I did a search for this topic, in case it had come up before, but couldn't find one, so here goes.
We know that a starship can drop out of warp to sublight speed. But how does it slow down from relativistic speeds?
We know that the impulse engines can get up 3/4 impulse - which is relativistic - but what mechanism slows it down? The RCS? A 'space-brake'? Tecnincally, it should swing around 180� and slow itself with the impulse engines.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The impulse engines seem to have a reverse setting.
-Star Trek: Generations "ALL ENGINES FULL REVERSE!!" *wets pants*
-Any episode of TNG where we see the Enterprise flying backwards, such as when they back away from the mysterioProbe in the "Barclay Gets Wicked Smart" episode before spinning around and going to warp.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
Ok, I know its all down to 'techno-babble', but at least they could try to make it plausible.
The "ALL ENGINES FULL REVERSE!!" comment makes sense, and yet is doesn't in the context of what we see on screen and even the 'physics' of Star Trek.
The 'backing away'I can live with, it could be the result of the RCS, but stopping from relativistic velocities!? No way.
The impulse propulsion system is just an incredibly powerful variation on rocket principles, but the ship is still subject to the Laws of Conservation of Energy - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It just seems strange that nobody worries too much about achieving 'warp' speeds, and discussing endlessly how warp can be achieved but seems totally unconcerned as to how they do something as simple as stop a ship moving.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Propellers can stop and rotate the other way to go reverse but impulse engines are monodirectional (sick). Maybe what happens during Impulse slowdown is that the impulse engines simply shut off (or lower their output if complete stop isn't the goal) and then the inertial dampeners or the deflector dish or whatever might be built into the saucer rim can project a forward-facing counter flow.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
Nim', Hi.
I understand your example of the propellers, and as you point out the impulse engines only work one way.
The only energy sources that project forward are the main deflector, the sensors, the Bussard Ramscoop's and the RCS. None of which are capable of affecting the ship in any appreciable way at any velocity other than a slow walk.
The RCS seems to contribute, along with the vectored thrust of the impulse engines in changing direction, but is not powerful enough to get the ship to slow from 3/4 light speed to a dead stop.
I can think of at least two ways that you could slow a starship from relativistic speeds, using 'Trek physics', but there has never been any explanation on the TV shows or films, as to how it happens. Just seems like a glaring oversight to me, given how much the rest of Trek is picked apart.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I've heard all sorts of crazy theories as to how they slow down, from RCS combined with lowering the ship's inertial mass, to the warp engines acting as a kind of anchor. Unfortunately, this is one area (like the length of the Defiant!) that nobody seems to agree on.
B.J.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
Would it be worth asking the ship designers how they got it to stop?
Not smiling.........Doing a beaver inpression Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Except that in "The Nth Degree", they ordered the ship into reverse at impulse. The timing of the orders and the effects showed that they were flying backwards at half impulse, and it was only when the ship turned around to fly forwards that they went to full impulse.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If I remember correctly, one of the tech manuals says there are forcefields that redirect the impulse thrust in order to change them from forward to reverse.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
My understanding is that when at warp speed, the ship is in a subspace pocket, so to speak, and when the ship comes out of warp, whatever speed it happened to be going prior to engaging the warp field would be the speed the ship will be traveling at. So if its doing 2500 mph thru some school zone when it warps, when it drops out it will still be doing 2500 mph. Perhaps the impulse engines have some sort of thrust reversers like some jet engines where a clamshell cover extends and forms a cone that sends the jet blast forward.
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
The helmsman just pops the clutch and shifts the tranny into neutral
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
"The helmsman just pops the clutch and shifts the tranny into neutral"
...
Posted by Bones McCoy (Member # 1480) on :
My impression of warp was that the warp engines envelop the ship in a subspace field which allows it to 'warp' and therefore travel faster than light. So in order to stop the ship at warp, wouldn't they just dissipate the subspace field and drop back into 'normal' space, from subspace?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
That probably is how the slowing down is done at warp, yes.
At impulse speeds, it's canonically confirmed in dialogue and visuals that impulse engines CAN work in reverse; no two ways around that. HOW they do it is never canonically specified, though. Thrust-reversing forcefields on a super-duper rocket are one possibility, suggested by the TNG tech manual. Use of non-Newtonian propulsion in the first place is another possibility, and in some ways more "realistic" than what the TNG TM suggests (after all, we have extremely poor visual correlation between the ship's state of movement and the impulse nozzles' state of illumination - and several starships have their impulse engines placed so that they cannot even produce FORWARD thrust, let alone reverse, by ejecting matter from their nozzles!).
In addition to reversed impulse engines, it is of course possible that the ship has additional means of slowing down. Some sort of automatically deploying "subspace anchor" or "subspace drag chute" may be an integral part of the machinery or working principles of an impulse engine. Also, collapsing of the mass-reducing fields may be used for slowing down the ship. Such systems would bring the ship to a halt when most or all power fails; reversed impulse thrust would be used for further "stopping power" when in a great hurry.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I seem to recall a rather large argument on this topic, what with member-made diagrams and everything. IIRC, the discussion actually got quite heated, pardon the pun, though hell if I could find it again.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I think I started such a topic (or made considerable contributions) at least two or three years ago.
The discussion was essentially about the question whether a starship could actually reverse the thrust of the impulse engines to stop. Momentum conservation would essentially forbid that because with thrust to the aft you couldn't move the ship to aft. Or could you, with some sort of pipe that's facing forward?
Anyway, what Timo just posted seemed to be generally agreed on.
In any case the much more realistic stop would be just turning the ship 180� in the flight plane using the thrusters and then fire the impulse engines (now facing forward) to stop. But we've never seen anything like that.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Brakes. Really big brakes.
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
I always figured that starships used the inirtial dampeners in stopping by (by the miracle of trechnology) sapping away much of the ship's inirtia. Perhaps I'm confusing inirtia and momentum (but I suspect whoever came up with "inirtial dampeners" did also).
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
If I had to guess, I'd say that momentum only works with an object thats moving. Inertia exists even if the object is standing still. I think. But I'm almost certainly mistaken.
The inertial dampeners create a counter force to the ship's accelleration to keep the crew from becoming wall stains when the ship speeds up or slows down. They don't have anything to do with the speed of the ship.
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
Ah, I know that is how the inirtial dampers are usually described and that they have never, in any canon or fanon source, been implied to affect the movement of the ship. What interests me is that they are a devices that able to exert a "counter force" (your words) against moving objects. Granted, we are talking about treknology and thus real physics is really of use to us by analogy. I was just suggesting that if starships carried, as standard equipment, devices that can exert counter forces on moving objects, or cancel/dampen their inirtia, that these same devices might be used to slow or stop the ship itself.
Since we don't know how inirtial dampeners work, let me throw out a suggestion. Perhaps they are able to use some sort of treknology to transfer kinetic energy of an object to another oject or substance. Maybe they can convert this kinetic energy into another form of energy. In this way the inirtial dampeners might be able to slow objects by bleeding off their kinetic energy in another form, say heat, either radiated from the spacecraft or tranfered to a working fliud carried aboard ship. Anyway, its just a suggestion. I hope it makes sense.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Relativity. A ship stops by assuming it's stationary and the rest of the universe is moving around it.
Posted by God of your Universe (Member # 1600) on :
I like the theory about dropping the subspace field. In my views, it kinda relates to real life. Apparently, Einstein said that it was physically impossible to go at the speed of light, so perhaps the subspace field acts as an area in which the laws (or law) of physics don't apply within. Then it would allow the ship to go FTL. So when you cut that field, its again impossible to go FTL, so yeah. But I dunno if THAT will stop the ship, just my 2 cents
-newbiefuck
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
That's how I figured the ship stopped from warp, and since the impulse engines use subspace coils, it would seem that would be the solution. The problem when it comes to impulse engines and stopping at sub-light speeds is (if we use the TNG tech manual as a source, p. 75) that subspace coils were first integreted in the impulse engines of Starfleet ships with the introduction of the Ambassador-class.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Also, collapsing of the mass-reducing fields may be used for slowing down the ship. Such systems would bring the ship to a halt when most or all power fails; reversed impulse thrust would be used for further "stopping power" when in a great hurry.
I think you've just explained the otherwise silly notion of starships losing power and suddenly coming to a complete (relative) stop, without any apparent change in momentum (which in zero-gravity should keep the ship moving at speed indefinitely). But if the mass-reducing subspace-based fields (as suggested in "Deja Q" and "Emissary", among others) were to fail, that would definitely bring the ship to a halt faster (I guess, though I'm not a physicist and am probably way off base). However, the question remains, why would the mass-reducing fields be independent of the inertial dampers, which are apparenly almost always online?
Posted by Bones McCoy (Member # 1480) on :
I'm gonna agree with Mighty Bloger Snay here: hasn't anyone noticed the huge lever on the bridge? It's marked: 'Make It So' and 'Stop Making'
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I'm guessing that air-brakes wouldn't be very effective.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
My personal beleif is that the Inertial Dampening Field (IDF) is extended forward, beyond the ships interior, and the forward momentum of the ship is absorbed and then dissipated into subspace.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
Banking on my experiences, I'm going to throw my towel in with Timo. The sub-space field generators serve to reduce the effective mass of the ship so the impulse engines can move it. If you throttle down the SSF you can control how fast the ship decelerates.
The IDF is seperate from the SSF, it's job is to keep the ship from turning everything inside the ship to strawberry jelly (or a grape smoothie if you're a Klingon!)
The ship can be dropped from warp merely by shutting off the warp feild generators but to stop it in real space means the use of the SSF.
Christopher
Christopher
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
I'd be perfectly will to accept Timo's suggestion if it weren't for the "fact" that the subspace field generators were not components of impulse engines until the Ambassador class (TNG Tech Manual, p. 75). How did ships stop before then? Or is there another way that ships stop from sublight speeds?
Also, dropping the SSF generators could not stop the ship entirely, it could only slow it down proportionally to the change in apparent mass. The ship would still need a way to loose whatever kinetic energy it has. The RCS couldn't do this because it would need to be at least equal to the force exerted by the impulse engines to get the ship moving in the first place.
*Since I am new to these boards and I seem to a have a slightly dissenting opinion I think it would be a good idea if I made a little disclaimer. Even though I may not agree others' ideas, I really do enjoy discussing and debating these sorts of topics (that's why I'm here). I just don't want these to become heated debates in any way. Since I'm new and unknown, I just wanted to make that clear before any misunderstandings took place.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: I'd be perfectly will to accept Timo's suggestion if it weren't for the "fact" that the subspace field generators were not components of impulse engines until the Ambassador class (TNG Tech Manual, p. 75). How did ships stop before then? Or is there another way that ships stop from sublight speeds?
Also, dropping the SSF generators could not stop the ship entirely, it could only slow it down proportionally to the change in apparent mass. The ship would still need a way to loose whatever kinetic energy it has. The RCS couldn't do this because it would need to be at least equal to the force exerted by the impulse engines to get the ship moving in the first place.
I'm new here too, a transfer from that "other" Trek forum. I would preface my reply by saying that I'm not a big fan of some aspects of the ST:TNG Tech manual. Notably the idea that it is milepost 1 on the highway of Trek History and what ever came before it is non-canon or irrelevant. I know the reasons for it, I still disagree with them.
I'd suggest that at the time of TOS, it's possible that the SSF still wasn't an intergral part of the impulse drive and was a seperate system of it's own. As far as slowing the ship further, I still think some sort of RCS thruster would be suitable.
Christopher
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
An RCS would not be sufficient. Imagine this scenario: You turn on a SSF to lower the effecive mass of the ship. Then you turn on your impulse engines (essentially a fusion rocket) and your ship moves very fast. Fine. Then you want to stop so you turn off the SSF, your ship is effectively more massive, so it slows down. Good. Problem is, even though you are travelling slower, since the ship is now more massive (effectively) the ship still has the SAME momentum, no change there... That means that you still need an equal force to stop the ship as it took to get it moving, this is from the impulse engines. The RCS will not be able to produce nearly the same thrust as the impulse engines and would not stop the ship (unless you had a very long burn).
That's why I still think something like the IDF still needs to be involved somehow. You need a device that actually reduces the kinetic energy of the ship without producing an equal but opposite thrust.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: An RCS would not be sufficient. Imagine this scenario: That's why I still think something like the IDF still needs to be involved somehow. You need a device that actually reduces the kinetic energy of the ship without producing an equal but opposite thrust.
What about using the sheilds to vector the thrust? I recall reading about that somewhere besides the ST:TNG tech manual.
Christopher
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
It's a possibility, but one I'm not particularly fond of for one main reason: That's the sort of thing that should be corroborated by on-screen evidence; my scheme is essentially "invisible" and thus would fit better with on-screen evidence.
There's also a more general problem I have with the switching-off-the-SSF-to-slow-down scheme. In order to slow the ship down from relativistic speeds to something that could in any way be considered "slow" would require an effective change in mass of many orders of magnitude. I had always been under the impression that the SSF only reduced the ship's effective mass by less than 50% and not more than 90% (figures I just pulled out of my... well, never mind). I figured it just made the ship a bit less massive, not light as a feather.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: It's a possibility, but one I'm not particular fond of for one main reason: That's the sort of thing that should be corroborated by on-screen evidence; my scheme is essentially "invisible" and thus would fit better with on-screen evidence.
I agree that Occam's razor holds, I just lack really good data on those systems.
I'm looking at McMaster's bridge blueprints and several systems are presented for the helmsman but no specifics. There are controls for stop, three rates forward and three reverse. There's also an indication that Manuevering is a seperate system as are Propulsion, Communications, Sensors, Weapons, and Computer systems.
Thanks!
Christopher
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: It's a possibility, but one I'm not particularly fond of for one main reason: That's the sort of thing that should be corroborated by on-screen evidence; my scheme is essentially "invisible" and thus would fit better with on-screen evidence.
I like the forcefield idea since it explains the wierd positioning of impulse engines on some ships. Note that in the various brigs, air does not show up on the forcefields, so perhaps thrust wouldn't either. Of course, the forcefields would need to be rather powerful to contain the thrust, but combined with the subspace field, it would presumably be managable.
quote:: There's also a more general problem I have with the switching-off-the-SSF-to-slow-down scheme. In order to slow the ship down from relativistic speeds to something that could in any way be considered "slow" would require an effective change in mass of many orders of magnitude. I had always been under the impression that the SSF only reduced the ship's effective mass by less than 50% and not more than 90% (figures I just pulled out of my... well, never mind). I figured it just made the ship a bit less massive, not light as a feather.
On the first DS9 episode the station moved quite a bit with weak thrusters. The time without the subspace field would be two months, but with the field, the movement was fairly quick (under a day, but I don't remember exactly). This means that the subspace field reduced the mass by at least two orders of magnitude, and probably quite a bit more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: You turn on a SSF to lower the effecive mass of the ship. Then you turn on your impulse engines (essentially a fusion rocket) and your ship moves very fast. Fine. Then you want to stop so you turn off the SSF, your ship is effectively more massive, so it slows down. Good. Problem is, even though you are travelling slower, since the ship is now more massive (effectively) the ship still has the SAME momentum, no change there...
Why would a ship slow down if its more massive?
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
Ok, so I finally pulled out a physics book for the technical reason.
When the SSF of a ship is turned off, the ship maintains the same kinetic energy but its effective mass is increased. Using the above equation, for this to be true, the velocity of the object must be reduced in order for the now more massive object to have the same kinetic energy. If the velocity of the object did not decrease, then it would gain kinetic energy from an undefined source and thus violate the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed, in this case created).
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
The more I think I about it the more I like the IDF scheme. What we need to stop the ship (without turning the ship around a firing the impulse engines the other way) is some device that can bleed te kinetic energy (KE) of the ship of into another form. The most likely interface would be some treknological field projected over the entire ship, like the IDF. Thinking of inirtia as an object's resistance to a change in its motion unless acted upon by a force proprtional to the change in motion and the objects mass, in bleeding off the ship's KE we really are dampening the ships inirtia, at least in effect. We would be changing its motion (slowing it down) without exerting a force, a motion that would otherwise be maintained by its inirtia. IDF really seems to fit the bill.
Also, if it were the case that the kinetic energy could be transfered to a working fliud on board the ship, perhaps in the form of heat (and maybe converted and pumped into the EPS system), this scheme would have significant advantages over simply turning the ship around and firing the engines. Why? Because you would actually be recovering a good deal of the energy that you expended getting the ship going. It's like modern electric hybrid cars that use a generator attached to the wheels to recharge the batteries of the car when breaking, energy which initially came from those same batteries. Thus this scheme would be the prefered method of slowing and stopping the ship rather then expending more energy (that would be lost) in firing the engines again.
Finally, if the IDF was applied asymetricly across the ship, it might explain why ships in Star Trek turn more like cars or airplanes rather than how one would expect them to behave in frictionless space. (And this method would, again, conserve energy).
Thoughts?
Posted by Joshua Bell (Member # 327) on :
If you're trying to make it realistic (i.e. considering things like conservation of energy, momentum, etc) just remember that since motion is relative, any trick you can use to "stop" can also be used to "start".
If you have a Plot Device that can slow a ship from 0.5c to 0c in time T using energy E, then simply by changing your reference frame (putting the camera somewhere else, as it were) you can use the same device to accelerate from 0c to 0.5c in time T with energy E.
Most Star Trek physics can only be salvaged by appealing to a privileged reference frame - this is probably another one of those cases where you just have to assume coming to rest with a special frame takes far less energy than accelerating relative to the special reference frame. Once you've established that, any sort of magical device or field can work.
Interestingly, this is the opposite assertion of the "subspace anchor" theory in dominance before the TNG:TM came out. At that time, the concern was how ships slowed from warp speed, and the idea was that the ship needed some active mechanism to overcome "warp inertia". Now it is generally assumed that a ship must expend constant energy to stay in warp, otherwise it will revert to relativistic speeds.
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
True. Star Trek, and most people's intuitions for that matter, generally apeal to an "objective" reference frame which doesn't really exist. I think that that object reference frame is itself a "Plot Device," as you call it. If you want, you could call the subspace field this this objective reference frame. In many way the subspace field has always been analogous to the theorized (and disproven) "ether." Star Trek basically renamed it and started assigning all kinds of magical properties to it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister: You turn on a SSF to lower the effecive mass of the ship. Then you turn on your impulse engines (essentially a fusion rocket) and your ship moves very fast. Fine. Then you want to stop so you turn off the SSF, your ship is effectively more massive, so it slows down. Good. Problem is, even though you are travelling slower, since the ship is now more massive (effectively) the ship still has the SAME momentum, no change there...
Why would a ship slow down if its more massive?
It would'nt, but the lower mass would allow RCS to slow the ship.
Personally, I think the Impulse Engines affect spacetime in whatever direction their field is tuned to -regardless of which direction the glowy vent is pointing. It's NOT a rocket providing conventional thrust- if it were, landing shuttles would be nailed by it's wake on almost every class of starship.
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
Ah, but they are essentially rockets, with vectored thrust to boot. Landing shuttles would only be harmed if the impulse emgines were actually in the middle of a burn.
And turning off the SSF and increasing the effective mass of the ship would indeed slow a ship down. Otherwise, the ship would violate the first law of thermodynamics. See my post about five posts up using the equation for kinetic energy It just wouldn't be able to bring it to a stop. My post at the top of the page explains why the RCS would not be able to stop the ship.
And I don't mean to harp on it, but the impulse engines didn't have SSF generators until teh Ambassador class.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
When I originally posted this topic, I didn't know if there was an 'official' method for stopping a starship. Since I have been talking to Ed Whitefire for the interview, I have found out that there was, but you will have to wait for the interview.
That said, I think that there have been a number of good theories put forward.
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
Excellent. I look forward to it. Mind you, there are varrying degrees of "official" in Star Trek fanon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Official" is whatever I say an any given moment.
...and no, the Impulse engines are not rockets: we see them glowing even when the ship is at full stop and not all ships display any impulse vent (The Nebula, Hediki, many freighters and shuttles, all Romulan ships)
If they were "rockets" or directed thrust, why are some impulse systems blue?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(Except they're obviously assumed to be rockets by everybody.)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Even Spock, come to think of it, so there!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Why is the old (false) myth about the Nebula not having impulse vents still being repeated?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Because a search for ("faces aft" AND "glows") returns no matches?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
Actually, a some people have given the correct answer - at least as far as the designers of the E-D have said. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Because a search for ("faces aft" AND "glows") returns no matches?
Nevertheless, there are impulse nozzles on the model, despite the fact that the VFX people never bothered to light them.
I refer to the Nebula that actually makes sense (design-wise): the USS Phionex.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And what, I wonder, is a "Phionex"?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Oo, goody. First day back on in a long time, and I find I thread I can play in!
Good points by all, but let me try to sum up everything I've been able to distill out of the glut of speculation over the last forty (!) years with the dreaded bullet points...
�The big engines in the stand-off nacelles generate a hideously strong field that warps space and time around the ship, thus allowing Our Heroes to cover great distances in reasonable amounts of time. �The smaller engines built into the back of the saucer move the ship at slower than light speeds. We're staying away from trite clich�s like rockets, so the vents are always dark because they are, indeed, just vents. These engines propel the ship through some other motive force.
That was TOS. Now, running everything else into the juicer, we end up with this cocktail...
�The warp engines, while active (by this, I mean the warp drive is not offline), are constantly producing a low-level subspace field around the ship that lowers its apparant inertial mass and helps keep the sublight propulsion systems small while still being able to propel the ship effectively and efficiently.
�The impulse drive uses driver coils that create gravimetric ripples that the ship rides like a surfer staying ahead of the crest of a wave. When the coils are cycling fore-to-aft, the ripples propel the ship forward. When the coils fire in the opposite sequence, the ship is slowed or travels in reverse. Waste plasma from the impulse reactors is directed out through aft-facing vents, this being appropriate to the ship's normal direction of travel.
�By the early 24th century, ships were getting massive enough that more powerful subspace fields were needed to keep vessel mass low enough to be maneuverable, and impulse engines small enough to be practical. Running the warp engines at a "higher idle" was impractical and inefficient, so subspace field coils were added to the driver coil assembly in the impulse engines, to be powered by the impulse reactors.
�Sheilding systems on a separate control loop from the main shields allow windows to be opened for the waste plasma to escape (otherwise the ship would cook itself in a protracted battle). These same shielding systems are automatically reconfigured when reverse thrust is ordered to redirect those same exhaust gases around and over the vessel superstructure forward of the drive assembly, and thus keeping the ship from backing into it's own exhaust.
�When an emergency stop is ordered or full reverse sublight thrust is needed, all these systems operate in conjunction with the maneuvering thrusters to attain the desired result, but with the vented gases imparting only a negligable effect to the vessel's momentum.
It is one of the three big thinking traps about Trek spaceflight that are so easy to get caught in.
1) Warp drive is non-Newtonian apparant motion brought on by the warping of space and time around the vessel.
2) Impulse engines are not rockets.
3) There is no "up" in space.
Have at.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And what, I wonder, is a "Phionex"?
JEAN!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Sounds more like a new pharmaceutical brand name to me...
--Jonah
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Oo, goody. First day back on in a long time, and I find I thread I can play in!
Have at. --Jonah
Works for me. It handles the TOS and newer systems nicely and accounts for any stray YATIs that might appear in the dialogue.
Christopher
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
hukd on phionex wurkd 4 me
Posted by Capt_Frank_Hollister (Member # 1639) on :
I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but for those that consider the TNG Technical Manual a reliable source:
From pg. 77, para. 4: "The final stage is the vectored exhaust direct (VED). The VED consists of a series of movable vanes and channels designed to expel exhaust products in a controlled manner. The VED is capable of steerable propulsive and nonpropulsive modes (simple venting)."
Clearly the impulse engines function similarly to rockets by expelling hot gas in a propulsive manner to produce thrust . The term thrust itself is applied on figure 6.1.4 on the same page.
Also, pg. 75, para. 3: "Experimental results with exhaust products temporarily accelerated beyond lightspeed yielded disappointing results, due to the lack of returnforce coupling to the engine frame ."
This passage also implies that the impulse engines function as rockets and produce their propulsive effect primarily by producing thrust.
Also the mass reducing SSF is produced by the impulse engines, not the warp engines in any state of low idle. Pg. 77, para. 3: "The third stage of the engine is the driver coil assembly... [which] creates the necessary combined field effect that (1) reduces the apparent mass of the spacecraft at its inner surface, and (2) fascilitates [not causes ] the slippage of the continuum past the spacecraft at its outer surface."
Another interesting quote, pg. 79 para 5: "The major design tradeoff... is evident when one considers that efficient matter/antimatter power systems that can also provide rocket thrust cannot be reduced to IPS dimensions."
This statement implies that the IPS does produce "rocket thrust."
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Why can't they use shaped force-fields behind the engines, to redirect the thrust forwards...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And what, I wonder, is a "Phionex"?
(sigh.) You were supposed to reply by correcting the spelling. Then I'd post "JEAN!!!" and we cold all free-associate various fictional characters who's names are always being yelled out in their respective shows....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But I didn't. Yet you did. And we didn't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, I tried to salvage it but to no avail...
INcidently, I agree with Peregrinus explanation of how the Impulse drive works.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)