deagletime 1 Posted December 11, 2003 ok heres the deal...not to technical, but is sound in theory so as we all have heard like a zillion times the quote "impulse engines are at maximum" or we have seen the exhaust on the primary hull from the engines while the ship is moving through space. so this is what i was thinking before i went to bed...in space which is a vacuum, there is no wind or drag.. so what would slow them down?? so that being the case, why would the engines need to stay on? all the engines need to do is create a momentary surge of acceleration to get the ship moving forward...after that they would be shut off wouldnt u think? then...when the captain calls for all stop.. shouldnt the same amount of thrust be applied in the opposite direction? meaning..shouldnt there be impulse engines in the front too? i know that there are manuvering thrusters in the front of the ship, but thats all they are really good for...manuvering... its not like 5 to 10 little thrusters are gonna stop a million ton ship in a manner of seconds.... i understand that at warp...the warp core needs to supply constant power to keep the shape of the warp field constant so that they dont slow down...but at sublight speeds, i think that there is a major discrepancy with real science... can anyone refute these observations??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jefffitz 0 Posted December 11, 2003 It seems to me that you're arguing against your self. Thrusters in the front of the ship would do the same thing as in the rear, regardless of the the amount of thrust they produced. Additionally, ships usually use impulse power to move away from large massy objects, such as a planet (granted, not all the time, but in most instances). So it makes sense that impulse engines would have a hard time moving out of a strong gravitational pull, even though the ship itself is in a frictionless vacuum. This may have nothing to do with what you are talking about, if so please disregard the above. Jeff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekzone 0 Posted December 11, 2003 (edited) What i think - remember Exile? what if this is true, except the "small moons" are actual planets? where the impulse engines must work overtime to move from distortion to distorion - but the internia dampeners have been tuned to cut them out? Click for Spoiler: EDIT: Placed pic in a spoiler at trekzone's request. Edited December 11, 2003 by ddillard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 11, 2003 It seems to me that you're arguing against your self. Thrusters in the front of the ship would do the same thing as in the rear, regardless of the the amount of thrust they produced. Additionally, ships usually use impulse power to move away from large massy objects, such as a planet (granted, not all the time, but in most instances). So it makes sense that impulse engines would have a hard time moving out of a strong gravitational pull, even though the ship itself is in a frictionless vacuum. This may have nothing to do with what you are talking about, if so please disregard the above. Jeff the thing is impulse engines and thrusters are different..... impulse engines im guessing have maybe 100 times the output that thrusters would...so i dont think that im arguing against myself...a visual look of a ships blueprints will show that impulse engines are literally 100 times larger than thruster assemblies.. so again..i think that to counteract the same thrust that is generated by the impulse engines...the same sized engine should be present on the front side... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 11, 2003 What i think - remember Exile? what if this is true, except the "small moons" are actual planets? where the impulse engines must work overtime to move from distortion to distorion - but the internia dampeners have been tuned to cut them out? Click for Spoiler: i do see your point that engines would need to generate a constant thrust to oppose gravitational forces like in the case when a ship is in orbit.. nevertheless ive seen ship shots in open space where the impulse engines are constantly on and to me that doesnt make sense as there are no gravity bodies present to provide a reduction in velocity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekzone 0 Posted December 11, 2003 you may have misunderstood me....i believe there are gravitational forces all over the galaxy from every star - dont they come from the galatic core which then causes the galaxy spinning? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 11, 2003 you may have misunderstood me....i believe there are gravitational forces all over the galaxy from every star - dont they come from the galatic core which then causes the galaxy spinning? true, but if u think about it...voyager (the probe) hasnt used any thrust in the past 15 years...in fact i think that it may be accelerating not decellerating over time...thus the graviational pull on a starship is negligible considering full impulse is something like .9 of light speed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekzone 0 Posted December 11, 2003 yes but there is a difference between the probe and a spaceship. Voyager has only gone to the edge of the system (maybe a bit beyond that now) whereas a starship would go to the edge in an hour Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A l t e r E g o 9 Posted December 11, 2003 so as we all have heard like a zillion times the quote "impulse engines are at maximum" Until the engines are at maximum, velocity increases exponentially to warp point 9 or just below the warp threshold correct? "Coasting" could occur at any time, turn of the impulse deck and coast but they probably would not coast until maximum impulse velocity is achieved. The maximum velocity is not instantly achieved correct? Therefore they continue to fire until it is. so this is what i was thinking before i went to bed...in space which is a vacuum, there is no wind or drag.. so what would slow them down?? Dramatic License! If they didn't slow down the enemy could catch up. :( after that they would be shut off wouldnt u think? then...when the captain calls for all stop.. shouldnt the same amount of thrust be applied in the opposite direction? meaning..shouldnt there be impulse engines in the front too For impulse braking I have always assumed there are a set of shields around the impulse deck which when activated, steers the impulse engine thrust up and over the top of the saucer towards the front causing the same energy used to move the mass forward as braking energy as well. Just like airline engines of today except they use metal clamshells to deflect the exhaust forward instead of invisible force fields. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 11, 2003 Until the engines are at maximum, velocity increases exponentially to warp point 9 or just below the warp threshold correct? "Coasting" could occur at any time, turn of the impulse deck and coast but they probably would not coast until maximum impulse velocity is achieved. The maximum velocity is not instantly achieved correct? Therefore they continue to fire until it is. so then u do agree that the engines would be shutoff once max velocity is attained.... For impulse braking I have always assumed there are a set of shields around the impulse deck which when activated, steers the impulse engine thrust up and over the top of the saucer towards the front causing the same energy used to move the mass forward as braking energy as well. Just like airline engines of today except they use metal clamshells to deflect the exhaust forward instead of invisible force fields. thats a far stretch as i have never ever heard of something like this in the ST world...makes complete sense..but id hate to be the guy who has a cabin on the aft top side who gets woken up in the middle of the nite when the captain calls all stop and my room turns into a sauna.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A l t e r E g o 9 Posted December 11, 2003 so then u do agree that the engines would be shutoff once max velocity is attained.... I'd say based on the fact that (in space) once a mass is moving the desired or maximum attainable speed before warp is achieved then no further acceleration should be necessary unless some outside force effected the motion causing the need for more thrust to be applied. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Bolivar 0 Posted December 11, 2003 you may have misunderstood me....i believe there are gravitational forces all over the galaxy from every star - dont they come from the galatic core which then causes the galaxy spinning? You're right Trekzone! Even the gravitational force of my body is present in other galaxies, but as you move away from a body, even one like the sun, the gravity exerted on the object decreases exponentially. This is exactly why the forces exerted from all those other planets don't affect a starship, because the number has become so close to zero it is negligible. Add to that the fact that an almost equal force is being applied from planets in the opposite direction, these gravitational pulls would amount to nothing. As for why impulse engines need to stay on: in star Trek, impulse engines are not based on warp power, but this is a fault in itself because impulse engines can make a starship travel at near light speed whereas warp puts ships well beyond light speed. Now, moving a small partical at near light speeds without warping space is simple, but to move a massive body like the Enterprise would requite OBSCENE amounts of force and subsequently, energy. According to the logic, the only practical impulse reactor, for all intents and purposes, would be one that warps space. So, if we did invent impulse engines, they would need to be warp based and thus they would need to always be on to maintain the constant warping of space. This doesn't quite answer the question because in Star Trek impulse DOES NOT base impulse apon warp power, I'm just pointing out that it should. Also interesting is the fact that a tractor beam could not work without warping space as well. So when the warp core goes offline, a ship would not have warp, impulse, or even tractor beams... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted December 11, 2003 I think it's one of those things that TPTB added in because it's a point of reference to every day life for the viewers to identify with. When you drive your car you have to keep the gas pedal depressed in order to keep the car moving so in space you have to keep your engines running to keep your ship moving. Now we all know that isn't really the way it would be in space but we also know that in the vacuum of space there is no sound, yet we hear explosions and ships swishing past all the time. Back in the 60's TPTB knowingly added in these inaccuracies simply because it's a TV show in the 20th (now 21st) century and not everyone would understand how real space travel would be. Think about how dull it would be to watch a ship sailing along in total darkness (no stars visible like we see) in total silence and they don't even have their engines running. It would make for a pretty dull show, and I think that's the only reason these inaccuracies are in place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekzone 0 Posted December 12, 2003 you may have misunderstood me....i believe there are gravitational forces all over the galaxy from every star - dont they come from the galatic core which then causes the galaxy spinning? You're right Trekzone! Even the gravitational force of my body is present in other galaxies, but as you move away from a body, even one like the sun, the gravity exerted on the object decreases exponentially. This is exactly why the forces exerted from all those other planets don't affect a starship, because the number has become so close to zero it is negligible. Add to that the fact that an almost equal force is being applied from planets in the opposite direction, these gravitational pulls would amount to nothing. As for why impulse engines need to stay on: in star Trek, impulse engines are not based on warp power, but this is a fault in itself because impulse engines can make a starship travel at near light speed whereas warp puts ships well beyond light speed. Now, moving a small partical at near light speeds without warping space is simple, but to move a massive body like the Enterprise would requite OBSCENE amounts of force and subsequently, energy. According to the logic, the only practical impulse reactor, for all intents and purposes, would be one that warps space. So, if we did invent impulse engines, they would need to be warp based and thus they would need to always be on to maintain the constant warping of space. This doesn't quite answer the question because in Star Trek impulse DOES NOT base impulse apon warp power, I'm just pointing out that it should. Also interesting is the fact that a tractor beam could not work without warping space as well. So when the warp core goes offline, a ship would not have warp, impulse, or even tractor beams... yay!!! i was right in Physics for a change!!!!!!!!!!! and just before my birthday no less!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 12, 2003 I think it's one of those things that TPTB added in because it's a point of reference to every day life for the viewers to identify with. When you drive your car you have to keep the gas pedal depressed in order to keep the car moving so in space you have to keep your engines running to keep your ship moving. Now we all know that isn't really the way it would be in space but we also know that in the vacuum of space there is no sound, yet we hear explosions and ships swishing past all the time. Back in the 60's TPTB knowingly added in these inaccuracies simply because it's a TV show in the 20th (now 21st) century and not everyone would understand how real space travel would be. Think about how dull it would be to watch a ship sailing along in total darkness (no stars visible like we see) in total silence and they don't even have their engines running. It would make for a pretty dull show, and I think that's the only reason these inaccuracies are in place. I think VBG got my point the best...my whole point was to show that impluse(sublight) engines more or less dont need to stay on when max velocity is achieved and that the TPTB just added it for the dramatic affect.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekzone 0 Posted December 12, 2003 yes - i got it, however - Bolivar and i have said why they should be constantly on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ensign_beedrill 0 Posted December 17, 2003 Here's another thing to chew on: A few people in this topic have said that impulse is very close to the speed of light. If that is so, then Newtonian mechanics no longer works. At such high speeds, time slows down, length contracts in the direction of motion, and mass increases. If impulse really is close to the speed of light, then the "normal" physics you and I would think of no longer apply. For example, if mass increases, would you agree that acceleration decreases? Because acceleration is inversely proportional to mass? You have to take into account these new things. Now, I don't know if you would still have to keep your engines on, but this could certainly change things. I also agree with VBG, that it's for the drama, but if you're looking for a scientific explanation, this could be it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted December 17, 2003 So are life support and other systems powered by the engines or an alternate source? I would say life support would be a good reason to keep the engines running. As for the Voyager probe - I thought they were using the gravitational fields of the planets it passes to keep it going. I also thought they generally only used impulse engines when maneuvering around planets or other ships Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 17, 2003 Here's another thing to chew on: A few people in this topic have said that impulse is very close to the speed of light. If that is so, then Newtonian mechanics no longer works. At such high speeds, time slows down, length contracts in the direction of motion, and mass increases. If impulse really is close to the speed of light, then the "normal" physics you and I would think of no longer apply. For example, if mass increases, would you agree that acceleration decreases? Because acceleration is inversely proportional to mass? You have to take into account these new things. Now, I don't know if you would still have to keep your engines on, but this could certainly change things. I also agree with VBG, that it's for the drama, but if you're looking for a scientific explanation, this could be it. what you are saying is true if only a constant force is applied... acceleration is inversly proportional to mass only when under a constant force... not sure how u were applying that statement to this post but if i were to take a guess... your saying that under constant thrust (force), mass and acceleration would remain the same...but when acceleration approaches the speed of light and force is constant , mass would decrease?? doesnt really make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ensign_beedrill 0 Posted December 19, 2003 what you are saying is true if only a constant force is applied... acceleration is inversly proportional to mass only when under a constant force... not sure how u were applying that statement to this post but if i were to take a guess... your saying that under constant thrust (force), mass and acceleration would remain the same...but when acceleration approaches the speed of light and force is constant , mass would decrease?? doesnt really make sense. Well, I was just speculating and trying to get a semi-plausible answer for you. I don't know that much about near light speed travel. But what I was trying to say is that mass increases when you get close to the speed of light. And that's why it's hard to get to the speed of light, mass would become infinite and acceleration decreases. I wasn't saying that mass decreases, I was saying that acceleration decreases. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted December 19, 2003 what you are saying is true if only a constant force is applied... acceleration is inversly proportional to mass only when under a constant force... not sure how u were applying that statement to this post but if i were to take a guess... your saying that under constant thrust (force), mass and acceleration would remain the same...but when acceleration approaches the speed of light and force is constant , mass would decrease?? doesnt really make sense. Well, I was just speculating and trying to get a semi-plausible answer for you. I don't know that much about near light speed travel. But what I was trying to say is that mass increases when you get close to the speed of light. And that's why it's hard to get to the speed of light, mass would become infinite and acceleration decreases. I wasn't saying that mass decreases, I was saying that acceleration decreases. again your assuming that the force is constant f=ma e=mc^2 both are very similar ...one is for force, the other is for energy... basically for a body where the mass is constant...mass does not change with increase in acceleration... basically they are saying that light speed is impossible because it is directly proportional to energy and force...thus light speed is not attainable for a constant mass without tremendous resources to generate force/energy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ensign_beedrill 0 Posted December 20, 2003 I think that's what I was trying to say. I might just be confusing myself here. ^-^;; Just trying speculation, that's all. But truly, what VaBeachGuy said is right. It's basically for the audience to connect and feel a little closer to the situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites