posted
I've always wondered, is there some sort of Technobabble explanation as to how they actually slow down and stop during warp drive? Especially on a dime like they usually do.
-------------------- "Its coming on. I just saw the wall move..."
Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
posted
The generally-accepted concept of warp drive is that the ship itself isn't moving, per se, but rather the engines are moving the space around the ship. Therefore, the propulsion is entirely non-Newtonian and not subject to inertia as we know it.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Really? I never accepted that. I figured the ship WAS moving & that dissipation of the warp field leads to loss of mass reduction effect, so a sort of "subspace friction" stops the ship. That would explain the stuttery effect we see from Jake & Nog's viewpoint in "The Jem'Hadar".
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I've always thought of the warp field being analogous to the air cushion of a hovercraft. It kind of renders the ship " spatialy weightless", and then it takes minimal engine power to move the ship through warp. Going with that, I've always thought that the more powerfull the warp field is, the less the ship "weighs", and the faster warp speed the ship can travel at while using the same amount of propulsion energy ( with the propulsion system at the same "RPM", as it would at warp 1, compared to warp 5). At the same time, the warp field acts as a sort of barrier to inertia to what ever is inside of it. When a ship drops from warp, the warp field dissapates, and like Shik's theory, since the warp feield is gone spatial friction takes over and the ship slows.
Basicaly what my theory boils down to is that during warp travel, the ship is traveling at full impulse, and the warp field is like "lube" that allows it to go faster through space.
Although, the "official" theory, does make a bit more sense.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Haha, you said lube!
As for being able to stop on a dime. Whatever super advanced computers they have running those things are probably fully capable of plotting exactly where a ship is going to end up upon leaving warp.
Not a really technobabbly kind of answer so you can throw in an isolinear-whatsamajiggit somewhere if you want.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
I always thought subspace was some sort of alternate space where the rules of physics did not apply or where altered to the extent that you could have massive vessels traveling at high speeds without any sort of consequence. Presumably there would something to "prepare" the ship for exiting warp which would slow it down to normal impulse speeds.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
"Subspace," in current usage, refers to a subset of a larger space (an abstract, mathematical space - or, used loosely, our real universe). So it might be a generic term for some kind of quantum domain, or it might be that they wanted to create a word that meant the "opposite" of hyperspace in order to sound new and chic, or maybe it was a random science-y sounding word Gene or some writer liked.
In any case I always thought subspace in-universe was something more complicated than our current brains can comprehend, since it seems responsible for, well, just about anything - and it's referred to almost as a physical place (like in Schisms) or as a bandwidth of EM radiation (a la "subspace radio" or "subspace pulse" or "subspace frequency") or just a catch-all explanation for anything outside of 'normal' physics.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Technically, this is a technology question. So off it goes.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Anyway, if you get rid of the the warp field while the ship was going FTL, wouldn't some negative thing happen to the ship since FTL speeds are "technically" impossible?
-------------------- "Its coming on. I just saw the wall move..."
Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I'd think doing something physically impossible would be, well, impossible - in other words, I don't think anything crazy would happen like time travel or turning into a sofa or anything, I think they'd just drop down to whatever speed they were at when they entered warp and that would be that. There isn't any momentum to shed, remember, because warp drive is non-Newtonian.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
We have seen several instances of ships in warp being attacked. If a ship in warp gets destroyed by a pursuing ship, shouldn't the pursuer get smashed by the ship in front, which loses warp stability and falls behind in like a femtosecond?
Otherwise, if the whole "non-Newtonian" argument is as foolproof and sturdy as people seem to think, then a ship whose warp stability gets compromised should just disappear in a blink, in the view of nearby warp travellers.
Inertia does seem to work in warp, though, judging by the Borg cube's kamikaze-ramming of that species 8472 ship that pursued Voyager.
[ September 18, 2008, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Don't clutter the plots up with logic.
Seriously, though, um...nav deflector maybe? It's a stretch, I know, to think it could be powerful enough to deflect all that but not, say, a photon torpedo. But it's all I can think of.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps the warp distortion requires a small amount of time to fully disapate, before relativisitc physics kick in.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
