project?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tomalak]

It's possible that not everywhere is as industrialised as Earth - there may be planets where replicators aren't as common, or simply aren't favoured for cultural or spiritual reasons. There's also the possibility that replicated food doesn't have the same shelf-life as traditional organic grains and vegetables. Besides, it would be pretty foolish to but all of your eggs in one basket - what happens if there's a power failure, or a natural disaster? Even on Earth, there must still be traditional farming and fishing going on, unless Joe Sisko imports all his produce from Alpha Centauri.

 

[Timo]

I could see replicators shunned in places, but those would surely take care of their own food supply, without interstellar imports. It would be a pretty perverse religion that demanded imported food... Even self-sustaining replicator-free communities may be on the extreme fringe of the society, considering how even the Maquis are perfectly happy with their replicator reliance despite grumbling about the taste and whatnot.

Replicated food has a shelf-life? Wouldn't the point be that it doesn't need one?

As for disasters, we have heard of the loss of food supplies or crops, but not of the loss of replicators for extended periods of time. Surely it would be simpler in most cases to restore replicator capacity than to make use of traditional food resources? Sabotaging of the food replicator network was a case of concern for the Maquis, but it's a bit difficult to see how food supplies or crops would have been more survivable or reliable.

Even on Earth, there must still be traditional farming and fishing going on, unless Joe Sisko imports all his produce from Alpha Centauri.

For all we know, he replicates the stuff, complete with all the dirt that little Ben then has to remove. Or, more probably, buys from a vendor who uses replicators (while charging Joe premium by claiming that the stuff really comes from Alpha Centauri).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

Replicators still need materials to make stuff. The question is how close to food stuffs does the material need to be in order to make food? Though that might not be as much of an issue in the mid-late 24th century.

In the 23rd century, we have the case of Sherman's planet were only one type of Earth grain would grow on that world. IT may have been just to show the Organians the Federation ways to develop the planet were better than the Klingon ways. Details aren't provided much past that even when more grain is being shipped there.

We know 23rd century vessels has real food on ship, but I seem to recall that there was an idea of something similar to the replicator in mind with the post-refit food processor (and possibly the original food processors). The food did arrive rather quickly. quicker that it would seem to be able to prepare or even dish it out in a galley. The old food processor was a mini-turboshaft thing (so the tribbles could get into it). But how was the food info on disk made into food in seconds?

The post-refit model of the food processor was assumed to be a transporter based system, thus removing the mini-turboshafts and allowing more food processors units to be installed in other locations around the ship. The system would made use of the basic food stuffs and make generally reasonable impressions of the food requested. I suppose this might have been the general idea with the protein resequencer on Enterprise. At least in terms of where the food came from.

 

[diankra]

My problem with replicators is the contradiction between what seems to have been David Gerrold's original idea (that if the transporter works as stated, you can use it to duplicate things perfectly if you just supply the necessary energy to convert an existing pattern into matter; it's in one of his non-fiction Trek books, and implied in his Bantam novel The Galactic Whirlpool), and the later notion of the replicator drawing on a tank of 'raw replicator material', but somehow doing it in such a way that a gourmet can spot the difference between 'real' food and replicated food.
If there are replicator errors that can be spotted by taste, there really ought to be an immense number of food poisoning cases... or alternatively, 'wrong' meals that are harmless, as the body can't digest/use them at all, so they just go in and out (Hey, the slimming diet version of Synthehol!).

 

[Unicron]

Perhaps it's more of a matter of personal taste than a specific error in replication. Picard said that he didn't feel the Enterprise replicators could do justice to caviar, and I was mentioning in another forum that I sometimes like to get sushi from the local supermarket. It's not bad sushi by any means, but it's also not on the same level as one would find at a Japanese restaurant or buffet because it's not geared for the same consumer. Maybe part of the problem is in how the replicator is told to use recipes, as Tom Paris had trouble getting a decent bowl of tomato soup in "Caretaker."

 

[Timo]

We really need to get a proper blind test done on these picky gourmands... I doubt any technological shortcoming is involved in their dissatisfaction.

Also, gourmands might be what drives the interstellar foodstuffs transport market. The volumes would be minimal, the prices astronomical, and the whole point of the effort would lie in its audacity.

Who knows, perhaps interstellar courier missions calling for quadruple nacelles would be mounted chiefly to provide Space Commander Rodriguez with his chili peppers?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I think we're starting to drift into Douglas Adams territory here.

 

[Ithekro]

It might be something simple like how long the spices have been allowed to blend with the sauce, or the fine differences in the amount of salt in a dish. Such culinary arts might be difficult to replicate using fixed calculated numbers of compunds. The computer might be able to recreate the dish perfectly, but I don't know if it can simulate the time needed to properly blend flavors. Can that even be measured accurately on an atomic level?

I'd always assumed caviar was difficult because it was salted sturgeon eggs and that the egg in that form was difficult. But then have we seen a replicator replicate uncooked chicken eggs?

 

[Timo]

Wouldn't the replicator replicate the end product and not the process? That is, wouldn't it create a perfect-tasting omelet without going through the phase of breaking the eggs, or even needing any eggs in the first place? The spices wouldn't need to blend - they would already be done blending.

Supposedly, a replicated food isn't created by simulating the way a dish was made, but by scanning the readymade dish and then perfectly reproducing it. If the original dish tasted good, then the replica ought to taste exactly as good.

Are we talking about foods that go bad in the thirty seconds it takes to move them from the replicator to the mouth, then? But how could there be a "good" sort of food with such specs, as opposed to the "bad" sort that comes out of the replicator?

The history of the dish should not affect its future at all. At time T, it's either a perfect dish and its perfect replica, or then a bad dish and its equally bad replica, and I don't see the point of scanning and replicating a bad dish. And at time T+t, it has become better or worse or stayed the same, regardless of whether it's "real" or "replicated".

Timo Saloniemi