Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Full Reverse!

This is topic Full Reverse! in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/407.html

Posted by Black Knight (Member # 134) on :

I can't understand how starships do this. The only ship that I can recall with vents facing forward is the Intrepid Class. I don't see how any class can go backwards on impulse power. And there don't seem to be any backwards or forward facing RCS Thrusters either on most classes.

Can we come up with any explanation for this, or does everybody know something that I don't.

------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Well, RCS thrusters are designed to move the ship in any direction. But they don't put out enough thrust.

It is assumed by some that forcefields are used to route the thrust from the impulse engines forward.

------------------
"Recombination, then Viacom; Safeway."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Well, a theory could be that if done at warp - the 'warp' bubble could be stressed in the forward direction creating a relativistic compression in the forward direction, thus creating a warp effect in the reverse direction. Although I'm sure the warpfield geometry - especially on Federation starships - with primary and secondary hulls as they are would only allow small displacements since warp field integrity would fail at an exponential rate.

Thus it is theorised that ships of the Klingon empire have no NEED for a reverse! - thus their ship evolution has provided a rear heavy configuration - effectively nullifying any chance of a reverse compression/expansion warp field.

Cardassian design on the other hand has lent itself to being the antithesis of Klingon design - where maneuvrabily in either direction is available. Without wanting to be stereotypical, this belies an inherent nature underlying Cardassian nature.

Also the presence of a concentration of pulse-wave disruptor of equal magnitude on both fore and aft planes, has led to the Cardassian 'flee' theory. Klingon disruptors on the other-hand have a long held tradition of being most powerful in the forward direction. This also melds with the Klingon nature - of charging head-long into battle with weapons at full.

(note: this tactic was to both the UFP and KE's advantage in the recent Operation: Return.)

-*end LCARS file 58214-70641b: Reverse tactics in relation to Alpha Quadrant starship designs.*-

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Is it just me or does the original Enterprise have no RCS thrusters (before refit)?

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Probably not, but it wasn't all that manoevrable, too, when you think about it, so that makes sense.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :

I would probably have to go with the force fields until something more plausable comes along.

------------------
If you need it I can build it. Just as long as there is a box of junk for me to use.

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

I have a thought. What if the navigational deflector array (nda) is used? I'm not an expert on starships, but what if the nda sends a pulse forward and force fields are used so that the pulse hits it and causes the ship to go in reverse. Since the force field doesn't move, it causes the ship to go backwards. Of course physics isn't my strong point either so I hope you kind of understand what I'm talking about.

------------------
"Let's make sure that history never forgets the name...Enterprise."
Federation Starship Datalink - Yet another site based on the popularity of starships.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

You CAN'T use the forcefields to move... it'd be like having a fan on a sail boat and aiming it at the sails!

------------------
"All is full of love, all around you" - Bj�rk

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

In the scheme I mentioned, the forcefields don't move the ship. They merely redirect the impulse thrust.

------------------
"Recombination, then Viacom; Safeway."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Its still not directly pushing against an external body. (The first one about the shields)

------------------
"All is full of love, all around you" - Bj�rk

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Um...I'm lost.

What's supposed to be pushing against something? The impulse engines work via Newton. Equal and opposite reactions, etc. You don't need anything to push against. The forcefields would simply act as vents to get the engines pointing in directions they could not otherwise.

------------------
"Recombination, then Viacom; Safeway."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

*abuses his powers as moderator to erase any evidence that his grasp on the concept of inertia is anything but perfect*

------------------
"Maybe they're trying to breed them..."
-guy in my math class, suggesting a reason for there being two overhead projectors in the classroom

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Hey, you deleted a whole bunch of stuff! For the record, TSN forgot about physics and such. So there!

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Yes, I routinely run any car with Canadian plates off the road. It makes it easier to yank them out, blind them, and put them to work in my underground salt mine." - Simon Sizer

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

I have a question... Would the forcefields be sufficient to redirect the thrust or wouldn't that be a waste of efficent energy?

*notices above sig and plans to avoid the west coast U.S. for a while*

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited September 19, 1999).]

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Theoretically, you could move the ship backward by creating a non-static forcefield (i.e. a wave) with the navigational deflector. The reflection on the surface should result in a propulsive effect. I'm currently thinking if one can even use a satellite uplink dish for propulsion

BTW, I remember Kirk issues the order "take us out, one quarter impulse" in two movies. Apart from 1/4 impulse being a bit too fast for a spacedock, the ship is shown moving backward.

------------------
*Obscure humorous pretentious Gaelic-Latin signature*
Ex Asterige Scientia

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, the ship does have to accelerate. I doubt it was going the full 1/4th impulse from the start.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I think that the original Enterprise having no RTS can be put in the same catagory as the original Ent not having a photorp laucnher. Or phaser batteries. The catagory of "they were there, we just couldn'tsee them due to the poor film quality".

1/4 impluse is the faster we've ever seen anyone reversing I think. Apart from ST III, there's the Nth degree, where the Enterprise-D was being chased by that probe thingy. Picard orders 1/4 impulse reverse, the ship flies backwards. The probe gains, so Picard orders full impulse, and the ship swings around.

Now that I think of it, if the Galaxy class seperated, it wouldn't be able reach full impulse would it? And what about the Ent-B? If that seperates, the engineering section can fly off at warp, but can't make orbit, while the saucer section could probably overtake the Flash.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."

-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

Both parts of the Galaxy have their own impulse engines. There is no reason why they both couldn't travel at full impulse.

The Ent-B engineering is probably not designed to function as a separate unit. The saucer would simply leave the rest of the ship behind (so it can happily core breach, most likely).

The Ent-D is the only Enterprise designed to operate as two autonomous parts.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

[This message has been edited by Dax (edited September 25, 1999).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Besides, doesn't the E-B have it's warp core in the saucer, neck, and sec. hull? That'd make both parts rather warpless in the case of a separation...

------------------
"I've colorized the moon."
-Ted Turner, The Family Guy

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

According to the tech-manual, the Ent-D only used the main impulse engines at low speeds, but at full impulse, the main and saucer engines are both used...

Maybe there were situations of the Excelsior-class warp-cores breeching, the saucer seperating, but not getting clear of the blast in time? They added the extra engines for a quicker acceleration curve, and incase Troi is driving.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."

-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park