Have There Been "gravity engines" in Trek?
- Thread starter Nomad V
- Start date
What exactly is a gravity engine?
Well, Trek does demonstrate mastery of gravity. There is no telling whether for example the impulse engines are based on gravitic manipulation, rather than some sort of an advanced rocket principle. The Tech Manuals make them sound like a combination of the two, really - there is rocketlike exhaust there, but it is further accelerated using some sort of magic that could be gravitic in nature, and the entire ship is gravity-manipulated (its inertial mass decreased) for further propulsive effect.
Gravitics are also the likeliest thing for lifting those shuttles and runabouts and Birds of Prey and Intrepid class starships off the ground. We don't see any exhaust - at best, we see dust swirls on the ground, and perhaps some sort of purge gases coming from the vehicle.
Warp drive itself could be based on gravitics. We know it's based on subspace somehow, and subspace is also the thing that reduces inertial mass. Perhaps we're seeing FTL drive implemented by making the inertial mass of a starship negative?
Timo Saloniemi
Gravitics are also the likeliest thing for lifting those shuttles and runabouts and Birds of Prey and Intrepid class starships off the ground. We don't see any exhaust - at best, we see dust swirls on the ground, and perhaps some sort of purge gases coming from the vehicle.
Warp drive itself could be based on gravitics. We know it's based on subspace somehow, and subspace is also the thing that reduces inertial mass. Perhaps we're seeing FTL drive implemented by making the inertial mass of a starship negative?
Timo Saloniemi
When I mention Gravvity engines I'm thinking of the stories that I read growing up in the 60s and 70s. The idea was that there would be opposing almost opposite gravitaional forces generated when you were near a planet or star, and there would be an effect similar to a magnet where the spaceship with the opposing pole would zoom away at incredible speeds. I think that it may have been Frank Herbert that wrote this into some of his stories. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe "The Ship who Sang" had gravity engines.
I just watched Obsession yesterday. Spock commented that the cloud creature may be manipulating gravity for propulsion. That would make it a natural gravity engine, I suppose.
If you look in the "Best of Trek" series by Walter Irwin and G B Love, there's one fandom article from 15-20 years ago speculating that Federation warp drive is actually magnetic coils, each one in a nacelle comprised of a huge, single superconducting molecule, which generate a warp field of hypergravity. I think the title of the article was something like "Biaxial warp pods: The 'new warp drive".
Wouldn't a gravity drive not work?
Seems to me the thing that generates the gravity, pulling the ship towards it, would only cause the gravity field to be moved too. To me this sounds like trying to fill a sail with air by using a fan on the ship.
Seems to me the thing that generates the gravity, pulling the ship towards it, would only cause the gravity field to be moved too. To me this sounds like trying to fill a sail with air by using a fan on the ship.
Well, in Star Wars there are certainly gravity engines... I remember this well, though I'm not 100% certain where it was stated first... I think it was in the George-Lucas-written novelization for the first film, actually.
The idea there was that ships would use a gravity-based drive whenever they were in the gravitational well of a large gravity source... a planet, a star, whatever. They'd basically push against the mass of that object for propulsion. They also had thrust-based stuff, but that wasn't sufficient to attain any kind of effective speeds. And of course, you have hyperspace, but that cannot be used in the vincinity of a large gravity well.
As time went on, and the "Expanded Universe" took over, the references to this sort of went by the wayside, but I remember when Star Wars FIRST came out, it was a common topic of conversation. And even though they pretty much stopped talking about it later on, the presence of gravitational control for flight, if anything, became MORE prevalent.
Just realize that an antigrav lift system would be useless without gravity to "reverse."
Now, in Star Trek... the talk about gravitation-based systems has been significantly more limited, and compartmentalized. You have artificial gravity for ships. You have antigravs for lifting objects. And you have tractor/pressor beams. However, it's pretty obvious (if never overtly stated) that shuttles use antigravity lift systems as well, and it's impossible for the Voyager to have landed, or for that matter to stay landed without collapsing the surface under those piddly little legs, unless gravitational control was actively in use the whole time. So it seems obvious that Trek uses gravity for propulsion as well... just that in Trek, you can only go "up" or "down" using that system, and you require thrusters for anything else, while in Star Wars, you can go pretty much every direction using just gravity.
Oh well... none of it is real anyway...
The idea there was that ships would use a gravity-based drive whenever they were in the gravitational well of a large gravity source... a planet, a star, whatever. They'd basically push against the mass of that object for propulsion. They also had thrust-based stuff, but that wasn't sufficient to attain any kind of effective speeds. And of course, you have hyperspace, but that cannot be used in the vincinity of a large gravity well.
As time went on, and the "Expanded Universe" took over, the references to this sort of went by the wayside, but I remember when Star Wars FIRST came out, it was a common topic of conversation. And even though they pretty much stopped talking about it later on, the presence of gravitational control for flight, if anything, became MORE prevalent.
Just realize that an antigrav lift system would be useless without gravity to "reverse."
Now, in Star Trek... the talk about gravitation-based systems has been significantly more limited, and compartmentalized. You have artificial gravity for ships. You have antigravs for lifting objects. And you have tractor/pressor beams. However, it's pretty obvious (if never overtly stated) that shuttles use antigravity lift systems as well, and it's impossible for the Voyager to have landed, or for that matter to stay landed without collapsing the surface under those piddly little legs, unless gravitational control was actively in use the whole time. So it seems obvious that Trek uses gravity for propulsion as well... just that in Trek, you can only go "up" or "down" using that system, and you require thrusters for anything else, while in Star Wars, you can go pretty much every direction using just gravity.
Oh well... none of it is real anyway...
Gravity is such a quandry. We can explain the phenomenon and we can predict its strengths based on the size of surrounding objects. We can also discuss the effects of gravity on time and space, but...
As far as I know it is the only 'force' where the mechanism/particle has yet to be identified. It takes Trek or some other science fiction writer to come up with graviton particles, etc.
I reckon when that particle is discovered and thoroughly understood things as we know them might change. Correct me if I'm behind the times and that particle has been identified, etc.
As far as I know it is the only 'force' where the mechanism/particle has yet to be identified. It takes Trek or some other science fiction writer to come up with graviton particles, etc.
I reckon when that particle is discovered and thoroughly understood things as we know them might change. Correct me if I'm behind the times and that particle has been identified, etc.
Yeah it is odd in that respect. Pretty much all we know about it is, "really big objects generate it" but we don't seem to know how or why.
I won't claim to have fully read, much less fully comprehended, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but I think it does indeed explain gravity (as curvature of spacetime around masses). (Someone more up on the physics care to set me straight?)
Nothing has been "fully explained" yet. Einstein's theory has a lot of corollaries which people have added to it which can be used to HYPOTHESIZE what gravity MIGHT be.
But the truth is, we have NO IDEA what it really is. Just a few vague, possible explanations... none of which have any experimental support for them whatsoever.
But the truth is, we have NO IDEA what it really is. Just a few vague, possible explanations... none of which have any experimental support for them whatsoever.
Assuming they are similar to the Kzin in the Niven books...
http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/4326-kzinti-gravity-drive.html
http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/4326-kzinti-gravity-drive.html
Hey, it worked for Wile E. Coyote.
I always thought that the impulse drive was some sort of gravitic drive... in several episodes it was shown to behave in ways that would be impossible for a rocket-type propulsion system to behave.
Although not canon, the Diane Carey Trek novel Final Frontier posited just that. It was revealed as an "internally metered pulse drive" or I.M. Pulse drive; Impulse for short. It created gravitational waves that the ship rode along on. I always preferred that explanation to just spitting out propellant. Clearly established canon dictates some form of fusion based reaction system. But I like to imagine that it is a combination effect, and that any "propellants" are simply waste byproduct of no-longer-viable fusion fuels that will only enhance the underlying propulsive effect of a drive based on some form of spatial distortion.
First of all Basil,you are a very wity person I love your sig.
As to gravity engines would not the solar sail craft in DS9's episode where Capt. Sisco and Jake travel from Bajor to Cardassia fall into gravity powered propulsion?
Signed
Buck Rogers
As to gravity engines would not the solar sail craft in DS9's episode where Capt. Sisco and Jake travel from Bajor to Cardassia fall into gravity powered propulsion?
Signed
Buck Rogers
Not really, since that's (supposedly) using light as a propulsion system, not gravity. The ship fell into a tachyon eddy, which is what got them to Cardassian space. This is still a form of sail propulsion, as tachyons are particles that naturally travel faster than light.
And don't forget the pantheon of scientific fun known as the movie "Event Horizon", wherein the titular ship uses a gravity drive to travel into the dimension of EVIL!!!!
Mark
And don't forget the pantheon of scientific fun known as the movie "Event Horizon", wherein the titular ship uses a gravity drive to travel into the dimension of EVIL!!!!
Mark
Well, in the real world, mere light pressure could not move a ship that had such small sails - not unless the ship was artificially made less heavy by using classic Trek "gravity trickery". So it could in fact be a gravity drive of sorts...
Also, lightsails in the real world would move around as much thanks to the gravitic pulls of stars and planets as due to light pressure from the star. Gravity is what would allow them to "tack" against the light pressure.
So, with a little bit of obfuscation, just about anything can be defined as "gravity engine".
Timo Saloniemi
Also, lightsails in the real world would move around as much thanks to the gravitic pulls of stars and planets as due to light pressure from the star. Gravity is what would allow them to "tack" against the light pressure.
So, with a little bit of obfuscation, just about anything can be defined as "gravity engine".
Timo Saloniemi
Although I am not certain, I believe the Romulan Warbird was described as being powered by a micro singularity meaning it is manipulating gravity for propulsion.
