View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 23 Jun 2017 06:17



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
SOTSF Mysteries 
Author Message
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3056
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
Well, since this thread is about SotSF mysteries, I will address the question purely in terms used in SotSF. Since Todd borrowed the concept of "critical momentum" I developed for the FRS., we'll discuss that in relation to warp and impulse.

I meant "critical momentum" to describe a transition phase where the relationship between the mass of the ship, the energy being expended to accelerate, and time, was approaching the point where a given amount of energy added into the system wouldn't render classical returns. In other words, time dilation was occurring, and the force needed to continue acceleration was approaching the nearly vertical, asymptotic portion of a graph describing the relationship between energy in and velocity out.

So, critical momentum tells us several things. First, there is a relationship between impulse and warp, though what that relationship is isn't specified. A ship should be able to warp space from a standstill, but this portrayal describes what appears to be classical acceleration preceding warp.

So, for example, Ptolemy is described thus:

Rest-Onset Critical Momentum: 11.41 Sec
Onset Critical Momentum-Warp Engage: 2:07 Sec
Warp 1-Warp4: 1.02 Sec
Warp 4-Warp 6: .68 Sec
Warp 6-Warp 8: 3.37 Sec

What this is really showing is several separate things. The first figure is self explanatory -- how long from standstill -- 0 -- to the asymptotic part of the curve -- a number we'll call x? But that second number isn't how long it takes to get from there to warp one, or infinity on the curve. The ship never passes from x to the speed of light -- c. It sheds its momentum and goes straight to c without ever passing through the points in between. "Sheds its momentum"? Does that mean it stops? No... Let me explain.

Probert and Kimble said the impulse drive was a type of "subatomic unified energy" system. This is where I got the idea that the TOS impulse drive was a mix of rocket and warp -- TMoST tells us the drive is a type of rocket. This could mean that the TOS drive was purely rocket and the TMP drive was exotic, but I was trying to come up with some way to explain incredibly rapid accelerations to incredibly high speeds. Even with degenerate matter as a way to concentrate fuel, I knew there was no way the ship could carry enough fuel to perform such feats of acceleration. Rick Sternbach later faced the same problem when he did the TNG Tech Manual. He decided there was some sort of mass manipulation going on. I guess I thought it was something similar -- that this "subatomic unified energy" referred to an ability to achieve acceleration by putting pressure on subspace. When the ship is at the OCM point and the decision is made to go to warp, it sheds its momentum into subspace, obviating any need to reverse thrust to stop before forming a warp bubble. (While at warp the ship sits still within a bubble around which space is pulled, so if it is still moving, it would severely complicate forming and maintaining bubble.) For Ptolemy it takes 2.07 seconds for that "pause" we saw in TMP to occur just before the "funnel" of rainbow warped space forms around the ship.

On TOS impulse engines, there are big rectangles and small round ports. The ports are the conventional thrusters. The big rectangles are these "subatomic unified energy" engines. On the TMP ship, the two are split -- the conventional thrusters are atop the secondary hull and around the sensor/deflector mount. The "subatomic unified energy" engines are what we call the impulse drive, more by tradition than anything because it isn't any longer a classical impulse drive.

Oh, BTW... when would you use these conventional thrusters? If you have magic "subatomic unified energy" engines, why would you need rockets? Well, because you don't want to manipulate spacetime anywhere near a star system. This doesn't remotely match the way modern Trek depicts things, but it matched what we saw in TMP, and could be made to fit TOS. When these ideas were put together, those were the guiding lights.

Anyhow, I've given a lot more thought to how this might work -- particularly when I did that TOS cutaway. But this was the state of my thinking back in the 1980s.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


25 Jan 2009 12:25
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3345
My feeling of the concept of impulse is an under power warp drive (sifting gears). A warp drvie that is too small to do anywhere near as much as the primary. What it is supposed to be is a 'get home drive' much like the internal combustion engine that our subs have in the event of reactor problems.

Problem with this, is that it would restrict the range from which a starship could operte from, unless support ships are availible.

Then you have the TOS episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which places even more limits upon the impulse power concept, such as not being able to get out of orbit from Delta Vega IV. Which makes no sense, unless one is willing to argue that it took the Enterprise, nearly thirty days to get there. And when there why didn't they refuel? It shouldn't have taken the transporter long to collect the fuel...


Another mystery. Not enough drawings. Why didn't put in more drawings?

Still another mystery. The design for the Belknap at the back of the book is by far the best done up to the point it was written, but a better explainition of the computer set up is required. As far as it goes, it is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Not enough detail. He started something, and then didn't finish. That is, from him we have multiple different computers onboard. The Primary; the secondary; and the Secondary hul, secondary; the emergency; and finally the Library. The primary is composed of Duotronic III Nodes(mulitple cores, using today's concepts?) The secondaries only seem to have single nodes, while the emergency also has a limited number of nodes itself. More the than the secondaries, that is.

Stil, Still, another mystery.

The Phasers. Exactly what do the various names for them refer to? The book goes from the 447/54, to the RIN-6 and RIN-9, to the RSM-12A, to the RIM-12C and RSM-14B, and the RH system. In this case, one can easily see that I = independent twin mount, and that S = single mount. But what does H equal? And so on.


25 Jan 2009 20:59
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3056
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
I did the Belknap systems layouts at the back of the book. The original idea was to have clear overlays like I recall in old medical and anatomy books, but that was too expensive. Anyhow, that's where the idea originated.

All I was doing with the computer systems was channeling Matt Jefferies, and emphasizing the redundancy of the design. Also the decentralized nature of the system(s). I had in mind the idea of the human brain (my mother had recently had a stroke and my head was full of the words of neurologists). Under attack from something like a stroke, the brain begins to redefine its various parts' roles (to a certain extent). Undamaged parts try to take on new roles if those roles are demanded. If they aren't, the ability is forever lost. So, damage yields temporary pliability. For a ship's various computers there would be dedicated roles and redundancy, and if needed, the ability to quickly learn the roles of other computers. A main computer under attack would transfer functions to its backup, and immediately other computers would begin to take on the role of backup to the new main.

This seemed like a particularly nice way to avoid the problems endemic to computers of that time. Or, this one (I write this from my son's HP Pavillion, my Powerbook's hard drive having suddenly and mysteriously developed a fatal mechanical breakdown).

As for the phasers... you're right about RIM and RSM. I don't recall "RH"... where was that used?

As for the nacelles, there would be considerable redundancy with two circumferential nacelles. Two linear nacelles would be an entirely different story, and would explain why a deep space explorer like the Constellation-class would need four.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


26 Jan 2009 02:36
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3345
So far so good, you are also in agreement with Matt - though he had "only" two main computers. ""Only"" means that we don't know the fine details. That is, the computer banks seen in TOS, each could have been, a separate computer system in and of it self. We don't know. What we do know is that the computer bancks showed up twice(?) once it the two parter, and one installed on the shuttlecraft in the Episode, the "Immunity Syndrom".

As you know, Star Trek was written in a time when even the experts were inocents about what could go wrong. Not completely though, because of S.T.A.R. (Self Testing and Repairing Computer) of the early 1970s, which was to be use on the Grand tour spacecraft. It had to fit into two cubic feet.

As for the RH system look at the Enterprise Heavy Cruiser class section, then go to 'Weapons' page, right before the Belknap section, second colum first setance.

Now for warp drives. Out of time for now but will post more later.

Four warp engined test bed leads to Constellation class -> which leads to Galaxy class(Oberth design)(But not the Oberth her self, Galaxy class length = ~770 feet long) Four warp engines two apart, two together, in one package -> Excelsior, four warp engines, two per package.


26 Jan 2009 07:56
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3056
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
Okay, now I remember. Todd wrote that section, but I think "RH" distinguished the new system installed on the Enterprise class. It indicated integration with the linear intermix.

As for the last part, I look at it differently. Constellation has four nacelles in order to achieve the same redundancy as a twin-circumferential vessel. But the lack of other such vessels hints at (in my imaginings) the difficulty of getting the four to work together at optimum efficiency. ACE is an attempt to do the same thing, but from the other direction. How can you achieve the freeform, virtual annular drive created by twin linear nacelles -- a drive with the advantages of an annular drive yet freed of the constraints of induction rings --- but with an integrated circumferential system? That is ACE -- it does it by redirecting the fields that are created, reshaping the warp rings in the nacelles, and dispensing with aft singularities to close the warp bubble. Instead, the reshaping of the field brings the distortion back upon itself, creating the energy to heal the spacetime breach.

Galaxy would be an evolution of this kind of system, only instead of redirected circumferential fields, a linear drive alternating with an integrated circumferential drive -- circumlinear. This would multiply the energy distorting spacetime by oscillating between the two - basically having an arrangement of hypergravity-antigravity-hypergravity in each nacelle create converging toroid field lines oriented fore-aft that expand with their convergence to encompass the ship, momentarily alternate with singularity-less, port-to-starboard, wraparound field lines that are entirely achieved with antigravity.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


26 Jan 2009 09:13
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3345
What I was basing my idea on, was a couple of comments on the the TrekBBS I saw a while back. And also in Star Trek magazine.

On the Trek BBS somebody came up with the idea that perhaps the lower pod on the Grissom, was a warp drive.

In Star Trek magazine, in designing the Excelsior, they toyed wit the idea of four warp engines.

In the real world to double the number of channels that a communictios satilite would have that polarlised the beam. At least as early as the late 1970's.

Problem: The Grissom as designed, is obviously a larger ship (window size - even allowing for the possibilty of smaller windows, you don't want them too small.) Secondlarily the Excelsior needs a companion ship. That is a samller ship to fill in the gaps. A large ship requires to be built, a greater amount of resources than a smaller one does.

Thirdly nobody in the right mind goes all out with out testing new ideas first, and then scaling them up(Excelsior). Who wants to fall flat on their face? So the Excelsior needed test ships before being built for proof of concept(s).

So I see a series of test beds being built, that would if sucessful become full out production classes.

The Constellation would be the first full scale proof of concept. The Galaxy(page 61? The Warth of Kahn) class would be the next step.
This ship as stated would be a scout ship. Making use of polarized warp fields, two warp engines in the same pod (plus fuel and reactor in that pod, plus fuel manufacturing), would be a good state. For its time it would be over size for a scout, at about half the size of the expected Excelsior class, but small in comparsion to the Excelsior. The polarized warp fields would permit a radical change of performance...

The Excelsior her self would be crude in comparsion to the Ambasador class. Which would be larger and more complex, than the Excelsior. This crudeness would be the result of support equipment in the hump on top of the secondary hull. The Ambassador wouldn't need this.


26 Jan 2009 14:46
Profile
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3345
Okay I have a question. Why warp factor seven for the Avenger class? Why would the Star Fleet build a slower set of ship classes?

Another question, the Avenager class as stated in the book was to have LN-60 warp drives. What would a LN-60 equipped Avenger look like? A modified uprated Constitution?


27 Jan 2009 20:20
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3056
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
John N. Ritter wrote:
Okay I have a question. Why warp factor seven for the Avenger class? Why would the Star Fleet build a slower set of ship classes?'


The idea was that the heavy frigate is designed so that its SSW triad is tilted decidely in favor of weapons (W) versus speed (S) or shields (S).

Quote:
Another question, the Avenager class as stated in the book was to have LN-60 warp drives. What would a LN-60 equipped Avenger look like? A modified uprated Constitution?


No, it would have looked like it ended up looking, but with the earlier nacelles.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


27 Jan 2009 22:59
Profile WWW
Commodore
Commodore
User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2008 18:39
Posts: 2362
Location: toltec sector
Quote:
The idea was that the heavy frigate is designed so that its SSW triad is tilted decidely in favor of weapons (W) versus speed (S) or shields (S).


sounds interesting, is there a system for deciding/describing what the ratios are for the different ship classes?

sort of like a 'power allocation' pie chart -- just trying to picture the differences between scouts, destroyers, frigates, cutters, perimeter action ships, dreadnoughts, carriers, and cruisers... : )

i've also been curious about the formality of the class 1 - class 4 designations -- if they're based primarily on hull/crew size, mission duration, mission type, weapon capabilities, or total power available...

_________________

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.
This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck


28 Jan 2009 04:03
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3056
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
davros_of_borg wrote:
Quote:
The idea was that the heavy frigate is designed so that its SSW triad is tilted decidely in favor of weapons (W) versus speed (S) or shields (S).


sounds interesting, is there a system for deciding/describing what the ratios are for the different ship classes?

sort of like a 'power allocation' pie chart -- just trying to picture the differences between scouts, destroyers, frigates, cutters, perimeter action ships, dreadnoughts, carriers, and cruisers... : )

i've also been curious about the formality of the class 1 - class 4 designations -- if they're based primarily on hull/crew size, mission duration, mission type, weapon capabilities, or total power available...


Check out this thread:

topic132.html

That is how I had it figured out. Later, on several occasions I/we were approached by people interested in developing the material into a game, and it got further elaborated. I never tied any type down to a specific triad, figuring that would evolve as needs changed. I went by descriptions of the types, which would generally indicate how the triad would work out. That would help guide design, the background text, etc.

As for the spacecraft classification, as you might have figured out, that was originally done to give "Starship Class" some meaning. "Class One Starships of the Line" was a holdover term from the days when spacecraft fought in organized mass formations. Any ship that was warp capable and sufficiently armed and shielded to fight on the line was a starship. In the 23rd century it would refer to warp capable ships whose (almost) total energy output could be devoted to SSW+stealth. OTOH, a "Class Two Support Spacecraft" would be warp capable but have a significant support liability that would prevent that kind of energy allocation, whether it be for people or cargo (transport) or other vessels (tender or tug), etc. Small Spacecraft are unrated. The original idea was that they were not warp capable without aome auxilliary assistance (like the warp sled on the Vulcan shuttle) that made them a Class Two with a Small Spacecraft. Given current thinking about shuttlecraft, I'm not sure how I'd handle that now.

I don't remember Class Four -- were those unmanned vehicles?

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


28 Jan 2009 08:57
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy