Or they could have a spare or two just in case.
Shuttle's warp capabilities
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
It probably isn't a matter of absolutes, despite the overall tendency of Trek to simplify things.
Just because you can replicate a hamburger doesn't necessarily mean you can replicate a live cow grazing on a field - even if both are made of basically identical substances. There would be practical limitations ranging from resolution issues to the size of the replicator itself. A dedicated cow replicator could still no doubt be built, but the could->should->would logic would be lacking.
Similarly, a large number of small devices might never be a practical substitute for a single large device in application A (say, warp drive) while the reverse might be true for application B (say, replicators). We might think otherwise, but the people who "actually" build and operate these things in the Trek universe clearly know better.
The self-repairing and replenishing nanostructured starship common in scifi (see Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars for a somewhat better-known take than TGT's near-realistic example) might be something that Starfleet could do. But it might still be inferior to what Starfleet could do with more "basic" technologies, in terms of the doctrine of the day. Today's doctrine shuns the superior economy of sail propulsion in favor of the flexibility of fossil fuels - and even the doctrine of the late 1800s shunned sail in favor of coal, despite the deep inflexibility of coal propulsion back in the day. The "non-reuseable" starship preferred by Starfleet might remain in favor for a long time, too.
What possible shortcomings could a nano-repairing starship have? Certainly those would be built without onboard spares or conventional repair capabilities, just like today's destroyers do not carry sail rigs "just in case". A failure of the nanomachinery, probably on programming level, might then leave the ship in deeper trouble than a conventional counterpart. Also, were a ship to be given good nanorepair capabilities, most of its hull would have to consist of nanoprocessors or nanoprocessible materials - a possible weakness in situations where "dumb" bulk armor could have superior properties. Attrition of nanomachinery would also be a problem in combat: which parts of the remaining ship do the machines have to eat to replace the fallen comrades who didn't even leave any tiny corpses behind for nourishment?
The ability to utilize a grazing opportunity to the max would be a plus for both nanoships and conventional ones, of course. But perhaps industrial replicators are close enough to ideal grazing, as evidenced by the ability of USS Voyager to stay in such a pristine condition through those seven years?
Timo Saloniemi
Just because you can replicate a hamburger doesn't necessarily mean you can replicate a live cow grazing on a field - even if both are made of basically identical substances. There would be practical limitations ranging from resolution issues to the size of the replicator itself. A dedicated cow replicator could still no doubt be built, but the could->should->would logic would be lacking.
Similarly, a large number of small devices might never be a practical substitute for a single large device in application A (say, warp drive) while the reverse might be true for application B (say, replicators). We might think otherwise, but the people who "actually" build and operate these things in the Trek universe clearly know better.
The self-repairing and replenishing nanostructured starship common in scifi (see Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars for a somewhat better-known take than TGT's near-realistic example) might be something that Starfleet could do. But it might still be inferior to what Starfleet could do with more "basic" technologies, in terms of the doctrine of the day. Today's doctrine shuns the superior economy of sail propulsion in favor of the flexibility of fossil fuels - and even the doctrine of the late 1800s shunned sail in favor of coal, despite the deep inflexibility of coal propulsion back in the day. The "non-reuseable" starship preferred by Starfleet might remain in favor for a long time, too.
What possible shortcomings could a nano-repairing starship have? Certainly those would be built without onboard spares or conventional repair capabilities, just like today's destroyers do not carry sail rigs "just in case". A failure of the nanomachinery, probably on programming level, might then leave the ship in deeper trouble than a conventional counterpart. Also, were a ship to be given good nanorepair capabilities, most of its hull would have to consist of nanoprocessors or nanoprocessible materials - a possible weakness in situations where "dumb" bulk armor could have superior properties. Attrition of nanomachinery would also be a problem in combat: which parts of the remaining ship do the machines have to eat to replace the fallen comrades who didn't even leave any tiny corpses behind for nourishment?
The ability to utilize a grazing opportunity to the max would be a plus for both nanoships and conventional ones, of course. But perhaps industrial replicators are close enough to ideal grazing, as evidenced by the ability of USS Voyager to stay in such a pristine condition through those seven years?
Timo Saloniemi
Ok, I'm obviously mistaken about how Star Fleet warp drive works. I thought that the warp coils in the nacelles were energized by plasma from the warp core in sequence to produce cascading subspace fields that propelled the ship forward. I did not think the nacelles created a “bubble” around the ship. If so, what’s actually propelling it?
How so?
In TOS, warp motion was possible without impulse engines, at least in "Obsession". Impulse engines didn't glow markedly at any mode of operation.
TOS-R adds some impulse glow during sublight accelerations, but otherwise matches TOS.
In TMP, we got no evidence either way. Impulse glow intensified during sublight accelerations, but otherwise was always there to some degree, on idle mode and warp alike.
In TNG, we got no evidence either way. Impulse engines glowed at warp, impulse and standstill alike; glow apparently wasn't related to thrust, but more to power generation, and we did hear that impulse power could be used for things other than propulsion.
In VOY, we got no evidence either way. Impulse engines didn't glow markedly.
In ENT, we got no evidence either way. Impulse engines glowed all the time; the ones at the ends of the warp booms might have been part of the warp power system somehow, or then not, but motion at warp never involved dialogue that would call for impulse engines, or visuals that would highlight the role of impulse engines.
I'd say we would be perfectly well off saying that all warp motion in all of Star Trek is achieved solely by the warp coils.
As for how this propulsion happens, all we've got on screen is several TNG graphics of a pulsating field around the ship. Apparently, this pulsation can take many different shapes, and toying with them (like in "Where No One Has Gone Before") is a valid pastime for people interested in improving warp propulsion - there is no single working configuration.
Timo Saloniemi
In TOS, warp motion was possible without impulse engines, at least in "Obsession". Impulse engines didn't glow markedly at any mode of operation.
TOS-R adds some impulse glow during sublight accelerations, but otherwise matches TOS.
In TMP, we got no evidence either way. Impulse glow intensified during sublight accelerations, but otherwise was always there to some degree, on idle mode and warp alike.
In TNG, we got no evidence either way. Impulse engines glowed at warp, impulse and standstill alike; glow apparently wasn't related to thrust, but more to power generation, and we did hear that impulse power could be used for things other than propulsion.
In VOY, we got no evidence either way. Impulse engines didn't glow markedly.
In ENT, we got no evidence either way. Impulse engines glowed all the time; the ones at the ends of the warp booms might have been part of the warp power system somehow, or then not, but motion at warp never involved dialogue that would call for impulse engines, or visuals that would highlight the role of impulse engines.
I'd say we would be perfectly well off saying that all warp motion in all of Star Trek is achieved solely by the warp coils.
As for how this propulsion happens, all we've got on screen is several TNG graphics of a pulsating field around the ship. Apparently, this pulsation can take many different shapes, and toying with them (like in "Where No One Has Gone Before") is a valid pastime for people interested in improving warp propulsion - there is no single working configuration.
Timo Saloniemi
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
The impulse engines are disengaged during warp flight:
TGT
Ah, but is that "warp flight", or "coasting inside somebody else's warp field"? 
Seriously, though, thanks. What sort of nacelle glow or deflector dish glow did we see outside the V'ger cloud, as opposed to warping in free space, or staying put? (Original vs. DE? I don't own the latter, and my copy of the former is a discolored piece of shit.)
Timo Saloniemi
Seriously, though, thanks. What sort of nacelle glow or deflector dish glow did we see outside the V'ger cloud, as opposed to warping in free space, or staying put? (Original vs. DE? I don't own the latter, and my copy of the former is a discolored piece of shit.)
Timo Saloniemi
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
^ Aside from the wormhole sequence, that is the only shot of the NCC-1701 Refit at warp in TMP where we can see the impulse engine nozzles. As for the deflector dish glow, yellow (low power mode) is apparently for standby/orbital maneuvering velocities and blue (high power mode) is for impulse and warp velocities, although the scene near the end of the film where the Enterprise slowly emerges from V'ger's transcendence over Earth has it glowing blue. The warp nacelles, on the other hand, only glow at warp.
TGT
TGT
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
^ Yes, they are glowing (see those neon blue lines on the inboard panels?), and that is the only intensity at which they glow in ST:TMP:
These screencaps are from the 1979 cinema edit I purchased from the Apple iTunes store several months ago, so the quality isn't quite as good as the TrekCore.com cap I posted upthread.
TGT
These screencaps are from the 1979 cinema edit I purchased from the Apple iTunes store several months ago, so the quality isn't quite as good as the TrekCore.com cap I posted upthread.
TGT
For TOS you have to listen to dialog more often than not. But, from MJ's comments, the TOS nacelles had thrust engines in them as WELL as the 'Warp Jet' aspect.
TMP has to go from the 'writer's descriptions' and Roddenberry's concept. We're still kind of at 'warp jet' at this point, but the implication is that there's a field made that's independent of thrust.
At the end of it all what is most consistent is that the warp COILS themselves ONLY create the warp field, and something else (perhaps the impulse engines, or thrusters in the nacelles, or what have you) maneuvers the ship while at warp.
Ah. So it depends on whether one believes in writer intention. I don't, not really. If the writers failed to put it on screen, it is of little interest from the Trek universe point of view (even if it may be of interest regarding the creative process). And especially if writer intention creates conflict where onscreen evidence offers harmony and continuity...
Nothing in TOS or TMP looks unique to me as regards propulsion tech: when warp engines are used, the ship moves at warp, and when impulse engines are used, the ship moves at sublight. The systems do not seem interlinked in any way, and indeed it is an exceptional move whenever Kirk orders the systems to be used in concert (as in "Corbomite Maneuver").
Never do we hear of a warp engine that wouldn't be capable of moving itself at warp. Whenever a "static" warp field is created, it is an exceptional application of technology, and requires lots of jury-rigging. A "motive" field apparently is what the hardware is built to do as default. And no dialogue ever refers to Newtonian (or other) thrust engines in the warp nacelles, or any other type of "duality" in warp engine operation. The duality is strictly between warp propulsion and sublight propulsion - and while the latter is sometimes described in complex terms, including "thrusters", "rockets" or "impulse engines", the former is simplicity itself.
Timo Saloniemi
Nothing in TOS or TMP looks unique to me as regards propulsion tech: when warp engines are used, the ship moves at warp, and when impulse engines are used, the ship moves at sublight. The systems do not seem interlinked in any way, and indeed it is an exceptional move whenever Kirk orders the systems to be used in concert (as in "Corbomite Maneuver").
Never do we hear of a warp engine that wouldn't be capable of moving itself at warp. Whenever a "static" warp field is created, it is an exceptional application of technology, and requires lots of jury-rigging. A "motive" field apparently is what the hardware is built to do as default. And no dialogue ever refers to Newtonian (or other) thrust engines in the warp nacelles, or any other type of "duality" in warp engine operation. The duality is strictly between warp propulsion and sublight propulsion - and while the latter is sometimes described in complex terms, including "thrusters", "rockets" or "impulse engines", the former is simplicity itself.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
