How does mass affect warp speed?

[Crewman47]

I was watching the Enterprise episode Horizon and on the Cargo ship they mentioned that although they could do warp 2 or 3, it was implied that there max speed was inhibited by the wirght of the cargo they were carrying.

I was always under that going to warp, or any FTL method would lower a ships mass meaning that it wouldn't matter how heavy your ship was, be it a small Nova Class or large Galaxy class you coud get to max speed with no problems?

Is this right?

 

[SilentP]

I think larger mass means that the warp field needs to be bigger to achieve the same effect, so more power is needed.

Can you imagine a shuttle's warp engines being sufficient to push a Galaxy class ship to any meaningful factor of it's original warp capabilities?

 

[Vance]

As for 'canon': It's really tricky here, since Warp "Bubbles" seem to be based more on volumetrics rather than mass. Larger ships need larger fields, but it doesn't seem to matter what's IN that field, or that the discrepancy in mass is so minimal that it may as well not show up in warp calculations.

All the RPGs and tech manuals do have mass as a more significant component, but none of them give a really good workable formula for making them work. The most detailed of them, FASA's RPG, is really just a huge amount of arbitrary tables which break down when you try to analyze them.

 

[Unicron]

^ That's how I tend to view it too - the warp bubble doesn't necessarily serve to reduce the ship's mass, however large it is, but essentially isolates from how a "normal" object interacts with the surrounding space, and thus it can ignore some of the normal rules of that interaction and travel large distances easily and efficiently. Something to that effect anyway.

I sometimes wonder about how a ship's aerodynamics would affect the warp field, since it can be inferred that some shapes work better than others.

 

[Vance]

It might make it easier to shape the bubble itself, but the idea that it has to be 'aerodynamic' in order to push against... erm... nothing at all really.. has always been kinda silly. But even in Trek there's no evidence that different shapes work better for warp dynamics (there's an argument here), but consider the wide variety of ships we see... including bricks with nacelles on them.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Well the amount of spatial compression in front of the ship and the spatial extension behind the ship would dictate how much speed you'd achieve and also how much pushing force you'd get.

Yes, mass would affect things. I don't know how much though

 

[Vance]

Like I said, it could be that the mass may potentially affect the formula, but the effect is insignificant compared to the sheer volume we're talking about. M/V, basically, when you have fairly large structures of relatively light density. But, as with all things, Trek's pretty inconsistant on this issue.

As for the spadis effect on the fore, you'll still have to envelop the whole ship, so I'm not sure if projecting a longer angle helps all that much, since we're (hopefully, anyway) warping mostly empty-space at that point. Would it be EASIER to warp as an angle or a sphere? Trek seems to heavily imply the latter most of the time.. except for when it doesn't.

 

[Ronald Held]

If you need to have a moving warp bubble with a specific negative energy, and the mass of the ship increase, you would need to use more power to maintain the same net amount of negative energy.

 

[Timo]

As long as we are using "Horizon" as source material, we could argue that the mass had little to do with the speed. Rather, the key factor could be the volume of the cargo section: once one jettisoned the "mass" of the cargo containers, one was left with the much smaller tug section, which could now pull its warp field tight and thus presumably make it stronger...

The exact dialogue goes like this:

Paul the Boomer: "If we jettison a few tons of that ore, can we increase to warp two?"
Rianna the Prettier Boomer: "I don't see why not."

Now, "jettisoning a few tons" would probably call for jettisoning one of the modular cargo sections, since I don't see how the crew could just shovel the stuff out. The result? A smaller ship, and a tighter warp field.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Myasishchev]

As long as we are using "Horizon" as source material, we could argue that the mass had little to do with the speed. Rather, the key factor could be the volume of the cargo section: once one jettisoned the "mass" of the cargo containers, one was left with the much smaller tug section, which could now pull its warp field tight and thus presumably make it stronger...

The exact dialogue goes like this:

Paul the Boomer: "If we jettison a few tons of that ore, can we increase to warp two?"
Rianna the Prettier Boomer: "I don't see why not."

Now, "jettisoning a few tons" would probably call for jettisoning one of the modular cargo sections, since I don't see how the crew could just shovel the stuff out. The result? A smaller ship, and a tighter warp field.

Timo Saloniemi

If it's all about volume, why isn't every starship a solid sphere or cube? The D'Deridex would have been laughed out of the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

 

[Timo]

Given all the fine-tuning we see regarding Starfleet warp nacelle placement and even orientation, I'd guess the important thing is the shape of the warp field. The ship is built to fit snugly inside the optimal shape (except when the operator doesn't care - the Borg probably use brute force over finesse). But size still matters, and a freighter dragging containers is making compromises and would do better with those containers gone.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Strider]

Given all the fine-tuning we see regarding Starfleet warp nacelle placement and even orientation, I'd guess the important thing is the shape of the warp field. The ship is built to fit snugly inside the optimal shape (except when the operator doesn't care - the Borg probably use brute force over finesse). But size still matters, and a freighter dragging containers is making compromises and would do better with those containers gone.

Timo Saloniemi

They why do Klingon ships have such unnecessarily long necks?

 

[SilentP]

Given all the fine-tuning we see regarding Starfleet warp nacelle placement and even orientation, I'd guess the important thing is the shape of the warp field. The ship is built to fit snugly inside the optimal shape (except when the operator doesn't care - the Borg probably use brute force over finesse). But size still matters, and a freighter dragging containers is making compromises and would do better with those containers gone.

Timo Saloniemi

They why do Klingon ships have such unnecessarily long necks?

I think the fanon explanation was that the officers and higher ups stayed in the front, away from the power generation areas, and general areas that were more likely to go BOOM!, so in case if the feacal matter even hit the primitive air conditioning device, they could easily separate, or were at least a safe distance away.

As for warp field dynamics, it probably isn't efficient, since Klingons aren't exactly known for that, but then again, there are worse designs out there

 

[Strider]

As for warp field dynamics, it probably isn't efficient, since Klingons aren't exactly known for that, but then again, there are worse designs out there

It's not just the Klingons either. The Galaxy-class is hardly the most efficient distribution of mass I've ever seen. Or the Galor-class, or good heavens not a Romulan Warbird. Of course, if optimal shape was really a serious consideration for warp dynamics then I guess everyone would be flying around in efficient spheres. They aren't, so it isn't.

 

[Myasishchev]

As for warp field dynamics, it probably isn't efficient, since Klingons aren't exactly known for that, but then again, there are worse designs out there

It's not just the Klingons either. The Galaxy-class is hardly the most efficient distribution of mass I've ever seen. Or the Galor-class, or good heavens not a Romulan Warbird. Of course, if optimal shape was really a serious consideration for warp dynamics then I guess everyone would be flying around in efficient spheres. They aren't, so it isn't.

Exactly. There's a reason even designs as widely separated in time and space as a Focke-Wulf 190 and a Boeing 747 still look more alike than a Miranda and the Narada.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I was watching the Enterprise episode Horizon and on the Cargo ship they mentioned that although they could do warp 2 or 3, it was implied that there max speed was inhibited by the wirght of the cargo they were carrying.

I was always under that going to warp, or any FTL method would lower a ships mass meaning that it wouldn't matter how heavy your ship was, be it a small Nova Class or large Galaxy class you coud get to max speed with no problems?

Is this right?

Well, as others have stated, "canon" regarding warp drive isn't 100% consistent... and not every writer (or producer) has shared the exact same understanding of "what is warp drive?"

That said... it's pretty clear that there's a relationship between gravity and warp drive. Not that "warp drive" is a gravity effect, per-se, mind you. Rather, both reflect "distortion of space/time."

You may have seen the portrayals of black holes (aka "singularities") on a 2D representation of 3D space as being a "sinkhole" in the fabric of space/time. This is a widely accepted (albeit entirely unproven to be accurate) way to look at gravitation...

So, if "gravitation" is actually an effect of the mass of objects forming what are, in effect, indentations in the "flat-ish surface" of space/time, and if warp drive also forms distortions of space/time, you can begin to see how the two might interact.

It seems to me that the larger the "indentation" you're trying to tug around, the deeper the "channel" you'll need for it to pass through. An indentation (due to gravity) which is larger than the "channel" your warp drive forms in space/time will simply not... uh... "fit inside" the channel, so you won't move - or maybe you'll just not be entirely inside the "channel" and you'll be dragging on real space/time's surface (which I can't imagine would be good for you in terms of having a nice comfy ride!)

Basically, think of it as "the gravitational indentation" of the ship on the fabric of space/time has to fit inside of the indentation in space/time created by the warp drive system.

************

Now, regarding "reduction in mass," there's no indication that "reduction in mass" is related to "warp drive." However, it IS very much canon that a "static subspace field" can be used to dramatically reduce the "observed mass" of an object (as well as the "local speed of light") This has been used many, many times in post-TOS Trek scriptwriting, so much so that it's impossible to just ignore it.

This has always been at the heart of my personal conceit about how you can have "FTL impulse drive." Basically, create a static subspace field, and the ship inside of it only "projects" a tiny fraction of its real mass (call it a "mass shadow") onto real space/time, and the "local speed of light" is many times higher. The ship, seen from "real space/time" would appear to be moving far, far faster than it "really is" within the bubble, and would appear to weigh much, much less. On the other hand, from the standpoint of the ship inside of that bubble, everything remains the same (ship's mass, the value of "C" relative to the ship, etc), but the "real universe" (from the perspective of this ship inside the subspace bubble) is a lot smaller and closer together. You're still using "impulse" drive to move, but the distances are tremendously smaller (as you perceive them from your little "pocket universe" of a subspace bubble). I think this is the best (perhaps ONLY) way to justify everything... including the fact that the word "impulse" isn't a Trek term but a real-physics term... the shuttlecraft connundrum... the "Balance of Terror" stuff... the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" stuff... even Jose Tyler's line from "The Cage."

I assume that the primary FTL propulsion system, for a long time, was "subspace-assisted impulse." And that a few decades prior to "The Cage," they developed "warp drive" and (then built the Bonaventure as the first production ship to use this new system), which was a pure, non-Newtonian drive system based upon distorted (non-static) subspace fields... a system which the supposed marooned scientists in Vina's crew wouldn't have been familiar with, and would have given Jose Tyler an opportunity to brag over. As likely as not, the "discovery" of warp drive would be an accident, when someone accidentally created an imbalanced "subspace field" for their FTL impulse system, and ended up elsewhere with no idea how it happened. That's how all the really big discoveries tend to be made... by accident.

 

[Timo]

The Galaxy-class is hardly the most efficient distribution of mass I've ever seen.

How would we know that? The Tech Manual and some graphics from "Where No One Has Gone Before" rather suggest that it is indeed the most efficient distribution of volume possible - it fits extremely snugly within the complex shape of the warp field!

The same may be true of most of the ships out there. They simply have different shapes of warp field, and the shape of the ship then conforms to the demands of the warp field shape. A bit like how one designs a car today, only in reverse: first, one picks an aerodynamic shape, and then one works within its limitations to install "secondary" things like wheels and doors and passenger spaces.

There appears to be a general trend of elongation in starship building. In terms of volumetric efficiency, that's always bad, but it's so common that something in starship physics must dictate it. Might as well be warp physics, because it's magic anyway and thus can be used as a convenient dump for any and all oddities...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mytran]

This has always been at the heart of my personal conceit about how you can have "FTL impulse drive." Basically, create a static subspace field, and the ship inside of it only "projects" a tiny fraction of its real mass (call it a "mass shadow") onto real space/time, and the "local speed of light" is many times higher. The ship, seen from "real space/time" would appear to be moving far, far faster than it "really is" within the bubble, and would appear to weigh much, much less. On the other hand, from the standpoint of the ship inside of that bubble, everything remains the same (ship's mass, the value of "C" relative to the ship, etc), but the "real universe" (from the perspective of this ship inside the subspace bubble) is a lot smaller and closer together. You're still using "impulse" drive to move, but the distances are tremendously smaller (as you perceive them from your little "pocket universe" of a subspace bubble). I think this is the best (perhaps ONLY) way to justify everything... including the fact that the word "impulse" isn't a Trek term but a real-physics term... the shuttlecraft connundrum... the "Balance of Terror" stuff... the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" stuff... even Jose Tyler's line from "The Cage."

I generally assumed something similar for the Enterprise's impulse drive. After all, a newtonian drive (no matter how efficient) simply could not provide enough propulsion to accelerate a ship to 25% of lightspeed without a phenomenomal amount of fuel. I figured we would have to be dealing some sort of fusion based warp system. Who knows - perhaps fusion based drives are more efficient at sublight speeds compared to M/AM ones?

 

[Strider]

The Galaxy-class is hardly the most efficient distribution of mass I've ever seen.

How would we know that? The Tech Manual and some graphics from "Where No One Has Gone Before" rather suggest that it is indeed the most efficient distribution of volume possible - it fits extremely snugly within the complex shape of the warp field!

The same may be true of most of the ships out there. They simply have different shapes of warp field, and the shape of the ship then conforms to the demands of the warp field shape. A bit like how one designs a car today, only in reverse: first, one picks an aerodynamic shape, and then one works within its limitations to install "secondary" things like wheels and doors and passenger spaces.

There appears to be a general trend of elongation in starship building. In terms of volumetric efficiency, that's always bad, but it's so common that something in starship physics must dictate it. Might as well be warp physics, because it's magic anyway and thus can be used as a convenient dump for any and all oddities...

Timo Saloniemi

Well if we're thinking of a warp field as being like a super complex wind tunnel, then yes it completely changes how we look at ship design. It's still very odd, though, that we see so much variation in ship design. If the Galaxy-class saucer is the IDEAL shape for warp travel, then is the Intrepid-class less ideal, or does it have just a much different warp field profile to conform to? Same for a Klingon Bird-of-Prey?

Timo, you've come up with a great way of justifying practically any shape imaginable, but the source material still seems a little sloppy. That actually could be said of 99% of Trek Tech: Fans trying to justify really wild inconsistencies and goofs.

 

[Timo]

Oh, certainly agreed. Still, I'd like to think that only part of the seemingly absurd variation in Trek shipbuilding is due to "national eccentricities" such as a desire to go for birdlike shapes or maximum window area or a cargo hold design that is attractive to customers, and that much of the variation is due to true and universal utilitarian considerations - that there simply are dozens of different ways to skin the warp drive cat, and that different species opt for different paths and then get stuck with following them.

Vulcans might have found the ring-shaped warp engine superior early on, but perhaps it could never be developed to go past warp seven? They would be culturally stuck with it, though - much like today's navies are stuck with boat-shaped ships, even though more efficient alternatives exist.

Timo Saloniemi