Stars, planets and other Sci-Fi peeves

Aren't the impulse thrusters supposed to use fusion power? I think that's where the hydrogen from the Bussard scoops is supposed to go.

As for specifying speed, I guess you can always just stop accelerating once you've reached the desired speed. Though why would you want to stop accelerating early, if the purpose is just to get from point A to point B, well, that's another question. Probably best left to psychiatrists ;)
 
TOS is now available on Netflix so I've started watching it (never had the opportunity to watch it before).

Because it's bingable on Netflix I started with the Pilot, "The Cage". In it Capt. Pike clearly refers to "Time Warp Factor 7".

Does this mean that travel by Warp is actually Time Travel?

Time travel comes much later in ST, and it's not quite the same thing. It involves going to insanely higher warp factors, by doing a slingshot run (gravity assist, really) around a star.

That said, yeah, they do refer it as "time warp factor" in the beginning.

I think it's just supposed to be the factor by which the time axis is compressed, bearing in mind that the scale is exponential not linear. Though later they just refer to warp factor, so I suppose all coordinates of the space-time are warped equally by then? Just a guess. They never actually explain what "time warp factor" means.
 
Without risking opening the door to the biggest nerd battle in pop culture I always liked Star War's "Hyperdrive" a little (although it also worked at the speed of Plot) better since on a functional level it seemed more like you weren't going through normal space.

Well, warp drive is based on the Alcubierre drive, which is a real theoretical (though probably impossible) thing. Hyperspace is a complete invention.
 
Well, warp drive is based on the Alcubierre drive, which is a real theoretical (though probably impossible) thing. Hyperspace is a complete invention.

Miguel Alcubierre was born in 1964. The original series of Star Trek aired in 1966.

I don't think the warp drive was based on the Alcubierre drive.
 
Miguel Alcubierre was born in 1964. The original series of Star Trek aired in 1966.

I don't think the warp drive was based on the Alcubierre drive.

Yeah, my bad. I thought it was older, though the idea sure dates to prior to that. But since Alcubierre (what a cool name!) came up with a more-or-less physics-compliant idea since then, it at least has some basis in reality, compared to hyperspace.





Unless Alcubierre was really precocious.
 
I rather admire authors like Jack Vance, who simply fluffed off the whole thing. The character gets into his space ship, programs the navigation for the destination, and activates the “space splitter”.
Off we go...
Vance was all about world building and sly comments on society rather than space travel.
 
While I largely agree with your point as far as novels go, I'd say you kinda have to lay own the lore bible if you're going to have TV series (even SW had animated series), comics, games, etc, based on your universe. Or really even more than one movie, unless you're darn sure you'll have the same script writer every time.

Otherwise, everyone feels free to fill in the blanks in a completely different way. Which really is what happened to ST. Even with the parts that weren't blanks to start with.

Even if you didn't care much about the technobabble gizmos for your original story, unless you write a lore bible at some point, everyone will have some clever idea that depends on a whole other interpretation of what that "space splitter" does. Someone will think it splits a whole alternate universe each time you use it (kinda like time travel is treated in some universes) and build a mirror universe story with it. Someone else will think it mans going through an alternate space, and use it to warp behind some barrier which exists only in normal space. Yet another guy will think it is alternate space, but only along certain hyper-lanes, and build a blockade scenario around it. Yet another guy will think it might work by compressing space, and make up a clever use of that. Etc.

So basically unless you lay down your lore, sooner or later other people will do it for you. And they'll contradict each other wildly.

So, you know, necessary evil and all that...
 
Last edited:
Gawd almighty, ain't we a bunch a nerds.
Wouldn't a starship "dropping out of warp" in a solar system release such huge amounts of energy, (radiation, kinetic, gravity waves) that said solar system would be fried?
 
Gawd almighty, ain't we a bunch a nerds.
Wouldn't a starship "dropping out of warp" in a solar system release such huge amounts of energy, (radiation, kinetic, gravity waves) that said solar system would be fried?
How much radiation, kinetic energy, and/or gravity waves does being in or dropping out of warp create in reality? ;)
 
Basically it would create a literal Hell.

No wait that's the FTL drive in Event Horizon.
 
My favorite FTL technobabble was in an old crappy pulp book. It went something like this: "since acceleration is always relative to an arbitrary reference frame, all you need for FTL is to accelerate to light speed, then pick a different reference frame and you can accelerate to light speed again. Repeat as many times as needed. Problem, nerds?"


So why do they ever have power restrictions? Running the rest of the ship, all the systems and lights and power and displays and laboratories should only take a tiny, tiny fraction of that level of power output. But all the time on Star Trek we here some variation on "We need more energy from X transfer power from Y" which to me seems like someone trying to make a 747 flight from London to New York go faster by turning off that little reading lamp at their seat.

If you have a power source capable of bending space and time in order to break one of the most fundamental laws of the universe I don't see you having to really conserve power anywhere else. For instance a Star Trek universe star ship should be able to turn off it's main engines and have enough power for lights, life support, sensors, displays, and all that jazz... for pretty much ever. (I'll leave off things like weapons, transporters, replicators and maybe artificial gravity since they are all technobabble that maybe have huge power requirements of their own).
They may talk about "emergency power," but do you ever see them actually turn anything off? I don't remember that happening. It's always shuttling power from one energy-intensive thing to another, like engines to weapons, or weapons to shields.
 
Gawd almighty, ain't we a bunch a nerds.

Welcome to the club, brother :)

Wouldn't a starship "dropping out of warp" in a solar system release such huge amounts of energy, (radiation, kinetic, gravity waves) that said solar system would be fried?

I could debate that, but instead I'll use it to illustrate that extension of Checkhov's Gun principle, that is really my position about it all.

- Do you NEED your engines to break relativity in your SF? Well, certain kinds of stellar empires or even civilizations can't exist without FTL. If you're writing the kind of story that needs FTL, sure, go for it.

- Do you NEED, say, to make a complete hash of genetics and generally biology to show that someone is the kid of two specific parents, by showing the genetic code from both interlaced on the same chromosome? It's actually wrong in more ways than one. (See, ST Enterprise.) Well, no, not really. The same plot twist of showing who the parents are, would work just as fine by just showing it has a chromosome from one parent and one from the other parent. So if you don't NEED to rewrite biology, then I'd really appreciate sticking to reality.

- Do you NEED something as absurd as a silicon based virus that targets humans? Again, it's not even just wrong in one way, it's wrong in a couple of different ways. If you have SOME valid story-related reason, sure, but if you just want a medical emergency, just stick to a carbon-based virus please.

Basically, all I'm really... wishing, is that people at least made a minimal effort to go for the minimum WTH factor. Change the parts of science or reality that are actually needed for the story, stick with what we already know about reality for the parts where rewriting reality brings nothing useful.
 
Last edited:
They may talk about "emergency power," but do you ever see them actually turn anything off? I don't remember that happening. It's always shuttling power from one energy-intensive thing to another, like engines to weapons, or weapons to shields.

And it always seems to give some huge advantage to the system with extra power. So really, you can add in another generator and have all of those running at high efficiency?

And then, of course, they seem to forget whatever hack they used to block those shield-piercing lasers or detect that cloaked ship by the next episode.
 
I rather admire authors like Jack Vance, who simply fluffed off the whole thing. The character gets into his space ship, programs the navigation for the destination, and activates the “space splitter”.
Off we go...
Vance was all about world building and sly comments on society rather than space travel.
If you can get past the '40s era sexism, the Lensman series by E. E. Doc Smith are like that too. Simply by cancelling inertia, one can zip across the galaxy in mere seconds!
 
Yeah I never got why occasionally dialog and plot points sometimes treated subspace as... an alternate dimension or something.



TNG did that a few times as well. On one occasions Picard ordered helm to go to Warp 3 and Helm responded "Aye Sir Maximum Impulse." I'm going to to a rare head cannon rewrite and just assume they were going to impulse to get out of the system before going to Warp. I'll ignore the fact that brings up even more problems.

And actually this address another common Warp/Impulse trope. The Shuttle Crafts. Now I know Star Trek wavered with enough regularity on this you could set an atomic clock by it but at least some (most) of the Shuttle Pods / Shuttle Craft where strictly impulse with things like the Runabouts / Captain Yacht's being the smallest warp ships we've seen. (And if some of the shuttle craft are Warp capable that begs the question you are putting a warp drive in a vessel I've never figured out where they fit anything since the interior space of those things seems to fill up the entire volume....).
...

Beware: Shuttlecraft versus Shuttlepod and which decade one is talking about!
Federation shuttlecraft
First has warp nacelles outside, while the other doesn't have them.

My favorite FTL technobabble was in an old crappy pulp book. It went something like this: "since acceleration is always relative to an arbitrary reference frame, all you need for FTL is to accelerate to light speed, then pick a different reference frame and you can accelerate to light speed again. Repeat as many times as needed. Problem, nerds?"



They may talk about "emergency power," but do you ever see them actually turn anything off? I don't remember that happening. It's always shuttling power from one energy-intensive thing to another, like engines to weapons, or weapons to shields.

Likely holodecks and similar non-essentials are turned off.

And it always seems to give some huge advantage to the system with extra power. So really, you can add in another generator and have all of those running at high efficiency?

And then, of course, they seem to forget whatever hack they used to block those shield-piercing lasers or detect that cloaked ship by the next episode.

More like overclocking CPU or extra loading of system. Even if you can solve power issue, you still have heat...
 
Also, I'm fairly sure that it was explicitly stated in the first couple of episodes of DS9 that the Runabout was a new design, and the smallest warp-capable ship available.

I could be misremembering that though.
 
Also, I'm fairly sure that it was explicitly stated in the first couple of episodes of DS9 that the Runabout was a new design, and the smallest warp-capable ship available.

I could be misremembering that though.

According to Memory Alpha smallest Warp 5 capable craft.
 
Mentioning heat reminds me of another lulz: stealth in space.

The most trivial issue being stealth while having the thrusters on, like both the Romulans and Klingons do all the time. I don't care how you bend light around the hull, you're ejecting a huge trail of very very fast particles. Whatever particles your engine produces. A lot of them are going to be ionized (or even all), and they're going to be fast, which means they're going to just emit a lot of high energy photons. (Which in turn ensures more willl be ionized.) They'll interact with the matter around in space, for even more photons, and they'll scatter light from the local star like a comet tail.

Briefly: even if your ship itself is 100% invisible, that won't do you much good when you have an AU worth of glowing trail pointing at you. It's like trying to make a transparent bullet... which is also a tracer. No matter how good you get at the former, the latter will mean it's still very visible.

But let's say you just coast with the engines off for most of the approach.

Well, here comes problem #2. The cosmic microwave background has a temperature of about 2.7K. Unless you're at that temperature, i.e., about 10 degrees lower than when hydrogen starts solidifying on your hull, you're going to stand out in the infrared or microwave spectrum.

And in practice you're going to be a lot hotter than that, because you have to SOMEHOW dissipate energy. Every human, every computer, every piece of machinery running, every lightbulb, is going to produce heat. And your ONLY way of getting rid of it is to go Stefan-Boltzmann on its ass, and basically have some radiators that release it into space. Like the panels on the space station. Most likely it's going to be your hull, since it's already big and pointing outwards.

And it gets worse if you look at stuff like the insanely high power output of warp cores in ST, and the about 17.8% efficiency we calculated. They're going to release about 5 times their rated power output as heat. Which you have to release in space somehow. Those spaceships are going to shine and stand out like a star over Bethlehem.

Fine, someone will say, we'll just have the radiators pointing backwards, so whatever we're attacking doesn't see the infrared. Not so fast. First of all, SOME heat is still going to leak through or along the hull's metal. So you're just standing out a little less, but you're still standing out.

Second, that still only helps within a cone to the front of the ship. Now you made it MORE visible from behind, since all energy is going out that-a-way. Any half-way competent enemy will figure out how to counter it, at least within its systems: have a number of detection stations or drones scattered all around the system, and scanning in all directions. It doesn't even take many to make it impossible to hide your heatsinks from ALL of them.

And even in deep space battles, anyone who's encountered your stealth ships before, will be accutely aware that you're only hidden from one direction. So what can they do about it? Well, just launch half a dozen torpedo-sized drones that scan for infrared in a full 360 degrees.

They can be very small and cheap, in fact, so even a small vessel like the NX-01 could carry hundreds of them. And unless you shoot them down, they're reusable. And if you DO shoot at them, well, you just signalled where you are.
 
Agree Cloaking only makes sense for ambush, choke-point, and similar situations.

I can maybe imagine a scenario where two or more ships are traveling with one of them cloaked, say a cloaked ship protecting a transport or other high value target in a sort of Star Trek version of that "Two planes, one radar signature" trick the Soviets pulled in Top Gun.

My favorite is that one TNG episode where an isolationist species cloaked their entire planet. People on Earth with no computers, sensors beyond primitive telescopes, and basic math were able to deduce first the existence and a ballpark guess at the orbit of Neptune hundreds of years ago based on nothing but its gravity.

Unless we want to go down the "Cloaks somehow block gravity" rabbit hole.
 

Back
Top Bottom