• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Two more LCARS schematics

I know Titan missiles don't have nuclear rockets. I was just trying to be open-minded to the claim that Cochrane's module might, even though it's easier to believe that the main thruster of that module is a conventional rocket using LH2 and LOX.

I see.

Earth history? First Contact takes place in 2063, and the Titan V (which doesn't exist [yet]) was probably a weapon of choice for the war fought a few years before that. So unless you have special insight into missiles that won't be built until the late 2050s, I don't see how you can make this claim.

After TITAN IV they started strapping boosters for heavier lift capability.
Progression implies if the rocket is part of the same family with augmentations. Let's say if the rocket had as LCARS implied a new engine the design would have a completely different designator (typically).


Which are throwaway technobabble to which no physical object has ever been canonically tied. It is not established whether the "intermix ratio" or formula have anything to do with the intermix chamber. For all we know it's a ratio of reactor coolant to de-ionized water that have to be mixed before delivery to the warp core's heat exchanger.

When in doubt it's always best to follow the pattern.
You're right of course and it's all just speculation on different sides of the same coin.


Well, they're ASSUMED to be warp drive systems,

or related to them in some way. Again, nothing has ever been pointed to on screen with the words "intermix chamber," it could just as easily be a fancy type of coolant system, all our assumptions notwithstanding.

It would not be consistent with the context but yes.


No, it's EXPLICITLY offered to impulse power. And the fact that the warp engines weren't working at the time because of "antimatter imbalance" clearly indicates the antimatter reactor system was not operational. If anything, this tell us that "intermix" is not necessarily part of the warp drive.

Negative:
The reactor was functional.
We have two examples of the imbalance not shutting down the core untill warp was engaged. The Core would work but at the higher output the intermix ratio changes. That's why Scotty said "intermix was set" and then said impulse power. The core was powering the impulse engines.


Indeed. Just needs to be established that what's true of the 24th century is not necessarily true of the 23rd, 22nd, or 21st.

Especially so since the configuration is different and appropriate that in the 300 years different configurations to maximize efficiency were made.


Again, no. We simply know that the intermix chamber is a device that is very important for modern engine designs. We have NO IDEA how it relates to antimatter systems, or even if it is necessary for them, or even if it can work without them. We at least know from TMP that sometimes it CAN work without antimatter. This being the case, the Phoenix can also function without antimatter.

We don't know that it can work with out antimatter.
That's wrong. That's a combined impulse/ MAR. You're jumping to conclusions on that one.

Fine. Show me a switch that says "antimatter injector" or "dilithium crystal status" and you might have something.

I can not show you what does not exist but your logic that the word warp core does not mean an antimatter reactor when applied to "intermix" I'm just not following. An intermix has never been associated with a impulse engine. TMP just doesn't count. Every other example is applied to an Matter Antimatter Reactor. Everyone.

Otherwise, there's no evidence that the warp core had any resemblance of any kind to its TNG/ENT counterparts, and circumstantial evidence--the time period and scarcity of resources--to suggest a very rudimentary, very primitive design using neither material.

I never said it resembled anything in TNG or ENT or even TMP.
What we know is that it has a component that has only been refered to in TMP and TNG antimatter reactors and it's never been related to impulse or Fusion. At this point it's an MAR device, exclusively.




You might as well suggests that the Wright Brothers powered their first flight with a turbofan engine and a fly-by-wire navigational computer.


Hyperbole:
Firstly it's nonsensical to suggest they got a Fusion reactor in that radius in stable enough conditions to launch on ICBM in make shift format or that a TITAN could even launch such an assembly. It was right after war world III such technology would have been a high commodity to the entire Earth. If he wanted to get rich he already had the one invention that would do it. Fusion Power that small could have revitalized the Earth and cured so many issues after a holocaust.

The moment someone heard about this tech it would have been taken or bought fro Cochrane.

And you suggest wrong, as already demonstrated that the presence of an intermix chamber has NO implication for any particular power system.
The implication can only be warp. If any other device were mentioned with the intermix then I can see you point. But it's not.
 
Hyperbole:
Firstly it's nonsensical to suggest they got a Fusion reactor in that radius in stable enough conditions to launch on ICBM in make shift format or that a TITAN could even launch such an assembly. It was right after war world III such technology would have been a high commodity to the entire Earth. If he wanted to get rich he already had the one invention that would do it. Fusion Power that small could have revitalized the Earth and cured so many issues after a holocaust.

The moment someone heard about this tech it would have been taken or bought fro Cochrane.


Aaaaand this wouldn't happen with his antimatter reactor? Which he was able to build in conditions where his partner could barely build a 2-meter cockpit?

It's just as improbable - if not more - to suggest Cochrane had the supply of antimatter necessary to fuel this thing.

He had a missile silo and a nuclear missile. And a bar and a bunch of hobos.

Antimatter is out of the question. But so is fusion.

Thus - I personally believe that the Phoenix ran off of nuclear fission.
 
Again, antimatter doesn't mean antiatoms floating around, because they would erode the storage container. In sci-fi people usually think of antiprotons, since their electric charge would allow storage in an electromagnetic bottle. But we're a long way from producing antiprotons in quanity. Another type of antimatter that has that storage advantage is antielectrons (positrons), and they've just, in the past year, become a lot easier and cheaper to produce, and they pack exactly the same punch per gram as antiprotons. I don't know about storage density of the two, since such bottles haven't been developed. Either type of storable antiparticle is completely converted to energy by the same formula: E=MC2. And so is the normal particle to which you expose it.

For Archer, okay, antiprotons. For Picard and Janeway, we sometimes hear about ionized antideuterium, blah, blah. But for Cochrane, positrons might well have given him enough bang for the bulk (and the buck) to get there, if anything could, without A trillion-dollar budget.

Making antimatter with a laser and gold plate

NASA article about positrons as fuel for rockets (written before the discovery of positrons produced with lasers and gold)

And just maybe the warheads in the Titan V missles were positron storage bottles instead of nukes. Why use nuclear warheads if you've got antimatter bombs? Then Cochrane wouldn't have had to spend a dime on fuel for his warp system. And people might have still called them nukes, just as we still say "misdial" or "hang up" the phone.
 
Last edited:
Aaaaand this wouldn't happen with his antimatter reactor? Which he was able to build in conditions where his partner could barely build a 2-meter cockpit?

That it would or would not happen with antimatter is immaterial.
A logical step is skipped for the purpose of story telling familiarity.

It's just as improbable - if not more - to suggest Cochrane had the supply of antimatter necessary to fuel this thing.

I don't agree with it but that is where the evidence is leading, that the Phoneix was anti-matter powered vessel.


Antimatter is out of the question. But so is fusion.

Thus - I personally believe that the Phoenix ran off of nuclear fission.

That's an intresting proposal but I didn't know that Fission produced plasma or rather the typical method of fission produces heat which is used to generate electricity. I hadn't considered it for producing plasma for warp nacelles.

Again, antimatter doesn't mean antiatoms floating around, because they would erode the storage container. In sci-fi people usually think of antiprotons, since their electric charge would allow storage in an electromagnetic bottle. But we're a long way from producing antiprotons in quanity. Another type of antimatter that has that storage advantage is antielectrons (positrons), and they've just, in the past year, become a lot easier and cheaper to produce, and they pack exactly the same punch per gram as antiprotons. I don't know about storage density of the two, since such bottles haven't been developed. Either type of storable antiparticle is completely converted to energy by the same formula: E=MC2. And so is the normal particle to which you expose it.

For Archer, okay, antiprotons. For Picard and Janeway, we sometimes hear about ionized antideuterium, blah, blah. But for Cochrane, positrons might well have given him enough bang for the bulk (and the buck) to get there, if anything could, without A trillion-dollar budget.

Making antimatter with a laser and gold plate

NASA article about positrons as fuel for rockets (written before the discovery of positrons produced with lasers and gold)

And just maybe the warheads in the Titan V missles were positron storage bottles instead of nukes. Why use nuclear warheads if you've got antimatter bombs? Then Cochrane wouldn't have had to spend a dime on fuel for his warp system. And people might have still called them nukes, just as we still say "misdial" or "hang up" the phone.

Well firstly,

I thiink the positron electron thing is a good idea and very possible.
Yet TOS and TNG do state specificly that the Romulan war was a use of nuclear ability and that the Third world war was a nuclear holocaust. Now as some ENT supporters will tell you it doesn't rule out other energy tech but you can't help but sense a cap being placed on the era.
 
The Genesis device has undergone another complete redo according to the beautiful screencaps provided by SonicRanger, and I just touched up the Phoenix a bit, retaining the assumption that Zephram Cochrane really did invent a first-generation version of warp drive as we know it powered by some kind of antimatter, since the flyer that disputes that is not really canon as is not even available for examination.

Genesis Device

Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix

Hidden Frontier's history of warp drive has a section about Zephram Cochrane's work that sounds nice but is also not canon:

Hidden Frontier: Warp Drive History
 
There might just be a canon mention of antimatter for the Phoenix that I didn't notice before. On page 2 of this thread I posted an image of Cochrane's MSD. The green bar at far left is a bit hard to make out but appears to be labeled AM CONVERSION. At least the AM part of that is pretty clear.
 
If it's using a polywell fusion reactor, that would suffice both for the ship's main engine AND for the drive plasma. After all, the warp nacelles only require plasma to operate at warp speeds, and the Phoenix just barely surpassed warp one.

I severely doubt the entire ship actually returned to Montana. I rather expect that Cochrane left the drive section in orbit and parachuted down in his capsule using a simple solid rocket booster package as a retro thruster. His plan, evidently, was to sell the Phoenix to the highest bidder, who would then commission a space shuttle or similar craft to recover the prototype and its design schematics. The arrival of a Vulcan ship probably changed all that.

Those are both tempting ideas. I could add a label "descent module" and show a package of drogue parachutes and a retro rocket behind the cockpit, but then if it is retro, not glider, going down, then the fusion generator has to stay with it. I'd better toy with these things on paper.

I don't suppose the Enterprise beamed all of them away and back down to Montana. . . .

The Phoenix cockpit did have an MSD, which is not much help and raises questions about the Bussard collectors and warp-field geometry:

Phx-MSD.png


After staring for several minutes I can see what you're talking about on the left...it may say AM Conversion...we need a better pic. The other side could say Matter
 
I just noticed that the Phoenix is 114 Mt.
That's heavier than an empty Space Shuttle. Considering the shuttles Heavy lift launch system generates 6,780,000 lbf and the TITAN IV with two SRB's generates 3,400,000 lbf and the TITAN II which the Phoenix was based on was...100,000 lbf the problem becomes academic.
 
Drifting over to LCARS24's visual display... did you account for the warp nacelles being stored in the hull with the warp core? It looks like it would intrude quite a bit into the nacelle cubbies (unless it has like big scoops taken out of the side or something.)
 
Drifting over to LCARS24's visual display... did you account for the warp nacelles being stored in the hull with the warp core? It looks like it would intrude quite a bit into the nacelle cubbies (unless it has like big scoops taken out of the side or something.)

Hm. That's a good point. I'd better rearrange the furniture, taking into consideration how cramped it really is in there with the nacelles stowed.

And without trying to read sideways, I can see that those are just numbers on the left, not AM CONVERSION. It looks like 2377223 24.
 
Last edited:
Well, quite a few cars are offered in both diesel and gasoline versions. Some run on LPG (taxicabs, for example) without a name change. The electric version of the RAV4 was called RAV4 EV.
 
Cars have no rules to design change though.
You can change everything about a car and still make it Challenger for 40 years ago.
You also could change one thing and call it something completely different.
 
The same goes for rockets: there's nothing about Atlas V that would be related to Atlas I, really.

Why would the era immediately after WWIII be one of technological scarsity? Immediately after WWII, the world had a massive surplus of advanced aviation technology, and even those factories subjected to heavy bombings were quickly back up and running so that the losing nations were almost immediately producing cutting edge technology in considerable quantity. The winning nations were overproducing it, so that it just plain had to spill out to the civilian sector.

Now consider that the technology preceding WWIII must have been vastly more advanced than the technology we have today, or the technology we will have in the 2050s. Why should we assume that every major city block in well-developed countries didn't have its own fusion reactor, or that a standard USAF missile base didn't feature an antimatter generator? There's no outstanding reason to impose limitations on Earth technology: we saw a little bit of the Trek 1980s in ST4, and much less of the 1990s in VOY, but we never saw what the Trek Earth would have looked like in the 21st century - save, of course, the seediest of slums in "Past Tense".

Timo Saloniemi
 
The same goes for rockets: there's nothing about Atlas V that would be related to Atlas I, really.

Why would the era immediately after WWIII be one of technological scarsity? Immediately after WWII, the world had a massive surplus of advanced aviation technology, and even those factories subjected to heavy bombings were quickly back up and running so that the losing nations were almost immediately producing cutting edge technology in considerable quantity. The winning nations were overproducing it, so that it just plain had to spill out to the civilian sector.

Now consider that the technology preceding WWIII must have been vastly more advanced than the technology we have today, or the technology we will have in the 2050s. Why should we assume that every major city block in well-developed countries didn't have its own fusion reactor, or that a standard USAF missile base didn't feature an antimatter generator? There's no outstanding reason to impose limitations on Earth technology: we saw a little bit of the Trek 1980s in ST4, and much less of the 1990s in VOY, but we never saw what the Trek Earth would have looked like in the 21st century - save, of course, the seediest of slums in "Past Tense".

Timo Saloniemi

TITAN is a discription that describes the project first and foremost. ICBM Backups. The TITAN I & II & III had the same Rocket Engines.

The TITAN IIIA used Previous TITAN II parts and the TITAN IIIB had TITAN III Cores.

The TITAN IV is a stretched TITAN III.

Brought to you by Wiki:


The Atlas Designs were quite similar to each other but Highly modified but all had the same concept of jetisoning engines instead of engines and tanks. I've always been able to recognize an atlas not matter what configuration.
 
But that no longer is true of Atlas V at all, thus making the case. The balloon-type first stage hull is still there, but the "1.5 stage" or "2.5 stage" configuration is now gone: the Russian RD-180 engine does not separate.

The ST:FC Titan V could be a fairly mundane development of the "real" Titans, based on the looks of the hull. Or she could be a totally different machine sharing nothing but superficial hull features with the "real" ones, based on the looks and performance of her first stage engine. Personally, I suppose the latter is the more realistic assumption - and, furthermore, that Titan IV and perhaps also III in the Star Trek universe were also drastically different from the "real" machines, considering that Star Trek space technology was vastly more advanced than ours from the 1980s onwards.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Yet the Atlas V isn't completely new and I believe the Rocket Engine is still a carry-over modification from the previous Atlas. The reason they keep much of the components the same is avoid the need to test a whole new rocket with variable that are unknown.

The wiki is sparce on the Atlas.
Perhaps there is information that could be expand it and shed more like but I'm confident (perhaps illogically so) that the Atlas V series may have substantial differences but the engineering is very close.
 
Yet the Atlas V isn't completely new and I believe the Rocket Engine is still a carry-over modification from the previous Atlas. The reason they keep much of the components the same is avoid the need to test a whole new rocket with variable that are unknown.

The wiki is sparce on the Atlas.
Perhaps there is information that could be expand it and shed more like but I'm confident (perhaps illogically so) that the Atlas V series may have substantial differences but the engineering is very close.

The Atlas V is completely new. It doesn't even look like an Atlas. The only thing it has in common with earlier Atlas's is the RD-180 engine.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top