Thinking back on First Contact, suddenly I had a thought: Zephram Cochrane is the inventor of warp drive, but he's obviously not the inventor of the impulse engine also. Even the earliest Starfleet ships were equipped with impulse drives, so when did this critical piece of technology arrive? Was there a time when Earth vessels cruised around with only warp drive and then had to make due with hydrazine rockets for sublight travel?
While pondering this, I also got to thinking about Cochrane's "genius" and what else he might have had to invent before developing warp drive, maybe spending a few years teaching physics at Cal Tech before the war... when suddenly it hit me: Zephram Cochrane didn't invent warp drive, Zephram Cochrane invented the warp engine. This may seem like hair splitting, but follow this: the Wright Brothers didn't invent Bermuli's Principle or any of the underlying physics that are involved in generating lift. They understood those concepts well enough--having studied them from the works of past physicists--and applied them in a way that allowed the creation of a working aircraft. Likewise, the underlying physics behind "space warp" were probably well understood (at least theoretically) long before the Phoenix was even on the drawing board, but a WARP ENGINE was another matter entirely, and beyond the reach of human science, until Zephram Cochrane stumbled on some invention or technique or substance or idea that made the theory testable.
Just what Cochrane invented to make the engine possible is debatable. But looking back, I am struck with the possibility that "space warp" and "impulse" might actually be generic terms for two different TYPES of propulsion by any number of means. It's possible, for example, that "warp drive" is a term that describes any field-propulsion system that produces movement by warping space, where "impulse" is a propulsion system that does it the old fashioned way. In this case, "warp drive" would be a class of propulsion systems, like how "jet engine" can describe turbofans, turbojets, ramjets, scramjets, sometimes even rockets.
So a question, and a theory: since we know the idea of "subspace fields" wasn't really developed until TNG years anyway, maybe we don't HAVE to retcon this back into TOS/ENT/First Contact years? I suggest that it's possible that warp drive systems prior to the 24th century may not have used subspace fields at all, that they might have used something as mundane as an artificial gravity field projected in front of the ship, or even an Alcubierre drive for that matter. Similar division may also hold for impulse engines; it's possible that multiple different types of engines are in use throughout history, some involving chemical propellants, some being a type of electric/field drive, some being plasma/thrust type, perhaps a few even using a warp-like technique to provide a physical push on part of the ship?
Or in extreme summary: at least in the case of engines, what are the odds that the technology itself is inconsistent enough that two otherwise similar vessels might use COMPLETELY different technologies to achieve the exact same effect?
While pondering this, I also got to thinking about Cochrane's "genius" and what else he might have had to invent before developing warp drive, maybe spending a few years teaching physics at Cal Tech before the war... when suddenly it hit me: Zephram Cochrane didn't invent warp drive, Zephram Cochrane invented the warp engine. This may seem like hair splitting, but follow this: the Wright Brothers didn't invent Bermuli's Principle or any of the underlying physics that are involved in generating lift. They understood those concepts well enough--having studied them from the works of past physicists--and applied them in a way that allowed the creation of a working aircraft. Likewise, the underlying physics behind "space warp" were probably well understood (at least theoretically) long before the Phoenix was even on the drawing board, but a WARP ENGINE was another matter entirely, and beyond the reach of human science, until Zephram Cochrane stumbled on some invention or technique or substance or idea that made the theory testable.
Just what Cochrane invented to make the engine possible is debatable. But looking back, I am struck with the possibility that "space warp" and "impulse" might actually be generic terms for two different TYPES of propulsion by any number of means. It's possible, for example, that "warp drive" is a term that describes any field-propulsion system that produces movement by warping space, where "impulse" is a propulsion system that does it the old fashioned way. In this case, "warp drive" would be a class of propulsion systems, like how "jet engine" can describe turbofans, turbojets, ramjets, scramjets, sometimes even rockets.
So a question, and a theory: since we know the idea of "subspace fields" wasn't really developed until TNG years anyway, maybe we don't HAVE to retcon this back into TOS/ENT/First Contact years? I suggest that it's possible that warp drive systems prior to the 24th century may not have used subspace fields at all, that they might have used something as mundane as an artificial gravity field projected in front of the ship, or even an Alcubierre drive for that matter. Similar division may also hold for impulse engines; it's possible that multiple different types of engines are in use throughout history, some involving chemical propellants, some being a type of electric/field drive, some being plasma/thrust type, perhaps a few even using a warp-like technique to provide a physical push on part of the ship?
Or in extreme summary: at least in the case of engines, what are the odds that the technology itself is inconsistent enough that two otherwise similar vessels might use COMPLETELY different technologies to achieve the exact same effect?
