The best position would probably be opposing the two rear saucer ones. Despite HOW the ship starts moving, the laws of physics mean that once the engines are off, the ship still goes forward at the same velocity until an opposing force halts the motion. It is in fact impossible to keep anything absolutely still in a non-gravitational environment, but adding the braking engines (the retro rockets you sometimes hear mentioned in real space travel) can help slow the ship when needed. I assume the technobabble explaination in Trek would be that the rear impulse engines simply invert the field or something, but that is inefficient, slower and dangerous at the high speeds used.
go ahead, put on in on the front. It would save the thursters trouble. But since it runs off of plasma that's generated by a fusion reactor, the coil does not have to be anywhere near the exaust. so you don't have to modify your drawing, because they could just route the plasma from the reaction chambers to the coil in the front. They would not have to put a seperate reaction chamber in the front.
That would solve energy problems, but what about staffing problems. How many additional engineers would need to be on board to service three different cores? I am not sure if this is a serious issue, just something I am curious about.
Actually, I am thinking of what Engineering would look like with three cores, all arranged in a kind of pyramid of power. It would be interesting.
Last Edit: Jun 23, 2006 18:40:55 GMT by davidramsey
Well, the multiple cores is an intruging idea, not to be dismissed lightly. There is a chance that it could work with certain protocols and restrictions ... it could be a great new concept that would seem fitting on a prototype ship.
It all depends on how you plan to deploy each core ... one for enhanced sensor range, one for general propulsion and one to operate all main systems. I imagine the engines would be smaller and buildt for maximum efficency to circumvent the unnecessary waste of materials. In an emergency situation I imagine all the cores' power could be diverted to whatever system needed them. It could prove to be a valuable change in the long run.
It's not a matter just of safety, but the fact it is both inefficient and unnecessary. A single warp core is capable of powering the whole ship since once the engine drain is taken off then enough remains to run everything else. Unless the engines required far more power than they actually do now then a second source of power is not needed. It only became necessary in early Voyager to ration power because they are a small ship with no obvious means of refuelling and the death of anyone who knew how common deuterium actually is meant they thought it was a huge problem.
An analogy would be putting thee identical engines into a car; it doesn't make you able to go faster, it just requires three times the fuel to achieve the same speed when a single engine with three times the power was needed. As long as backup exists to take over from the main if it fails then there's no problem.
If you really do want more than one, I'd suggest a spare mini one in the saucer since when it's seperate then there's no way for it to run indefinately. Of course it would be too small to power warp, but it wouldn't need to since the saucer is impulse only.
I like the premethus style warp engines my slef Kosh, and I would like to see more of that split formation of the premethues
The obvious flaw of the Prometheus style MVAM was that it required all three sections intact for it to reform. Not a good chance to take when it's a battle ship. Nick Martens (on this site) designed the Vesuvius-A so that it split differently. It doesn't exactly look graceful when split, but it doesn't need to and at least we don't need all the pieces.
The shape of the Prometheus suggests no such thing is possible. Of course it was a prototype class so it is entirely possible later MVAM ships would be made so that not all sections need to be present as on the Martens made Somma class.
And I don't like the whole "One engine for each wheel" reference, because I thought Warp Cores were more like an energy source than propulsion. I got my idea from something I read at Treknology.org
"Higher velocities were possible, but the energy expenditure and the stress to the system components was enormous."
See what I mean? I think smaller warp cores might work though, three cores that are smaller than regular cores. One for the propulstion, one for the systems, and one as a backup core (which is usually off unless needed.)
I don't like aht ideas as an engineer. If you hooked one to each engine, what if one went offline?
YOu could achive the same amount of power with a bigger single core. Voyager has 2 cores, though one is a spare. YOu could do something similar, and also have one to power the saucer.
Or, here's an idea: use warp core power to elctrify the plasma for the impulse drive. Clean and No exaust ports needed.
The multiple cores idea is a nightmare from an engineering perspective. if the ship gets' really big (several times galaxty size) It would make a lot of sense for redundant power adn all that. but the size we're talikg about here, it shouldn't matter.
I remember the TNG episode where it was revealed that conventional warp drive was destroying the galaxy. What if you were running a new engine that was designed to somehow avoid such a thing? I don't think you'd want to chance having the thing short out because you are using it to power too many things, also, you'd certainly want to have a back up plan in case something went wrong. Or there is a chance that such an engine, even a proven model, may not yet be capable of really powering the whole of the ship. You may have the alternative engines to power the ship's systems as well as any extracurricular systems.
Last Edit: Jun 25, 2006 8:07:27 GMT by davidramsey
Post by iantalosarika on Jun 26, 2006 22:55:55 GMT
As I've said, it's not going to be one core for each engine. It's going to be set up like this. Core 1: Shipboard systems Core 2: Propulsion Core 3: Backup core Cores one and two are going to be smaller than most ship cores, and core three is going to be full size, so it can pick up if both cores fail. Standard core operations will have one and two active and three shutdown unless needed.
Edit: And can we drop the subject of the Prometheus class?
Last Edit: Jun 26, 2006 23:00:43 GMT by davidramsey
Savot: Happy Belated Anniversary to us!
May 27, 2019 22:44:29 GMT
Carl Torek: Today is Section forty Seven's Anniversary ... We are Nineteen Years Old today ... Congratulations to everyone involved throughout the years, lets hope for many more to come
May 7, 2019 17:26:36 GMT
Carl Torek: Not a single Easter Egg bribe ... What's the world coming too, I ask you
Apr 21, 2019 22:58:25 GMT
Steven Smith: Always a pleasure to see familiar faces....hopefully more will pop in
Mar 15, 2019 7:53:47 GMT
Carl Torek: WOW ! .... Hello Karynn, great to here from you, hope the site is still up to expectations ... It's so good to know our former members are still looking in now and then, one surprise after another lately lol.
Mar 14, 2019 21:02:30 GMT
Steven Smith: WOW.....Hello to you too! Now this IS a surprise!
Mar 14, 2019 14:07:25 GMT
Steven Smith: I'll share some pics somehow...when I am not at work
Mar 14, 2019 14:07:02 GMT
Karynn McCormick: Hello, all! Just passing through. I was curious to see how the sim was faring. Happy star trekking to all of you!
Mar 14, 2019 10:01:10 GMT