Impulse Drive: What do we know? (Non-canon speculation)
- Thread starter AriesIV
- Start date
Editing is a bitch - basically, you have to publish once, then return to remove the size and font brackets which originally were invisible.
Warp isn't as power-intensive as people often think anyway: it has been boosted by shutting down or scaling back seemingly low-powered systems such as weapons or even life support. There's no good reason to argue that impulse must be FTL in order to contribute to the breakaway from Balok's tractor beam.
I'll try and go through the "DDM" material later on...
Let's also remember that Regula is in proximity of the Mutara nebula, which may limit speed options; in the chase with Khan, Kirk stays at impulse despite having partial main power, although apparently mainly to goad Khan.
Occam certainly suggests that the saucer is an ordinary starship, and those ordinarily have warp drive. There is zero evidence to the contrary, in dialogue, visuals or plot structure.
I might accept a couple of examples of such evidence - but I have no reason to stop from debunking those examples I consider completely invalid, or to stop from offering alternate interpretations for the rest when said "rest" seems to dwindle down to just two or three possible cases.
For this once, individual writer intent also appears to jibe with the weight of the combined canon, despite said weight usually being a random result of uncoordinated pseudo-fact accumulation. Writers did try to make a difference between interstellar and non-interstellar flight in TOS, and that difference seemed to be warp vs. impulse. Ships caught between stars without the former were royally screwed, and any writer referencing back to the pilot episode would be aware of that.
Timo Saloniemi
Hmh? Wormholes, tachyon eddies, things abandoned by their makers long ago and gone wild... They're the staple of Trek storytelling.
Why? We witness no major power leap from warp 5 to warp 6, or from warp 2 to warp 3 - why should there be a difference between that and the leap from warp 0 to warp 1?
Warp isn't as power-intensive as people often think anyway: it has been boosted by shutting down or scaling back seemingly low-powered systems such as weapons or even life support. There's no good reason to argue that impulse must be FTL in order to contribute to the breakaway from Balok's tractor beam.
Uh, what? I still can't understand what you are saying. Cochrane discovered warp - what on Earth does that have to do with impulse being FTL?
I'd argue the exact reverse: it's convoluted to try and wrangle a short rather than a long period between the 2-day ETA and the loss of the last crystal based on stardates.
I'll try and go through the "DDM" material later on...
Not necessarily - Trek is full of impulse approaches to star systems. The most infamous of these is Riker dropping to impulse at Saturn when he's in an armageddon-level hurry to get to Earth in "BoBW II". Also, shuttles at impulse are often sent to deploy personnel to star systems in journeys that last for several dialogue-filled scenes (this being the dramatic purpose of the journey, of course) even though a warping starship would obviously get them there more quickly. This rather suggests the ships cannot warp or otherwise get in there faster than the impulse shuttles.
Let's also remember that Regula is in proximity of the Mutara nebula, which may limit speed options; in the chase with Khan, Kirk stays at impulse despite having partial main power, although apparently mainly to goad Khan.
I'd like to chalk that up to Geordi's infamously warped sense of humor. After all, why does Riker order the speed to be increased? Because he's tired of listening to LaForge's bad jokes - that's the sole evident reason for the order! A flippant retort from LaForge would certainly fit the picture there. "Go faster!" "Yes, Sir, crawling as slow as I can."
True enough. But Valtane's PADD confirms that the journey is only about to start in earnest.
More importantly, he does not utter "Aft!" at any point. He's not doing anything to evade the wave, either at warp or impulse, so that argument is right out in determining which is faster and by how much. He's merely turning into the wave, in a maneuver that apparently successfully mimics the nautical version.
For all we know, yes. But nothing indicates that this trip would be particularly fast or would span a long distance in a short time. As already mentioned, TNG is full of examples of people being dropped off the E-D outside a solar system so that they can putter at impulse to a conference of some sort while the ship flies off at warp. "Mind's Eye" is probably one of those.
When a ship is seen doing warp, in 99% of cases there is no mention of her being warp-capable. Why should "Encounter at Farpoint" or "Arsenal of Freedom" be any different? Nobody ever outright said the E-D was warp-capable, either - it's what you always take for granted in Star Trek.
Occam certainly suggests that the saucer is an ordinary starship, and those ordinarily have warp drive. There is zero evidence to the contrary, in dialogue, visuals or plot structure.
Okay, let's return the exact courtesy and call you a mole-molesting mormon. Now, what does that have to do with the nearly complete lack of evidence on FTL impulse?
I might accept a couple of examples of such evidence - but I have no reason to stop from debunking those examples I consider completely invalid, or to stop from offering alternate interpretations for the rest when said "rest" seems to dwindle down to just two or three possible cases.
For this once, individual writer intent also appears to jibe with the weight of the combined canon, despite said weight usually being a random result of uncoordinated pseudo-fact accumulation. Writers did try to make a difference between interstellar and non-interstellar flight in TOS, and that difference seemed to be warp vs. impulse. Ships caught between stars without the former were royally screwed, and any writer referencing back to the pilot episode would be aware of that.
Timo Saloniemi
I only saw one part of that I can contribute to, I'm not even sure if it's useful - but I was curious about the mention of the term "shuttlepod" in DS9 the other day so I looked it up, and discovered through Memory Alpha that two types of shuttlepods were used in TNG - those with, and without, warp capability. I don't know if in that specific episode you guys are talking about it is indicated in any way which type that shuttlepod Laforge was using was, but you might even be able to find out by MA'ing the episode.
I think we’re at odds, most deeply, over what I see as a philosophical difference in terms of interpretation of “series data.” The way I see it, the “rules” are as follows (in order of importance):
If it happens on the air, it’s real. Episodes (however bad) cannot be discounted as non-“factual.” Nor can lines or scenes or occurrences be massaged away by the positing of data, lines, or scenes not depicted on the air (“’Spock’s Brain’ was all a dream”). To stray from this rule is to go astray in a field in which nothing can be relied, nothing “proven.”
2)Off-air data – whatever its source – is to be trusted only inasmuch as it doesn’t conflict with series data. The MOST reliable off-air data are the final draft TOS writer’s guide and (to a somewhat lesser extent) the tech data presented in The Making of ‘Star Trek.’ Why? Because the original creators wrote such at the time of the original creation.
3)Data presented in series subsequent to TOS are – if in conflict with that of TOS – in error, as regards TOS. Thus, we CAN presume Picard’s Enterprise incapable of firing phasers at warp…but Kirk’s did it regularly. Too, the “warp recalibration” of TNG didn’t result in faster ships, but slower ones than those of TOS (to presume otherwise would entail rewriting dialogue and plots throughout TOS). The Eugenics Wars took place in 1992-96, Bashir’s re-dating to the contrary…and so forth.
4)Visual data may be ignored where obviously in error (the shuttlecraft size as vs. that of the doomsday machine), or a matter of dramatic effect (post-TOS ship-to-ship battles ALWAYS occurring at near point-blank range, a result of what might be called “’Star Wars’ contamination”). But one must make very careful use of ignoring visuals, at risk of being as lost as described in Rule 1.
The synthesis of these “rules” is a sort of whacko presumption, worthy of the “Galaxy Quest” kids: that there is an underlying “reality” to “Star Trek,” of which cast, crew and writers are at times themselves unaware. Which is to say that on occasion what has been pronounced by the creators themselves as “fact” is – if demonstrably in contradiction to what happens on the air – in error.
Some of what I take as “rules” you may not. Some part of individual rules you may reject. In either case, we’re at philosophical interpretational odds, and must simply agree to disagree. To my mind, making a joke or whatever of Geordi’s line from “Conspiracy” is nothing more or less than your making something up to do away with something you don’t like (“impulse is sublight only because…impulse is sublight only, damnit! Just like the creators have always said it is!”). In political discussion, such a stratagem would consist of one debater’s saying, “I’ll bet YOUR PARTY does JUST THE SAME THING!” But damnit, you can’t make stuff up. Not and be intellectually honest.
Anyway, as it happens, I prefer voles to moles.[
If it happens on the air, it’s real. Episodes (however bad) cannot be discounted as non-“factual.” Nor can lines or scenes or occurrences be massaged away by the positing of data, lines, or scenes not depicted on the air (“’Spock’s Brain’ was all a dream”). To stray from this rule is to go astray in a field in which nothing can be relied, nothing “proven.”
2)Off-air data – whatever its source – is to be trusted only inasmuch as it doesn’t conflict with series data. The MOST reliable off-air data are the final draft TOS writer’s guide and (to a somewhat lesser extent) the tech data presented in The Making of ‘Star Trek.’ Why? Because the original creators wrote such at the time of the original creation.
3)Data presented in series subsequent to TOS are – if in conflict with that of TOS – in error, as regards TOS. Thus, we CAN presume Picard’s Enterprise incapable of firing phasers at warp…but Kirk’s did it regularly. Too, the “warp recalibration” of TNG didn’t result in faster ships, but slower ones than those of TOS (to presume otherwise would entail rewriting dialogue and plots throughout TOS). The Eugenics Wars took place in 1992-96, Bashir’s re-dating to the contrary…and so forth.
4)Visual data may be ignored where obviously in error (the shuttlecraft size as vs. that of the doomsday machine), or a matter of dramatic effect (post-TOS ship-to-ship battles ALWAYS occurring at near point-blank range, a result of what might be called “’Star Wars’ contamination”). But one must make very careful use of ignoring visuals, at risk of being as lost as described in Rule 1.
The synthesis of these “rules” is a sort of whacko presumption, worthy of the “Galaxy Quest” kids: that there is an underlying “reality” to “Star Trek,” of which cast, crew and writers are at times themselves unaware. Which is to say that on occasion what has been pronounced by the creators themselves as “fact” is – if demonstrably in contradiction to what happens on the air – in error.
Some of what I take as “rules” you may not. Some part of individual rules you may reject. In either case, we’re at philosophical interpretational odds, and must simply agree to disagree. To my mind, making a joke or whatever of Geordi’s line from “Conspiracy” is nothing more or less than your making something up to do away with something you don’t like (“impulse is sublight only because…impulse is sublight only, damnit! Just like the creators have always said it is!”). In political discussion, such a stratagem would consist of one debater’s saying, “I’ll bet YOUR PARTY does JUST THE SAME THING!” But damnit, you can’t make stuff up. Not and be intellectually honest.
Anyway, as it happens, I prefer voles to moles.[
Last edited:
Back to business:
Wormholes “pop” a ship from one place to another. Valiant was “swept” by the magnetic space storm. Tachyonic eddies accelerate “…solar sail spacecraft to ftl speed because of their large surface-to-mass ratio, over a distance of a few light years” (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tachyon_eddy).
Non-natural objects abandoned by their makers are just that: non-natural. I yet await your citation of a natural phenomenon in Trek by which a vessel was moved (NOT displaced) over an interstellar distance. And incidentally, Valiant would hardly warrant the name “Galactic Survey Cruiser” were she incapable of surveying the galaxy. Clearly she was hyperlight. Why then the line “her old impulse engines weren’t strong enough” [to resist the storm’s sweeping her into the barrier]? Why couldn’t/didn’t she warp away? What reason remains but that she didn’t have warp drive…despite having “surveyed” the galaxy right to its edge (or topside, or belly…whatever…still thousands of light years from Earth).
"Corbomite Maneuver” – yeah, there’s no definite reason to think accelerating (by whatever means – rockets, fusion drive, non-Newtonian systems) from zero velocity to near-cee would entail less use of energy than (say) going from warp two (whether that’s 6 cee or some greater number) to warp eight…but the difference in velocities is enormously greater in the latter case than the former. “Common sense” is no guide to energy use in Trek; obviously, everything they’ve ever done or said is nonsense, and must involve miracle science from start to finish. But the incontrovertible fact is that warp delivers bigger “oomphs” by far than impulse. If you’re trying to get away, does it make sense to add a tiny, minute “oomph” (impulse’s)? Not if it really IS a tiny oomph. So either warp uses VERY little energy (in comparison to accelerating a starship to near-cee…NOT a trivial task), or impulse involves a LOT of energy. We can’t know which if either it is. I simply cite the power/thrust/oomph addition as circumstantial evidence amid the preponderance of evidence throughout the various series.
The “Metamorphosis” line is, “Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri, the discoverer of the space warp?” Metamorphosis aired well into the second season. One can’t argue at this point for some sort of first seasonal technish ambiguity, ala the “lithium crystals” of “Where No Man,” “Mudd’s Women” or “The Alternative Factor.” By this time, series writers knew full well Enterprise was propelled by the warp DRIVE. Cochrane discovered a principle; he did not invent a drive. Assuming an underlying “series reality,” what might this mean? That the principle he discovered was applicable to another sort of drive (e.g., impulse).
"Mudd’s Women”
I am NOT arguing a short time interval based on Stardates. I’m saying there’s NO episodal indication of a LONG time interval (or indeed, much of any interval at all…save one Makes Stuff Up). The minute Stardate differential is simply circumstantial evidence, nothing more.
"Ultimate Computer”
One I forgot:
KIRK: Estimate damage on Lexington, Spock.
SPOCK: Hit in engineering section. Possible damage to her impulse engines. She’s still maneuverable on warp drive.
Hey, she’s either warp-capable or she’s not, right? Which would seem the ONLY difference that would make a difference, in battle…assuming ONLY warp drive can provide ftl. If, however, the “auxiliary impulse drive” (as in the “A.I.D. vent” of “Obsession”) are in fact exactly that – auxiliary –
Auxiliary: A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support.
then it would indeed be of significance that the impulse engines were (possibly) damaged, but the warp, not. Lexington would have been (possibly) reduced to the use, in combat, of but a single ftl propulsor, with nothing left to “fall back on.”
“Wrath of Khan”
Whether or not impulse system approaches occur…or whether Riker made one to “Best of Both Worlds”…is irrelevant. The FACTS are that the script goes directly from the bridge (with its 12:43 at warp five citation) to the Genesis briefing back to the bridge, with NO time interval (did Kirk invite McCoy to the briefing, but prior to that, have a meal, go work out, get some sleep?). They’re at 12:43 at warp five…they fight…they lose warp…they assume “best speed”…they arrive in short order. And by the way, Riker’s dropping out of warp by Saturn makes PERFECT sense if he could then cross the intervening light hours ftl on impulse…and NO sense if he couldn’t, so there!
Trek VI”
What does Valtane’s PADD have to do with anything? I’m serious. Is there something written on it? Is her handing it to Sulu of some significance? I don’t get you.
I agree Sulu’s not ordering aft-anything isn’t necessarily of issue. I get that he turns into “the wind.” Maybe there’s no time for anything else. But if I were Shipmaster Sulu, damn near becalmed at sublight-impulse, about to be struck by a bigass ftl wavefront, I’d fully expect my failing to at least attempt to warp the hell out of there to have me up on possible dereliction of duty charges once home. *I* think he doesn’t do it because his ship’s already ftl…they’ve barely time to turn into the oncoming…and he knows at a glance he can’t outrun it whether he orders “aft warp” OR “aft impulse” (which latter Enterprise went to without delay in “Corbomite Maneuver,” meaning there’s no issue of time to achieve a velocity; that’s seemingly instantaneously, on impulse, whatever you or I make its speed to be).
Next Generation Shuttlecraft usage
First, we know full well ALL shuttleCRAFT have warp drive, from TOS though DS9, for 3 reasons
1)Each and every “generation” of shuttlecraft has obvious nacelles that mimic those of their motherships
2)Damn near every use of a shuttlecraft involves interstellar journeys (I’ll be damned if I’ll document this
3)The TNG Tech Manual tells us so
Second, I defy you to cite a case in TNG of “a shuttle dropped off [at system’s edge] to putt-putt [sublightly] to a conference or somesuch.” EVERY shuttle “away flight” involves the ship’s having gone somewhere else, or someone taking a shuttle TO somewhere else. Shuttlecraft are independent, hyperlight-capable starcraft, as they always were…the sole exception being (by nacelle appearance, general usage, AND TNG Tech Manual citation) the ugly little shuttlePODS. In “The Mind’s Eye,” production costs (probably) dictated use of a shuttlepod for what was by implication an interstellar journey (otherwise why not just flit over to Risa and beam Geordi down? No appreciable delay at warp, if you’re getting into sublight-flight range of Risa to launch the shuttlePOD).
Result: underlying “series reality” proves the impulse-driven shuttlePOD is an ftl craft.
Finally, the damn saucer. Like EVERY damn saucer, it will never, EVER be said to have warp drive. Why? Because it doesn’t. Whatever the nature of other species’ ships, Federation ships with warp drive have warp nacelles (or something that looks sort of like nacelles, anyway…Reliant’s engines, f’rinstance). Saucers don’t have nacelles, ergo they lack warp drive. But the E-D’s saucer was able (“Arsenal of Freedom”) to go ftl-ing off somewhere from a dead stop. On impulse. Which is all (as you are well aware) the production staff will EVER say it has. Because that’s ALL IT’s GOT.
Q.E.D. – Impulse is hyperlight.
Honestly, has no one else anything to say here?
Wormholes “pop” a ship from one place to another. Valiant was “swept” by the magnetic space storm. Tachyonic eddies accelerate “…solar sail spacecraft to ftl speed because of their large surface-to-mass ratio, over a distance of a few light years” (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tachyon_eddy).
Non-natural objects abandoned by their makers are just that: non-natural. I yet await your citation of a natural phenomenon in Trek by which a vessel was moved (NOT displaced) over an interstellar distance. And incidentally, Valiant would hardly warrant the name “Galactic Survey Cruiser” were she incapable of surveying the galaxy. Clearly she was hyperlight. Why then the line “her old impulse engines weren’t strong enough” [to resist the storm’s sweeping her into the barrier]? Why couldn’t/didn’t she warp away? What reason remains but that she didn’t have warp drive…despite having “surveyed” the galaxy right to its edge (or topside, or belly…whatever…still thousands of light years from Earth).
"Corbomite Maneuver” – yeah, there’s no definite reason to think accelerating (by whatever means – rockets, fusion drive, non-Newtonian systems) from zero velocity to near-cee would entail less use of energy than (say) going from warp two (whether that’s 6 cee or some greater number) to warp eight…but the difference in velocities is enormously greater in the latter case than the former. “Common sense” is no guide to energy use in Trek; obviously, everything they’ve ever done or said is nonsense, and must involve miracle science from start to finish. But the incontrovertible fact is that warp delivers bigger “oomphs” by far than impulse. If you’re trying to get away, does it make sense to add a tiny, minute “oomph” (impulse’s)? Not if it really IS a tiny oomph. So either warp uses VERY little energy (in comparison to accelerating a starship to near-cee…NOT a trivial task), or impulse involves a LOT of energy. We can’t know which if either it is. I simply cite the power/thrust/oomph addition as circumstantial evidence amid the preponderance of evidence throughout the various series.
The “Metamorphosis” line is, “Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri, the discoverer of the space warp?” Metamorphosis aired well into the second season. One can’t argue at this point for some sort of first seasonal technish ambiguity, ala the “lithium crystals” of “Where No Man,” “Mudd’s Women” or “The Alternative Factor.” By this time, series writers knew full well Enterprise was propelled by the warp DRIVE. Cochrane discovered a principle; he did not invent a drive. Assuming an underlying “series reality,” what might this mean? That the principle he discovered was applicable to another sort of drive (e.g., impulse).
"Mudd’s Women”
I am NOT arguing a short time interval based on Stardates. I’m saying there’s NO episodal indication of a LONG time interval (or indeed, much of any interval at all…save one Makes Stuff Up). The minute Stardate differential is simply circumstantial evidence, nothing more.
"Ultimate Computer”
One I forgot:
KIRK: Estimate damage on Lexington, Spock.
SPOCK: Hit in engineering section. Possible damage to her impulse engines. She’s still maneuverable on warp drive.
Hey, she’s either warp-capable or she’s not, right? Which would seem the ONLY difference that would make a difference, in battle…assuming ONLY warp drive can provide ftl. If, however, the “auxiliary impulse drive” (as in the “A.I.D. vent” of “Obsession”) are in fact exactly that – auxiliary –
Auxiliary: A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support.
then it would indeed be of significance that the impulse engines were (possibly) damaged, but the warp, not. Lexington would have been (possibly) reduced to the use, in combat, of but a single ftl propulsor, with nothing left to “fall back on.”
“Wrath of Khan”
Whether or not impulse system approaches occur…or whether Riker made one to “Best of Both Worlds”…is irrelevant. The FACTS are that the script goes directly from the bridge (with its 12:43 at warp five citation) to the Genesis briefing back to the bridge, with NO time interval (did Kirk invite McCoy to the briefing, but prior to that, have a meal, go work out, get some sleep?). They’re at 12:43 at warp five…they fight…they lose warp…they assume “best speed”…they arrive in short order. And by the way, Riker’s dropping out of warp by Saturn makes PERFECT sense if he could then cross the intervening light hours ftl on impulse…and NO sense if he couldn’t, so there!
Trek VI”
What does Valtane’s PADD have to do with anything? I’m serious. Is there something written on it? Is her handing it to Sulu of some significance? I don’t get you.
I agree Sulu’s not ordering aft-anything isn’t necessarily of issue. I get that he turns into “the wind.” Maybe there’s no time for anything else. But if I were Shipmaster Sulu, damn near becalmed at sublight-impulse, about to be struck by a bigass ftl wavefront, I’d fully expect my failing to at least attempt to warp the hell out of there to have me up on possible dereliction of duty charges once home. *I* think he doesn’t do it because his ship’s already ftl…they’ve barely time to turn into the oncoming…and he knows at a glance he can’t outrun it whether he orders “aft warp” OR “aft impulse” (which latter Enterprise went to without delay in “Corbomite Maneuver,” meaning there’s no issue of time to achieve a velocity; that’s seemingly instantaneously, on impulse, whatever you or I make its speed to be).
Next Generation Shuttlecraft usage
First, we know full well ALL shuttleCRAFT have warp drive, from TOS though DS9, for 3 reasons
1)Each and every “generation” of shuttlecraft has obvious nacelles that mimic those of their motherships
2)Damn near every use of a shuttlecraft involves interstellar journeys (I’ll be damned if I’ll document this
3)The TNG Tech Manual tells us so
Second, I defy you to cite a case in TNG of “a shuttle dropped off [at system’s edge] to putt-putt [sublightly] to a conference or somesuch.” EVERY shuttle “away flight” involves the ship’s having gone somewhere else, or someone taking a shuttle TO somewhere else. Shuttlecraft are independent, hyperlight-capable starcraft, as they always were…the sole exception being (by nacelle appearance, general usage, AND TNG Tech Manual citation) the ugly little shuttlePODS. In “The Mind’s Eye,” production costs (probably) dictated use of a shuttlepod for what was by implication an interstellar journey (otherwise why not just flit over to Risa and beam Geordi down? No appreciable delay at warp, if you’re getting into sublight-flight range of Risa to launch the shuttlePOD).
Result: underlying “series reality” proves the impulse-driven shuttlePOD is an ftl craft.
Finally, the damn saucer. Like EVERY damn saucer, it will never, EVER be said to have warp drive. Why? Because it doesn’t. Whatever the nature of other species’ ships, Federation ships with warp drive have warp nacelles (or something that looks sort of like nacelles, anyway…Reliant’s engines, f’rinstance). Saucers don’t have nacelles, ergo they lack warp drive. But the E-D’s saucer was able (“Arsenal of Freedom”) to go ftl-ing off somewhere from a dead stop. On impulse. Which is all (as you are well aware) the production staff will EVER say it has. Because that’s ALL IT’s GOT.
Q.E.D. – Impulse is hyperlight.
Honestly, has no one else anything to say here?
Last edited:
In this particular case, Valiant's record tapes explicitly refer to the ship being swept out of the galaxy by an ion storm.
Unless, of course, both warp drives and impulse engines produce some measure of ACCELERATION, not a pre-determined speed. TMP's "Warp point five" might actually be unit of velocity change per second, not a pre-determined velocity. Adding impulse power would simply add another warp factor on top of the ship's additional acceleration, although it does this without actually warping anything.
Except even when they cut in warp drives the First Federation marker buoy doesn't change its position by more than a few meters relative to the Enterprise. If it is trying to hit the Enterprise, it's doing a suspiciously thorough job of precisely matching its acceleration curve while still maintaining a closing speed of about one meter per second.
More and more I'm toying with the idea of warp factors as units of acceleration, not absolute speed. The main problem with the latter idea is that, even in space, all velocities are relative, so it doesn't make sense to determine, say, warp nine being about 1000 times the speed of light unless you're measuring it relative to some arbitrary fixed point in space; more importantly, how exactly does a starship manage to drop out of warp at precisely the proper velocity needed to, say, enter orbit of a particular planet or pull up stationary near another vessel. Again, if you're measuring warp drive relative to Earth, then you drop out of warp traveling some 70km/s relative to Vulcan and accidentally wipe out all the salots when your ship slams into the ground. Makes more sense, IMO, if we simply concede that warp and impulse engines will produce similar ranges of accelerations, but warp drives can do this in much greater magnitudes and over longer timespans than impulse engines so that their performances (partially) overlap. In this case you could even use the need to accelerate/decelerate between locations as a reason for the wild inconsistencies in travel time throughout the Trekiverse; the Federation can really be 8000ly wide if your average starship has a "safe" corridor through which it can accelerate to just about any velocity on a long-range trip (run up to 10,000C, reverse engines and slow down at the midpoint). And yet it will still take Voyager 70 years to get home since her deflectors aren't able to handle interstellar gas and debris at velocities greater than about 1000C, unless they have a precise fix on a safe (low-ISM-density) channel through which they can travel.
“Where No Man” dialogue goes as follows:
SPOCK: Decoding memory banks. I'll try to interpolate. The Valiant had encountered a magnetic space storm and was being swept in this direction.
KIRK: The old impulse engines weren't strong enough.
SPOCK: Swept past this point, about a half light year out of the galaxy, they were thrown clear, turned, and headed back into the galaxy here.
Now, there’s nothing to conclusively establish the magnetic storm didn’t sweep Valiant all the way from whatever sublight-reachable distance they’d been from Earth…but note what is NOT said: that Valiant, “thrown clear” about half a light year out of the galaxy, had NO HOPE of returning home. Which is to say, that – unlike Enterprise shortly after encountering the log bouy – she retained hyperlight capability. Which she had by dint of her “old impulse engines” – right? Or are we to posit that she didn't attempt to apply warp DRIVE against the storm?
“Corbomite Maneuver”
Whether impulse (or warp) applies a measure of speed or a measure of acceleration is irrelevant. The ratio of zero-to-[nearly]-warp-one to warp one-to-“escape warp” (i.e., whatever measure of warp acceleration OR velocity Enterprise was applying/trying to reach in “Corbomite”) is so vast that to add impulse (i.e., something less than one cee’s worth of either) would be insignificant. I mean, warp six (presumably the minimum they’d be trying to employ) is at LEAST 6-cubed-cee, or 216 “units” (of light-multiples, OR acceleration), right? One “unit” is less than half of one percent of that…barely worth adding, if that.
What the cube is doing (closing very slowly, while matching velocities) is irrelevant to what Enterprise is trying to do: get away. You’re captain…nasty object emitting radiation begins approaching…wouldn’t you go away FAST? If not, why not?
Precision drops from warp are an issue the entire series finesses (ignores) for the dramatic purpose of giving the helm officer something to do. Clearly, downwarping (or for that matter, targeting phasers at warp, if at all) is something a human would be incapable of doing with any degree of success. Given this, I’m not sure it’s worth making something of it (downwarping) more than what we know it to be. After all, one could equally reasonably presume a helm officer’s entering the “downwarp” command sets the computer to safely bringing the ship to its sublight position/velocity (as in fact would have to be the case regardless of how action or dialogue addressed the issue).
As to warp factors not denoting velocity, “That Which Survives” (among other episodes) puts the paid to that, I think:
RAHDA: We're holding warp eight point four, sir. If we can maintain it, our estimated time of arrival is eleven and one half solar hours.
SPOCK: Eleven point three three seven hours, Lieutenant. I wish you would be more precise.
which incidentally gives a far greater than 8.4-cubed-cee value for warp 8.4, given the distance involved began as 990.7 light years…but I digress.
SPOCK: Decoding memory banks. I'll try to interpolate. The Valiant had encountered a magnetic space storm and was being swept in this direction.
KIRK: The old impulse engines weren't strong enough.
SPOCK: Swept past this point, about a half light year out of the galaxy, they were thrown clear, turned, and headed back into the galaxy here.
Now, there’s nothing to conclusively establish the magnetic storm didn’t sweep Valiant all the way from whatever sublight-reachable distance they’d been from Earth…but note what is NOT said: that Valiant, “thrown clear” about half a light year out of the galaxy, had NO HOPE of returning home. Which is to say, that – unlike Enterprise shortly after encountering the log bouy – she retained hyperlight capability. Which she had by dint of her “old impulse engines” – right? Or are we to posit that she didn't attempt to apply warp DRIVE against the storm?
“Corbomite Maneuver”
Whether impulse (or warp) applies a measure of speed or a measure of acceleration is irrelevant. The ratio of zero-to-[nearly]-warp-one to warp one-to-“escape warp” (i.e., whatever measure of warp acceleration OR velocity Enterprise was applying/trying to reach in “Corbomite”) is so vast that to add impulse (i.e., something less than one cee’s worth of either) would be insignificant. I mean, warp six (presumably the minimum they’d be trying to employ) is at LEAST 6-cubed-cee, or 216 “units” (of light-multiples, OR acceleration), right? One “unit” is less than half of one percent of that…barely worth adding, if that.
What the cube is doing (closing very slowly, while matching velocities) is irrelevant to what Enterprise is trying to do: get away. You’re captain…nasty object emitting radiation begins approaching…wouldn’t you go away FAST? If not, why not?
Precision drops from warp are an issue the entire series finesses (ignores) for the dramatic purpose of giving the helm officer something to do. Clearly, downwarping (or for that matter, targeting phasers at warp, if at all) is something a human would be incapable of doing with any degree of success. Given this, I’m not sure it’s worth making something of it (downwarping) more than what we know it to be. After all, one could equally reasonably presume a helm officer’s entering the “downwarp” command sets the computer to safely bringing the ship to its sublight position/velocity (as in fact would have to be the case regardless of how action or dialogue addressed the issue).
As to warp factors not denoting velocity, “That Which Survives” (among other episodes) puts the paid to that, I think:
RAHDA: We're holding warp eight point four, sir. If we can maintain it, our estimated time of arrival is eleven and one half solar hours.
SPOCK: Eleven point three three seven hours, Lieutenant. I wish you would be more precise.
which incidentally gives a far greater than 8.4-cubed-cee value for warp 8.4, given the distance involved began as 990.7 light years…but I digress.
In TOS, I'd say "warp factors" or "warp speed" denote power and to some extent, acceleration, but can not by itself tell you measured speed (relative or absolute). The reason being was that in TOS, measured speed was dependent on where the ship was at the time. (But they were fairly consistent with this though...)
In "That Which Survives", "Obsession", "Breads and Circuses", the Enterprise was traveling approx 1,000 ly/day going between star systems.
In system, particularly from the 3rd planetary orbit to the star as seen in "Operation: Annihilate!", "Tomorrow is Yesterday", "The Voyage Home", the Enterprise (and Klingon BOP) were moving around 5c or less.
And going between galaxies like in "By Any Other Name", the Enterprise could do about 2 ly/day unmodified and 24 ly/day with Kelvin mods.
In TNG and onwards though, it appears that they treated all locations with the same warp formula so you could guess to some degree what the E-D's measured speed would be. Since they're really two different productions, I usually put the different series as different universes
In "That Which Survives", "Obsession", "Breads and Circuses", the Enterprise was traveling approx 1,000 ly/day going between star systems.
In system, particularly from the 3rd planetary orbit to the star as seen in "Operation: Annihilate!", "Tomorrow is Yesterday", "The Voyage Home", the Enterprise (and Klingon BOP) were moving around 5c or less.
And going between galaxies like in "By Any Other Name", the Enterprise could do about 2 ly/day unmodified and 24 ly/day with Kelvin mods.
In TNG and onwards though, it appears that they treated all locations with the same warp formula so you could guess to some degree what the E-D's measured speed would be. Since they're really two different productions, I usually put the different series as different universes
Agreed in full. Except, it's about as meaningful as saying "the Bible is true". It's all in the interpretation.
I'd hesitate to accept any off-air data, even the explicit and expressed intentions of the authors and artists, regardless of whether it's consistent or in conflict... Trek is, after all, a vast and changing entity where individual artists contribute relatively little.
That violates rule 1 already: it's all true (except where it's explicitly shown to be a lie or a ruse). If there's conflict, like there often is, it has to be explained away in terms of all the evidence being true.
Of course, nothing dictates that the world in TOS must have been exactly like the world a hundred years later, only in different color. Warp drive principles may have changed radically in the intervening years (after all, the warp scale and the warp effects did!), and there may even be an actual historical discontinuity or three, due to time travel or divine intervention or other established Trek happenstances.
In the end, though, TOS should hold no special place over other Trek incarnations, and preceding works no special place over succeeding ones (or vice versa). Study of individual series or episodes or of writer intent is another field altogether, and largely unrelated to the study of the fictional Trek universe.
Absolutely not. Trek is a visual phenomenon first and foremost, and we have to be able to trust our eyes.
People tell lies all the time. Anything said or written may be considered false until proven true. But what is shown must be true by default, unless revealed to be a simulation or other attempt at obfuscation.
If interpretation is at odds with visuals, then interpretation is in error. Or at the very least, an explanation has to be found for why the visuals might mislead us (say, the use of a magnifying lense or slow motion or somesuch in "recording" or "replaying" the "events").
The tachyon eddy certainly qualifies. And bickering over "swept" vs. "displaced" is inane, so a wormhole ought to qualify as well, provided it looks like a space storm. Like a certain wormhole in recent silver screen Trek did, according to the characters.
Agreed, this is not in question. The question goes, were the "old impulse engines" the means of pushing her to FTL? We don't even know if warp was used by Kirk's own ship in coping with the galactic barrier phenomenon; while he went in at warp one, he lost warp at some point, yet did manage to come out nevertheless.
The question of the natural phenomenon is pressing only in the sense that it suggests significant range and speed for a fairly primitive vessel; not only is the range considered literally "impossible" by Kirk, but her launch and disappearance are both quoted as having happened 200 years ago, essentially barring a multi-decade mission. Or perhaps a multi-decade mission was planned, but cut short by the displacement phenomenon?
In the context of "Where No Man", multiple explanations are possible. In the greater Trek context, the likeliest answer is that storms of that type preclude the use of warp, and Kirk and Spock knew it, being somewhat familiar with the type of storm. Although the classic "ion storm" did allow Kirk to use warp.
I don't see any evidence for this claim. It's just two different types of drive, both of which require fantastic energies. Warp would require energies well beyond the fantastics by current knowledge - literally way past infinite. Apparently there's a cheat there somewhere... Impulse might lack the cheat and thus call for more power to begin with.
But that's just speculation. In practice, we know that starships have enough power for the use of phasers, shields and tractor beams even if warp power is down, so obviously the amount of power delivered by non-warp means is not insignificant. We further know that power diverted from things like weapons or life support makes a difference in propulsion; "Corbomite" is no different from "The Sound of Her Voice" in that respect.
And the issue remains that there's no reason to think that Kirk is adding impulse drive to the mix in "Corbomite", as opposed to impulse power (a concept verified to exist elsewhere in TOS, let alone elsewhere in Trek).
I now understand why you bring this up: to offer an interpretation of it that allows us to believe that Cochrane did not invent/discover warp drive at any point, least of all more than 150 years before the episode.
But it's just that, an opening for such an interpretation. It's certainly not proof against Cochrane inventing warp drive in the 2060s. And "TOS racism" aside, we know that Cochrane invented just the thing at just the time, and "Metamorphosis" is not at odds with the idea at all. Nor does it appear to have been at odds with it at any point, not even at the time of its writing.
Spock has no particular reason not to mention the loss of a STL drive, either. Especially given that many TOS fights take place at STL speeds, too.
But they fight at sublight. And Khan matches speeds with them by slowing to sublight. They don't drop out of warp because of the battle, they drop out of warp before the battle. And we don't know how long before the battle.
But we know the timeline of "BoBW", too (in a series of spelled-out ETAs), and according to it, the ship moves at STL after dropping to impulse, despite being in a hurry.
Just goes to show that warp is not always an option.
The PADD and accompanying dialogue tell Sulu that he is free to go home. To depart before that would be deserting. Hence, any log entry about going home must be somewhat prematurely dictated, any action taken before (such as an impulse departure) merely preliminary and preparatory.
Which is just standard Trek fare: many if not most logs appear to be dictated at some time other than the one where they are overlaid with the action. Presumably, captains usually dictate them while watching the official records, after the action is over - they add a "comment track" to the records (often with comments on issues they were not even aware of at the time the action took place).
Not by a long shot. For example, we never get any indication that the Enterprise would have been "elsewhere" during the shuttle sortie in "Metamorphosis". And Picard used a shuttlecraft to visit the starbase in "The Neutral Zone" while the ship explicitly had nothing to do but wait and fidget.
Whether nacelles equate warp drive is debatable, as most of today's aircraft aren't warp-capable despite sporting those. I put no faith on backstage material, but if the TNG TM is to be believed, the shuttlepods there don't have warp despite having nacelles (which incidentally don't look much like mothership-nacelle miniatures - but then again, neither do those of Type 6, which explicitly does warp in VOY). But that's neither here nor there; the rationale for the observed behavior of using shuttles for STL impulse trips to and from star systems (regardless of whether they also have warp drives or these putative FTL impulse drives, the former of which are canon while the latter are not) would be found elsewhere, in the difficulties of operating a starship at warp inside certain star systems (such as Bajor, or the one from "Paradise Syndrome").
Lack of nacelles never stopped most Trek ships from going to warp. That argument carries no weight.
Not on impulse. On some drive system not considered worth naming at all.
Since all FLT travel in the Federation is done at warp, it automatically follows the saucer did it at warp, too. Unless there's some really pressing piece of evidence to suggest otherwise. And by your rules or mine, there isn't.
That'd be true whether warp factors measured speed, acceleration or, say, the rate of revolutions of the subspace propellers inside the nacelle domes. Spock and Rahda would know the conversion formula between warp factor and ETA in all of the cases.
Only cases where the speed of an alien/adversary starship is established as a warp factor would seem to indicate that it's a somewhat absolute unit of speed or acceleration, rather than a mere throttle setting or other such mechanistical detail. And generally the cases where an alien ship's warp factor is given seem to translate to our heroes completely knowing her state of motion, which would be true if they knew her speed and course but not if they knew her acceleration and course. But I guess we could still wiggle out of this and consider warp factors indicators of acceleration.
Or of something more complex than that, for that matter. Something analogous to Mach numbers, for example. This is science fiction, after all; people from a century back wouldn't understand why anybody would wish to express speeds in terms of speed-of-sound when one had just recently gotten out of expressing them in subjective terms such as speed-of-horse.
To nitpick, in "Bread and Circuses" they only did a brief jump rather than an interstellar journey.
But yeah, the ship seemed to do interstellar much faster than interplanetary, despite using high warp for both (and Scotty rolling his eyes for the use of impulse for the latter). That may support the wf=acceleration idea (because over short distances the speed wouldn't get particularly high), or then the idea that different regions of space affect warp drive differently (as we learn from the many episodes involving fictional natural phenomena).
Timo Saloniemi
3)Data presented in series subsequent to TOS are – if in conflict with that of TOS – in error, as regards TOS. 3)Data presented in series subsequent to TOS are – if in conflict with that of TOS – in error, as regards TOS.
>That violates rule 1 already: it's all true (except where it's explicitly shown to be a lie or a ruse). If there's conflict, like there often is, it has to be explained away in terms of all the evidence being true.
Certainly...but what I'm alluding to (and saying we should NOT recognize/give credence to) might be called "retconing without retconing." Warp velocities are a perfect case in point. Numerous episodes cited time/distance numbers:
CHEKOV: "Only one-sixteenth of a parsec away, sir. We should be there in seconds."
"Bread and Circuses"
...that the Next Generation and later vessels' engines could not deliver. "Official" word (TNG Tech Manaul, conventional wisdom, whatever) is that post-TOS ships are bigger, stronger, faster...but the FACT is, they are NOT faster than what we know Kirk's ship to have been throughout the series:
ADMIRAL BARSTOW: "I'm evacuating all Starfleet units and personnel within a hundred parsecs of your position."
"The Alternative Factor"
...among many well-known cases. Now, how did it happen that Picard's warp factors turned out to be slower than Kirk's? Did TNG creators look in detail at TOS and say, "That's too damned fast!" Likely not. Who has time (besides the likes of us) to give TOS such attention? Most likely they (Roddenberry? Sternbach? Okuda?) said, "OK, TOS warp factors equated to factor-cubed-times-cee. OUR warp factors will be just a little faster, and stop at warp ten." Result? A retcon based not on deliberate intent, but accident of inattention.
Should we, as tech nuts, take such as reason to
a)disregard/rewrite every explicit TOS time/distance citation
or
b)hand-wave into being some reason why Kirk's ship was faster than Picard's, but no one will ever say so on air (since production personnel never noticed that)
I think, neither. I think we simply ignore the contradiction, and say (as I do), "post-TOS statements ABOUT TOS are to be disregarded if they conflict with TOS itself [UNLESS they are an obvious deliberate retcon -- which we might like, not like, embrace, reject, or learn-to-hatingly-love, ala "NuTrek"].
>That violates rule 1 already: it's all true (except where it's explicitly shown to be a lie or a ruse). If there's conflict, like there often is, it has to be explained away in terms of all the evidence being true.
Certainly...but what I'm alluding to (and saying we should NOT recognize/give credence to) might be called "retconing without retconing." Warp velocities are a perfect case in point. Numerous episodes cited time/distance numbers:
CHEKOV: "Only one-sixteenth of a parsec away, sir. We should be there in seconds."
"Bread and Circuses"
...that the Next Generation and later vessels' engines could not deliver. "Official" word (TNG Tech Manaul, conventional wisdom, whatever) is that post-TOS ships are bigger, stronger, faster...but the FACT is, they are NOT faster than what we know Kirk's ship to have been throughout the series:
ADMIRAL BARSTOW: "I'm evacuating all Starfleet units and personnel within a hundred parsecs of your position."
"The Alternative Factor"
...among many well-known cases. Now, how did it happen that Picard's warp factors turned out to be slower than Kirk's? Did TNG creators look in detail at TOS and say, "That's too damned fast!" Likely not. Who has time (besides the likes of us) to give TOS such attention? Most likely they (Roddenberry? Sternbach? Okuda?) said, "OK, TOS warp factors equated to factor-cubed-times-cee. OUR warp factors will be just a little faster, and stop at warp ten." Result? A retcon based not on deliberate intent, but accident of inattention.
Should we, as tech nuts, take such as reason to
a)disregard/rewrite every explicit TOS time/distance citation
or
b)hand-wave into being some reason why Kirk's ship was faster than Picard's, but no one will ever say so on air (since production personnel never noticed that)
I think, neither. I think we simply ignore the contradiction, and say (as I do), "post-TOS statements ABOUT TOS are to be disregarded if they conflict with TOS itself [UNLESS they are an obvious deliberate retcon -- which we might like, not like, embrace, reject, or learn-to-hatingly-love, ala "NuTrek"].
No it isn't, because light does not accelerate. An impulse engine that can push your ship at 20Gs will get you to the speed of light in about 2 weeks. If we're assuming Einstein doesn't apply (and we must, because this is space opera so it pretty much doesn't) then you could accelerate to just about ANY speed using an impulse engine, assuming you had enough time to build up an acceleration.
If, say, warp two was roughly equivalent to full impulse power, then we have our explanation for Enterprise' use of "pivot at warp two" in "Elaan of Troyus," we have an explanation for why Sulu is heading home under full impulse power in TUC, we have an explanation for the interstellar impulse jaunts in "Where No Man" and "Mudd's Women." It also explains the "simple impulse" from "Balance of Terror" while also explaining just how it is that either ship is able to fly through the tail of a comet in anything more than a microsecond.
Not if impulse power is equivalent in terms of velocity change to warp one or two.
Possibly. But then, that could also be 216 gees, of which an extra ten or twenty from the impulse engines wouldn't be missed.
On the other hand, if you assume the Enterprise is ACCELERATING at some factor--a brachistochrone trajectory that requires running up to a maximum velocity and then braking on the second half of the trip--then Rahda's reading off a computer display that's calculating their ETA while Spock is doing second-derivative calculus in his head. That's not simple precision in arithmetic, that's Spock giving Rahda an F for the day. The only thing you could determine is their AVERAGE speed, but the Enterprise would reach a peak velocity many times that speed at "turnaround." This would nicely explain why warp speed is never shown consistently throughout the series; the only thing we can guesstimate is AVERAGE velocity, for a particular journey while actual flight profiles are buried in the subtext.
Here's a thought: in "Elaan of Troyus" Kirk orders "Sublight factor point zero three five." If this is "point zero three five" of the speed of light, then this is a velocity of 10,500km/s. At that velocity, a trip from the sun to Neptune would take just under five days. If, on the other hand, that's an acceleration factor--say, 37m/s^2, then this is a trip that is intended to take at least several WEEKS. That would put Scotty's "That'll take a great deal of time!" in a slightly different context, not to mention, it would give Petri (and later Kirk) more than enough time to school Elaan in the fine art of not-being-a-spoiled-bitch.
Also objectionable to me personally are the post-TOS efforts to drag TOS-near-future-history kicking and screaming into our timeline. The Eugenics Wars involved various individuals, one of whom was "absolute ruler of 1/4" of the planet, and ended with "whole populations being bombed out of existence" circa 1996. Per TOS, sleeper ships were outmoded as of 2018 (which implies they were in use before that). Was the DY-100 a one-off design? Or was it (or something contemporary to it) what Sean Geoffrey Christopher took on "the first Earth/Saturn probe"? Nomad was launched circa 2002...etc., etc. All perfectly reasonable factoids to present about the 21st century...in the 1960s. ALL disregarded (AND unmentioned) in post-TOS Treks, so as to, what, not distract the viewer from indentification from what would otherwise not be "their" future?
Absolute application of the "it's all fact" tact results in such bizarre things as Greg Cox's Khan novels, in which the Eugenics Wars go unnoticed by CNN, apparently, or Voyager's "One Small Step," in which the string-of-tin-cans Ares IV goes to Mars in 2032 (apparently sans whatever faster-than-sleeper ships' drive saw use as of 2018).
I don't subscribe to "TOS racism" ("bigotry" would be more accurate), but I disagree violently with the following:
>In the end, though, TOS should hold no special place over other Trek incarnations, and preceding works no special place over succeeding ones (or vice versa).
...in regards to what subsequent series say ABOUT TOS. Subsequent series are to be judged by the criteria generally applied to all sequels, whether done by the original creators or not: did they get it right? Which is to say, did they bother to do their homework in re: TOS, or did they just knock off a superficially similair but contradiction-full later incarnation/generation? Changing the "established universe" with intent is one thing; as viewers, we might like the changes or decry them, but we've no leg to stand on in saying, by definition, that change should not occur. But changing the universe by incompetence ("faster than light, no left or right" -- "Voyager") is quite another. I'm not saying it's not our "job" to try and reconcile such with TOS, each other, or whatnot. I'm simply saying we should acknowledge the origin of some of what we're trying to reconcile ("Kirk's form of warp drive allowed turning and banking at warp, but subsequent warp drives didn't; that deficiency was made up for by [some other damn thing]").
Absolute application of the "it's all fact" tact results in such bizarre things as Greg Cox's Khan novels, in which the Eugenics Wars go unnoticed by CNN, apparently, or Voyager's "One Small Step," in which the string-of-tin-cans Ares IV goes to Mars in 2032 (apparently sans whatever faster-than-sleeper ships' drive saw use as of 2018).
I don't subscribe to "TOS racism" ("bigotry" would be more accurate), but I disagree violently with the following:
>In the end, though, TOS should hold no special place over other Trek incarnations, and preceding works no special place over succeeding ones (or vice versa).
...in regards to what subsequent series say ABOUT TOS. Subsequent series are to be judged by the criteria generally applied to all sequels, whether done by the original creators or not: did they get it right? Which is to say, did they bother to do their homework in re: TOS, or did they just knock off a superficially similair but contradiction-full later incarnation/generation? Changing the "established universe" with intent is one thing; as viewers, we might like the changes or decry them, but we've no leg to stand on in saying, by definition, that change should not occur. But changing the universe by incompetence ("faster than light, no left or right" -- "Voyager") is quite another. I'm not saying it's not our "job" to try and reconcile such with TOS, each other, or whatnot. I'm simply saying we should acknowledge the origin of some of what we're trying to reconcile ("Kirk's form of warp drive allowed turning and banking at warp, but subsequent warp drives didn't; that deficiency was made up for by [some other damn thing]").
On this, I could have your babies. (No, not for breakfast!) Such efforts do a grave disservice to what was so unique and endearing about TOS: a future established from the 1960s standpoint.
Luckily, most (if not all) of this forcible updating has happened outside onscreen canon. Khan still hails from our past, save for one odd phrase that was spoken by a high-ranking guest star whom none of our heroes would have been in a position to correct even if he made a blatant slip of the tongue... Our probes still flew to the stars nine years ago, our artificial gravity still was mastered two decades ago. And modern Trek shamelessly continues to offer us this delightfully alternate past, with Vulcans visiting us in 1957 and Ferengi in 1947, and with World War III, First Contact and, for all we know, the four Kzinti wars looming ahead for the majority of today's audiences to witness.
...Which is exactly what one would expect to be "the first thing they teach you" at the Academy. Much like "don't touch the throttle until you have learned what to do, just mind the stick and the pedals" or "when on ice, no turning of the wheel and no flooring of gas or brakes" - things you first learn and then unlearn. It's not always quite as fatally stupid as it might first sound.
Timo Saloniemi
Come one, the next generation technical manual has a good description of what the impulse drive is. It is nothing more than a fusion rocket with warp coils. These warp coils create a low level distortion of space, thereby, presumably, reducing the mass of the ship.
That description doesn't really match the facts, though. Impulse engines are at the wrong place to be rocket nozzles. We never hear of impulse engines spewing out anything that would blast out like a rocket jet; instead, they fart out plasma like a tailpipe. There's the whole reversing and maneuvering thing. There's the defiance of the rocket equation, the insufficient propellant mass. And there are the numerous ships that move at sublight without the benefit of anything that might be a rocket nozzle.
A mini-warp drive with a tailpipe would be a better match for what we see than a maxi-rocket in almost every sense.
Timo Saloniemi
A mini-warp drive with a tailpipe would be a better match for what we see than a maxi-rocket in almost every sense.
Timo Saloniemi
