Warp Speed Collisions - Page 2

T'Girl · November 6 2009, 02:53 AM

JarodRussell wrote:

Inside the warp bubble, ships move at normal speed,

Within the warp bubble, wouldn't the ship be stationary?

Vance · November 6 2009, 03:14 AM

Compared to the warp bubble its in, naturally, but not to the other ship.

STR · November 6 2009, 06:29 AM

newtype_alpha wrote:

or the similar (unnamed) technique developed by Soviet pilots, intentionally "buzzing" past the noses of F-14 pilots to try and make their engines flame out. It's a good way to stop a pursuit if you want to slow someone down without blowing his head off.

Hard maneuvering, rapid acceleration, or close flybys would flame out the engines of an F-14A because it would disturb the airflow of its TF-30 engines. The TF-30 had a low tolerance for that because they were designed for high efficiency in a straight line, because that's the mission profile of the aircraft originally designed to house them (F-111A/B). Fighter engines sacrifice efficiency for the ability to handle rapidly changing airflows.

It's why the F-14B/D had F110 engines, or where they F101's? Eh doesn't matter. You get the point. It was a design defect (damn McNamara), not a physical barrier. A proper fighter engine will only flame out if it's pushed above operation ceiling or another jet is right in front of it at very close range and a similar speed and literally robs the engine of oxygen. Fly bys shouldn't do it.

newtype_alpha · November 6 2009, 06:55 AM

STR wrote:

newtype_alpha wrote:

or the similar (unnamed) technique developed by Soviet pilots, intentionally "buzzing" past the noses of F-14 pilots to try and make their engines flame out. It's a good way to stop a pursuit if you want to slow someone down without blowing his head off.

Hard maneuvering, rapid acceleration, or close flybys would flame out the engines of an F-14A because it would disturb the airflow of its TF-30 engines. The TF-30 had a low tolerance for that because they were designed for high efficiency in a straight line, because that's the mission profile of the aircraft originally designed to house them (F-111A/B). Fighter engines sacrifice efficiency for the ability to handle rapidly changing airflows.

It's why the F-14B/D had F110 engines, or where they F101's? Eh doesn't matter. You get the point. It was a design defect (damn McNamara), not a physical barrier.

I'm well aware of that. Significantly, so were the Russians, though I have heard the upgraded F-14s didn't have this problem.

CoveTom · November 17 2009, 05:22 PM

Do we even know that it's actually possible for two objects traveling at warp to collide? Is it possible that because they are each tucked inside their own unique pocket of subspace, that they could just essentially pass through each other?

Strider · November 17 2009, 09:29 PM

The correct answer is "Whatever is most satisfying from a dramatic standpoint". That, and judging by Captain Riker ordering a warp speed ramming in BOBW II, I think we can assume the result would be a very large boom.

Plecostomus · November 17 2009, 10:08 PM

Strider wrote:

The correct answer is "Whatever is most satisfying from a dramatic standpoint". That, and judging by Captain Riker ordering a warp speed ramming in BOBW II, I think we can assume the result would be a very large boom.

This.

Remember, this is pretend physics in a pretend universe where frigging self-destruct can go offline and reverse thrust has special properties and plasma can "ignite" and Happy Fun Ball causes black holes and a whole host of other plot-driven nonsense.

Keeps me entertained though.

Evil Ezri · November 17 2009, 10:19 PM

My feeling, it does not matter if you have a seat belt on or not.

Just me, at the speeds of Warp Drive and the vastness of space I just feel it is unpractical that an accidental collision would happen.