Starfleet Jedi

Taken from Zinc on SB.com:

Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual indicates that the impulse engines are nuclear fusion engines whereas the plasma from the fusion reactor powers a massive magnetic coil to propel the ship. It is a form of magnetohydrodynamic or magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. This is used in conjunction with the ship's warp drive's alteration of the ships relativistic mass, to achieve mid-to-high sub-light speeds. Thrusters, on the other hand, are closer to the designs of a high-efficiency reactant propellant (i.e. a sophisticated rocket engine) and are usually used for high-precision maneuvers. Ion propulsion drives are explicitly detailed to be used in Star Trek by Dominion and Iconian Starships and facilities.
Since a ship traveling at impulse velocities (slower than, but approaching, the speed of light) is still traveling in the normal space-time continuum, concerns of time dilation apply, so high relativistic speeds are avoided unless absolutely necessary; impulse power is therefore customarily limited to a maximum of ¼ lightspeed. (Warp travel, on the other hand, does not involve time dilation effects.)

So if a starship typically limits itself to .25c for DT, then could this mean that it can be used as an advantage? Ie, we know that ST ships can move at the speed of light with impulse drives, sometimes even faster. However, if this is true and DT still applies with impulse, might this be a reason for using impulse instead of warp drives in battle in modern Trek? For the purpose of greater reaction times or something?

While I totally support the idea that MLT is used at impulse speeds, how is that remotely possible to even approach c at impulse, then get to c and even above? It could only be possible if some amount of warp was applied, sufficiently that you actually be moving at warp?

Mr. Oragahn wrote:While I totally support the idea that MLT is used at impulse speeds, how is that remotely possible to even approach c at impulse, then get to c and even above? It could only be possible if some amount of warp was applied, sufficiently that you actually be moving at warp?

From what i recal they create a weak subspace/warp field around the ship but use the impulse engines for the thrust rather than the warp engines.

Simular to how o'brien moved DS9 but obviously we are talking about a much lighter ship designed to move at warp speeds in the first place and naturally create such subspace/warp fields as well as the thrust being from high powered impulse engines rather than the limited few thrusters DS9 had.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:While I totally support the idea that MLT is used at impulse speeds, how is that remotely possible to even approach c at impulse, then get to c and even above? It could only be possible if some amount of warp was applied, sufficiently that you actually be moving at warp?

That would be where Cochrane's theory came into play; he invented the space-warp engine using space-bending methods which later became the staple for all of Starfleet's tech.
Essentiall there are four types of energy: electromagnetic, strong forces, weak forces and gravitational. We can currently control and convert between the first three of those; but gravity involves bending space (according to Einstein), and we can't do that yet.
Cochrane's theory involved [some speculation here:] the trans-stator, which was a device which transferred the state of energy from the first 3 forms (in this case, "strong" forces and electromagnetic energy from nuclear fusion) to gravitational energy, thus allowing the engine to bend space by converting fusion-energy to gravitons.

This in turn changed the gravitational constant of the universe relative to the ship, allowing it to move faster through warped space faster than light-speed compared to moving through N-space at that rate, while not having the same relativistic effects.
This way, the standard shortening from acceleration via relativity, was reversed, and even expanded, allowing it to move faster than than standard A=F/M variables even if there were no relativistic effects.
Essentially, the ship is moving partially through subspace where distances are shorter, thus making the ship and everything on it appearing longer in comparison; however it carries far less momentum than an object moving anywhere near C, according to this degree of warp (again, warp factor).

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:While I totally support the idea that MLT is used at impulse speeds, how is that remotely possible to even approach c at impulse, then get to c and even above? It could only be possible if some amount of warp was applied, sufficiently that you actually be moving at warp?

From what i recal they create a weak subspace/warp field around the ship but use the impulse engines for the thrust rather than the warp engines.

Simular to how o'brien moved DS9 but obviously we are talking about a much lighter ship designed to move at warp speeds in the first place and naturally create such subspace/warp fields as well as the thrust being from high powered impulse engines rather than the limited few thrusters DS9 had.

The ship doesn't use any A-R thrusters ala rockets, but rather bends space relative to the ship to accelerate it (ala gravity) for initial acceleration (which is why there's no g-forces on the ship from acceleration, since everything is accelerated equally); likewise at the same time, space is "stretched" relative to N-space in order to multiply its speed by that many factors of magnitude (i.e. warp-factor). To stop, the ship is simply decelerates by accelerating in the opposite direction; meanwhile it comes out of warp by simply stopping the warp-field, thus returning its spacial field to normal.

In Warp-driven ships, this is done by converting anti-matter and matter to energy; and it's stopped by simply converting them back.
For fusion-powered ships of course, you can't do that; and so perhaps this is why the Romulan ship was shown running out of fuel --whilethe Eterprise's power regenerated.

KirkSkywalker wrote:In Warp-driven ships, this is done by converting anti-matter and matter to energy; and it's stopped by simply converting them back.
For fusion-powered ships of course, you can't do that; and so perhaps this is why the Romulan ship was shown running out of fuel --whilethe Eterprise's power regenerated.

Warp fields can be generated with fusion power. You'd have to ask JMS, he has a memory for the fusion-powered warp cases.

I meant that you can't restore the fuel when you come out of warp.

You can go FTL with fusion, but it's limited in power and duration.
In contrast, you can combine matter and anti-matter to create a warp-field, and then separate them back to into matter and anti-matter-- but you can't do that with fusion, it's a pure one-way fuel -> energy reaction.

In "Balance of Terror," the Romulan ship is running out of fuel; perhaps they only have anti-matter for their plasma-weapons, not their rengines, and so likely can't maintain a stable M-AM reaction in their technology. Eventually they had to create an artificial black hole for their warp-engines.

KirkSkywalker wrote:I meant that you can't restore the fuel when you come out of warp.

You can go FTL with fusion, but it's limited in power and duration.
In contrast, you can combine matter and anti-matter to create a warp-field, and then separate them back to into matter and anti-matter-- but you can't do that with fusion, it's a pure one-way fuel -> energy reaction.

I must have missed the part where you proved that they can reproduce antimatter out of the energy they produced in the warp core...

In "Balance of Terror," the Romulan ship is running out of fuel; perhaps they only have anti-matter for their plasma-weapons, not their rengines, and so likely can't maintain a stable M-AM reaction in their technology. Eventually they had to create an artificial black hole for their warp-engines.

We know that a limited amount of antimatter means a limited speed and distance at warp. And when it's consumed, it's gone. I don't see where that eternal AM thing comes from. It's pretty original and far fetched, to say the least.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

KirkSkywalker wrote:I meant that you can't restore the fuel when you come out of warp.

You can go FTL with fusion, but it's limited in power and duration.
In contrast, you can combine matter and anti-matter to create a warp-field, and then separate them back to into matter and anti-matter-- but you can't do that with fusion, it's a pure one-way fuel -> energy reaction.

I must have missed the part where you proved that they can reproduce antimatter out of the energy they produced in the warp core...

Then you don't know th efirst thing about Star Trek.
Take a physics class: E=MC^2.

We know that a limited amount of antimatter means a limited speed and distance at warp. And when it's consumed, it's gone. I don't see where that eternal AM thing comes from. It's pretty original and far fetched, to say the least.

Where do you get this? There's never been anything about the Enterprise having a limited range, or needing fuel.

KirkSkywalker wrote:Then you don't know th efirst thing about Star Trek.
Take a physics class: E=MC^2.

That's a bad cop out, KSW. What about you try to explain what I'm "obviously" missing?

We know that a limited amount of antimatter means a limited speed and distance at warp. And when it's consumed, it's gone. I don't see where that eternal AM thing comes from. It's pretty original and far fetched, to say the least.

Where do you get this? There's never been anything about the Enterprise having a limited range, or needing fuel.

As everything consumes energy to move, it's a basic principle that the source of energy of a ship on the move will dwindle with time.
Evidence of the contrary would be most required.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:As everything consumes energy to move, it's a basic principle that the source of energy of a ship on the move will dwindle with time.

That's not true.
You need energy to overcome inertia and change the momentum.
But in vacuum, you do not need energy to move.
If you have reached a certain velocity, you can turn off your engines and the ship will move on.
Inertia prevents a change in its state of motion.
Only if there is a drag (due to atmosphere, a nebula or gravitation) a ship could be slowed down and would need energy to keep its velocity.

Insofar your assertion is not a basic principle.

But for a warp drive, it may be correct. If you turn of your engines, the ship will drop out of warp. It needs, while at warp, energy to create a warp field.

But if that will deplete the energy resources of a ship is questionable. Federation starships usually are equipped with Bussard collectors, which are positioned in the best line of sight to collect interstellar particles, usually hydrogen, especially deuterium, for fuel replenishment.

From the TNG episode » Liaisons « we know, that the Enterprise replenish its antimatter.

• • • WORF:
    The Engineering sections encompass twelve decks of the secondary hull. Deck forty two contains the antimatter storage facility.
    
    • BYLETH:
    What is the mass flow rate of the antimatter replenishment stream to the containment pods?
    
    • WORF:
    Excuse me?
    
    • BYLETH:
    The antimatter replenishment rate. What is it?
    
    • WORF:
    I am not certain of the exact rate.
    
    • BYLETH:
    Perhaps there is someone here who does know the answer. You. Are you smarter than this one?
    
    • LAFORGE:
    Why do you ask?
    
    • BYLETH:
    Never mind.
    I wish to see the Bussard collectors. Take me to them.
    
    • WORF:
    This way.

And Byleth was not from the UfP or Starfleet. Either antimatter replenishment is very common that he could ask this question or he is surprisingly familiar with the uncommon technical equipment of the Enterprise.

WILGA wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:As everything consumes energy to move, it's a basic principle that the source of energy of a ship on the move will dwindle with time.

That's not true.
You need energy to overcome inertia and change the momentum.
But in vacuum, you do not need energy to move.
If you have reached a certain velocity, you can turn off your engines and the ship will move on.
Inertia prevents a change in its state of motion.
Only if there is a drag (due to atmosphere, a nebula or gravitation) a ship could be slowed down and would need energy to keep its velocity.
Insofar your assertion is not a basic principle.

Oh thank you for the lecturing, really. I thought there was air in space and that it explained the fact we could hear explosions.

More seriously, let me explain: with time means that if your trip is x units of time long, no matter what you do, when you'll have to check the bill to see if your ship has consumed energy in order to move, you'll see that it's absolutely true. Without time there's no trip, as simple as that.
You'll obtain a total consumption. It doesn't mean energy can't be all consumed at the very beginning of the trip with a big impulse, and then let your ship drift most of the time, and then spend more energy for deceleration and trajectory corrections at arrival, or constantly accelerate, or apply a series of impulses according to a specific period.
Of course if we speak of a rock expelled like million of years ago and which keeps drifting, aside from minimal influence of gravitational fields, your total energy consumption regarding the duration of the rock's voyage will be very low.

And then, in Star Trek, there's the question of keeping the warp bubble up, and if strains the power core, and that we know it does, especially from the proof I posted in the "gigaton phasers" thread about the Intrepid-class' minmum power threshold in order to prevent the nacelles and warp coils from deactivating.

But for a warp drive, it may be correct. If you turn of your engines, the ship will drop out of warp. It needs, while at warp, energy to create a warp field.

But if that will deplete the energy resources of a ship is questionable. Federation starships usually are equipped with Bussard collectors, which are positioned in the best line of sight to collect interstellar particles, usually hydrogen, especially deuterium, for fuel replenishment.

From the TNG episode » Liaisons « we know, that the Enterprise replenish its antimatter.

• • • WORF:
    The Engineering sections encompass twelve decks of the secondary hull. Deck forty two contains the antimatter storage facility.
    
    • BYLETH:
    What is the mass flow rate of the antimatter replenishment stream to the containment pods?
    
    • WORF:
    Excuse me?
    
    • BYLETH:
    The antimatter replenishment rate. What is it?
    
    • WORF:
    I am not certain of the exact rate.
    
    • BYLETH:
    Perhaps there is someone here who does know the answer. You. Are you smarter than this one?
    
    • LAFORGE:
    Why do you ask?
    
    • BYLETH:
    Never mind.
    I wish to see the Bussard collectors. Take me to them.
    
    • WORF:
    This way.

And Byleth was not from the UfP or Starfleet. Either antimatter replenishment is very common that he could ask this question or he is surprisingly familiar with the uncommon technical equipment of the Enterprise.

Perhaps both LaForge and Word were WTF because that Byleth person was asking for a figure which wasn't really high to begin with, so much that the two folks wouldn't even pay attention to it.
Seriously, how much antimatter can you expect to collect in space? Likely not a lot, otherwise all objects would display noticeable tendencies to glow without being hit by photons, and therefore naturally "erode", from asteroids to moons and even planets.

Anti-matter can be created from energy, according to the equation E=MC^2.
Energy is likewise created by fusion of hydrogen in space, which exists in deep space at a density of about 10 particles per cubic centimeter.

Given a speed of Warp 8, this equates to E+14 protons/sec for every square centimeter of the collection-field-- which could be configured to virtually any size by the main deflector-dish; it's just as easy to divert these particles into a ship's path, as to divert them from it.

These particles are then fused together, and released into space as helium nuclei; meanwhile their energy can be used immediately, or stored as matter and anti-matter, in the ratio of E=MC^2.
Given that it doesn't require any energy to sustain a warp-field once created, other than that released by entropy, then the ship could easily sustain itself via Bussard-collection.

KirkSkywalker wrote:Given that it doesn't require any energy to sustain a warp-field once created, other than that released by entropy, then the ship could easily sustain itself via Bussard-collection.

Where is it stated that sustaining a Warp-Field doesn't require any energy once created?
As soon as the Warp Engines are deactivated, the ship drops out of Warp, so unless you're gong to tell us that running an engine, or even an electronic system doesn't require energy, then sustaining a Warp-Field does require energy.
And we have no idea about the repleneshing capacity of the Bussard Collectors.
IIRC, the TNG Tech Manual stated that they were there to help extend the ship's operation time but that a ship would still need to replenish its AM supplies.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Oh thank you for the lecturing, really. I thought there was air in space and that it explained the fact we could hear explosions.

More seriously, let me explain: with time means that if your trip is x units of time long, no matter what you do, when you'll have to check the bill to see if your ship has consumed energy in order to move, you'll see that it's absolutely true. Without time there's no trip, as simple as that.
You'll obtain a total consumption. It doesn't mean energy can't be all consumed at the very beginning of the trip with a big impulse, and then let your ship drift most of the time, and then spend more energy for deceleration and trajectory corrections at arrival, or constantly accelerate, or apply a series of impulses according to a specific period.
Of course if we speak of a rock expelled like million of years ago and which keeps drifting, aside from minimal influence of gravitational fields, your total energy consumption regarding the duration of the rock's voyage will be very low.

I'm sorry. But I do not understand what you are trying to explain.
Of course, without time, movement is not possible at all.
And for the question, how much energy a ship needs, to accelerate to a certain velocity to travel a certain distance, time is also an important variable.
Less energy means less acceleration means a low velocity means a long travel time.
More energy means higher acceleration means higher velocity means a shorter travel time.
And it is still possible to accelerate to a certain velocity and use the momentum without further energy usage to reach the goal where energy is needed again to decelerate. How much energy is needed depends on the acceleration. If you want to accelerate to a higher velocity, you need more energy.
But that is easy.
Only that I do not understand what you are trying to explain.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:And then, in Star Trek, there's the question of keeping the warp bubble up, and if strains the power core, and that we know it does, especially from the proof I posted in the "gigaton phasers" thread about the Intrepid-class' minmum power threshold in order to prevent the nacelles and warp coils from deactivating.

That's what I had already admitted.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Perhaps both LaForge and Word were WTF because that Byleth person was asking for a figure which wasn't really high to begin with, so much that the two folks wouldn't even pay attention to it.
Seriously, how much antimatter can you expect to collect in space? Likely not a lot, otherwise all objects would display noticeable tendencies to glow without being hit by photons, and therefore naturally "erode", from asteroids to moons and even planets.

In the TOS episode » The Mark of Gideon «, Kirk explained, that the Enterprise has regenerative energy:

• • • ODONA:
    Can you make it last a long, long time?
    • KIRK:
    How long would you like it to last?
    • ODONA:
    Forever.
    • KIRK:
    Well, let's see. Power, that's no problem, it regenerates. And food. We have enough to feed a crew of four hundred and thirty for five years. So that should last us ...
    • ODONA:
    ... forever.

Regenerating power?

How is that possible?

We know that the Bussard collectors collect deuterium for fuel replenishment.

But deuterium alone is not enough. They also need anti-deuterium.

Now, from the TNG episode » Liaisons « we know, that the Enterprise replenish its antimatter.

But anti-matter can not be collected with a Bussard collector because there is no anti-matter in space.

The conclusion has to be, that they are able to transform the collected deuterium into anti-deuterium.

Of course, we would say, that this would cost more energy than they would gain.

But the transporter and replicator technology shows, that usual physics does not always apply. Otherwise, each time they are transporting someone or replicating something, the energy of several nuclear bombs would be needed or released and the transporter system or the replicator system would be expected to handle so much energy.

We could assume, that these technologies or similar technologies are used to convert deuterium into anti-deuterium and that they need for this less energy than the energy that is released in the annihilation of the so converted anti-deuterium with deuterium.

And indeed, the Star Trek - The Next Generation - Technical Manual confirms that consideration.

On page 71 f. is written:

• • 5.7 ONBOARD ANTIMATTER GENERATION
    As mentioned, there exists in the Ga/axyclass the ability
    to generate relatively small amounts of antimatter during
    potential emergency situations. The process is by all accounts
    incredibly power- and matter-intensive, and may not
    be advantageous under all operational conditions. As with the
    Bussard ramscoop, however, the antimatter generator may
    provide critical fuel supplies when they are needed most.
    The antimattergenerator resides on Deck42, surrounded
    by other elements of the WPS. It consists of two key
    assemblies, the matter inlet/conditioner (Ml/C), and the quantum
    charge reversal device (QCRD). The entire generator
    measures some 7.6 x 13.7 meters, and masses 1400 metric
    tonnes. It is one of the heaviest components, second only to
    the warp field coils. The Ml/C utilizes conventional tritanium
    and polyduranide in its construction, as it handles only cryogenic
    deuterium and similar fuels. The QCRD, on the other
    hand, employs alternating layers of superdense, forcedmatrix
    cobalt-yttrium-polyduranide and 854 kalinite-argium.
    This is necessary to produce the power amplification required
    to hold collections of subatomic particles, reverse their charge,
    and collect the reversed matter for storage in the nearby antimatter
    pods.
    The technology that has given rise to the QCRD is similar
    to that of the transporter, SIF, IDF, and other devices that
    manipulate matter on the quantum level. The conversion
    process sees the inlet of normal matter, stretched out into thin
    rivulets no more than 0.000003 cm across. The rivulets are
    pressure-fed into the QCRD under magnetic suspension,
    where groups of them are chilled to within 0.001 degree of
    absolute zero, and exposed to a short-period stasis field to
    further limit molecular vibration. As the stasis field decays,
    focused subspace fields drive deep within the subatomic
    structure to flip the charges and spins of the "frozen" protons,
    neutrons, and electrons. The flipped matter, now antimatter,
    is magnetically removed for storage. The system can normally
    process 0.08 m3/hr.
    It can be said that the total potential energy contained in
    a given quantity of deuterium can drive a starship for some
    considerable distance. Applying this energy at sublight speeds
    will be next to useless in a desperate scenario. Interstellar
    flight at warp speeds requires tens of thousands of times
    greater velocities than those afforded by impulse power, and
    so antimatter generation will sometimes be necessary. One
    disadvantage imposed by the process is that it requires ten
    units of deuterium to power the generator, and the generator
    will produce only one unit of antimatter. Put another way, the
    law of conservation of energy dictates that the power required
    for this process will exceed the usable energy ultimately
    derived from the resulting antimatter fuel. However, this may
    provide a needed survival margin to reach a starbase or
    tanker rendezvous.

Of course, the Star Trek - The Next Generation - Technical Manual is not canon.

But the fact that it is written by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda can not be ignored. Insofar it seems highly likely that, when this dialogue was written, that the author of the TNG episode » Liaisons « has thought about this ONBOARD ANTIMATTER GENERATION.

It seems to be at least consistent with all available facts - especially the fact, that Voyager looked for deuterium several times but never for anti-deuterium - while I do not know a better explanation.