Pimping the warp 2 barrier

[aridas sofia]

As a much needed addendum to my ramblings above I will briefly note that I do realize what the answer is.

The nacelles are the seat of warp power, and the shuttlecraft doesn't have warp, and that saucer isn't related to what makes warp in any way at all, so it has to rely on simple old rockets.

There. If you ever needed evidence for "self contained nacelles" that aren't linked to anything in the main hull, that's it. Because, once you hook the nacelles to that rest of the ship, all shit breaks loose and everything goes awry and before you know it, shuttlecraft can go at warp and saucers have antigravity drive and...

I'm really glad this Halloween candy is almost gone.

 

[shipfisher]

The God Thing said:
I would prefer a forcefield-based thrust reverser solution for those situations. Think of it as an astronautical variant of the Kitchen Rudder that Timo introduced me to several months ago.

I do like the idea of a force field based "kitchen rudder" to steer impulse plasma exhaust (I've nearly been thrown over the bow of a jet boat when it was slammed into reverse). It helps make a classical rocket impulse drive more workable, which I can live with as long as you retain inertial mass reduction tecniques to give it suitable performance. The main problem here of course is how you reduce the inertial mass of the ship (or station as done in DS9) but not the exhaust reaction mass. I could use some input in the treknobabble dept. here - maybe impulse grid/vents have "subspace field de-couplers" or some such?

aridas sofia said:
As a much needed addendum to my ramblings above I will briefly note that I do realize what the answer is.

The nacelles are the seat of warp power, and the shuttlecraft doesn't have warp, and that saucer isn't related to what makes warp in any way at all, so it has to rely on simple old rockets.

There. If you ever needed evidence for "self contained nacelles" that aren't linked to anything in the main hull, that's it. Because, once you hook the nacelles to that rest of the ship, all shit breaks loose and everything goes awry and before you know it, shuttlecraft can go at warp and saucers have antigravity drive and...

I'm really glad this Halloween candy is almost gone.

Is halloween candy carbon neutral? If I could tap my kids energy output on the stuff I could sell "green" power back to the national grid.

I think a case can be made for there being warp and non-warp versions of the TOS shuttlecraft, with the nacelles providing an inertial mass reduction field only in the non-warp variants, where this might also aid an "anti-grav" landing grid (one of which appears to be in use on the "type 5" shuttlecraft landing near the end of ST:V). The Mendez/Kirk chase shuttlecraft in "The Menagerie" seems to have warp as the Enterprise is previousy referenced as having "warped" out of orbit on its way to Talos IV, however the star motion effect used to infer warp in TOS isn't seen on either craft during the chase sequence (though I haven't seen the remastered version). You could always infer that the ever pragmatic Spock had the ship drop out of warp knowing that his tenacious captain would never abandon the pursuit, even at the risk of being left to drift helpless in space. Spock would "logically" stay within sensor range long enough to confirm fuel exhaustion on the shuttlecraft and then follow the greater moral imperative than his loyalty to Pike.

The above would obviate the need for any warp capable TOS shuttlecraft, with supplemental "warp sleds" in use by ST:TMP and fully warp capable small craft showing up closer to TNG.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

shipfisher said:
I do like the idea of a force field based "kitchen rudder" to steer impulse plasma exhaust (I've nearly been thrown over the bow of a jet boat when it was slammed into reverse). It helps make a classical rocket impulse drive more workable, which I can live with as long as you retain inertial mass reduction tecniques to give it suitable performance. The main problem here of course is how you reduce the inertial mass of the ship (or station as done in DS9) but not the exhaust reaction mass. I could use some input in the treknobabble dept. here - maybe impulse grid/vents have "subspace field de-couplers" or some such?

Okay, howz'bout I make this concession regarding the NCC-1701 and Refit: The impulse engines are still "just" Newtonian rockets, but the warp nacelles diddle the local spacetime metric as required to drastically increase the starship's acceleration and maneuvering abilities at relativistic velocities. As for the Refit, her new propulsion reactor architecture operationally integrates the two fundamentally different drive systems for improved performance during sublight (and, under extreme circumstances, FTL) flight modes. Cosmic thoughts, yentlemen?

TGT

 

[aridas sofia]

I think that line of reasoning is much more consistent with Jefferies' original plan, and the rethought arrangement for TMP, while being cognizant of the direction the artists took things for TNG.

I just hate the thought of ripping apart that cross section of mine to reflect those rather major changes.

Maybe I'll change my user name to Sisyphus.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

^ aridas, you should have realized long ago that when it comes to my exegeses of TOS and TMP the level of fanatical orthodoxy I bring to the process makes even the most unhinged Salafi Muslim cleric look like a vacuous fashion model in comparison.

TGT

 

[USS Mariner]

The God Thing said:

shipfisher said:
I do like the idea of a force field based "kitchen rudder" to steer impulse plasma exhaust (I've nearly been thrown over the bow of a jet boat when it was slammed into reverse). It helps make a classical rocket impulse drive more workable, which I can live with as long as you retain inertial mass reduction tecniques to give it suitable performance. The main problem here of course is how you reduce the inertial mass of the ship (or station as done in DS9) but not the exhaust reaction mass. I could use some input in the treknobabble dept. here - maybe impulse grid/vents have "subspace field de-couplers" or some such?

Okay, howz'bout I make this concession regarding the NCC-1701 and Refit: The impulse engines are still "just" Newtonian rockets, but the warp nacelles diddle the local spacetime metric as required to drastically increase the starship's acceleration and maneuvering abilities at relativistic velocities. As for the Refit, her new propulsion reactor architecture operationally integrates the two fundamentally different drive systems for improved performance during sublight (and, under extreme circumstances, FTL) flight modes. Cosmic thoughts, yentlemen?

TGT

That would explain why NCC-1701's engines always appear to be just as active at impulse as in warp or orbit.

 

[Tallguy]

Hey, I finaly know what OCM means! That only took 20+ years!

I'm not buying that TOS shuttlecraft don't have warp drive though.

 

[aridas sofia]

Me neither. But it would explain why Andrew designed the Vulcan shuttle the way he did.

 

[shipfisher]

Just to clarify, I'm quite happy with warp-capable TOS shuttlecraft, though this capacity is more inferred than explicitly demonstrated in any episode. There's certainly no obvious technical problem with small warpcraft in the TOS period, what with the roughly 2 century old Phoenix and century old NX-Alpha being barely any larger.

I do think the absence of any apparent warpcore-type apparatus on TOS shuttles infers a fusion powered warp drive with perhaps small reactors in both nacelles and at the impulse vent that spans the upper aft compartment (multiple powerplants might help explain the "booster" reference in TOS: Galileo Seven), which would also help limit range relative to a more energy dense power source like antimatter.

For what it's worth, I've also come up with another impulse drive techno-drivel concept using the partial acronym Inertial Mass PULSE drive. Here I'm trying to make more sense of the reference to a pulse cycle in the drive's operation by supposing that the inertial mass reducing subspace field osscilates at the same frequency as the "pulsed" thrust output of the fusion or m:am rocket propulsion system. The trick here would be having the thrust peaks matching the field minima in some sort of high frequency dance, allowing the reaction mass to "surf" subspace waves out of the local field with a net gain in inertial grunt relative to the ship, which would experience a greater average reduction in inertial mass in it's fixed position relative to the field. I'm assuming also that the increased accelerative forces acheived would be transferred uniformly into the field (instead of jack-hammering the ship to bits) relative to an external reference frame, easing up the load on inertial dampers and such.

Another free lunch-type perpetual motion machine idea I suppose, but it sounded good at the time.


-------------------------
What the world needs is everyone living in the here and now with some TLC - not just tender, loving care, but Truth, Love and Courage - anonymous