How are shuttles capable of warp speeds?

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:05 pm

This is something I just wondered now. No shuttle is large enough to house a warp core, and from the internal shots I've seen of shuttles there's nowhere near enough space to store sufficient antimatter fuel for anything but intrasystem journeys. How, then, can any shuttle be capable of warp speeds for anything more than, say, a trip from Earth to Jupiter?

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:39 pm

I never really thought of that, but its a very good question.
Maybe it has some sort of mini-core thats built into the ship out of sight?

Post by **Teaos** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:04 pm

Small warp core. Shuttles cant reach very high speeds either so its not like they are very powerful.

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:09 pm

Teaos wrote:Small warp core. Shuttles cant reach very high speeds either so its not like they are very powerful.

It would have to be mere centimetres in height, since virtually all shuttles we've ever seen have over 90% of their internal volume dedicated to simple cabin space. The exception would be the Delta Flyer.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:13 pm

It could be built into the walls and floor maybe? They could always lay it down horizontally rather than vertically.

Post by **Teaos** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:13 pm

We have seen cloaking devices that can be carried by had in see no porblem with a warp core being like 2 feet long so long as it is a weak one.

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:15 pm

Teaos wrote:We have seen cloaking devices that can be carried by had in see no porblem with a warp core being like 2 feet long so long as it is a weak one.

That's still way too small to be a warp core that could offer any meaningful speed. It has to be able to safely contain a matter/antimatter reaction and channel it through to the nacelles. You can't do that with a 2 feet high warp core.

Besides, cloaking devices are completely different technology,

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:17 pm

How do we know? I don't think M/AM tech was ever fully explained in Trek. And the only cores we've seen are the ones to move massive starships around.

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:21 pm

Rochey wrote:
How do we know? I don't think M/AM tech was ever fully explained in Trek. And the only cores we've seen are the ones to move massive starships around.

Well, matter/antimatter reactions should work on the same principle as rocket technology of today. You have to get mass, and propel it backwards into space in order to get any kind of thrust. We use a nifty combination of liquid oxygen and other substances to create the reaction which sends the mass flying rearward, and a matter/antimatter reaction should operate the same way. Otherwise, no thrust would be generated.

If the reactor is too small to house a containment module in which the reaction is taking place, or if there's no direct line through to the ship's propulsion systems, it just can't work. And my money is solidly on the notion that a containment module that is 2 centimetres in diameter is just too small to safely contain such a reaction. Ditto for lines to channel the reaction through to the nacelles.

Post by **Teaos** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:36 pm

I used the cloaking device to show that powerful tech could be small.

Also I see no problem with the core being a few feet big. The shuttle is small and slow with not very long endurence. Points to a small unit.

Les · Post by **Les** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:21 pm

Also, Warp technology does NOT equate to rocket technology. In a warp-drive you are not tossing reaction-mass out the back to propel your ship forward, you're simply expending fuel to power a device that 'warps' space-time around your ship somehow and you get taken along for a ride.

There's also the little thing of the shuttle being so very very MUCH smaller than a starship, and given as you said it's largely being given to cabin-space it's generally less-massive relative to it's size as well, so one might argue it'd take a much smaller powerplant relative to it's size to get it to do it's little warp-hops.

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:08 pm

Les wrote:Also, Warp technology does NOT equate to rocket technology. In a warp-drive you are not tossing reaction-mass out the back to propel your ship forward, you're simply expending fuel to power a device that 'warps' space-time around your ship somehow and you get taken along for a ride.

There's also the little thing of the shuttle being so very very MUCH smaller than a starship, and given as you said it's largely being given to cabin-space it's generally less-massive relative to it's size as well, so one might argue it'd take a much smaller powerplant relative to it's size to get it to do it's little warp-hops.

I quantified my statement with 'should.' As we all know, warp drive is pure technobabble, and without ejecting mass out the rear, no thrust of any kind in space is possible.

But the powerplant would have to be mere centimetres in height. I'm going to repeat myself: a warp core that size is not possible.

Teaos wrote:I used the cloaking device to show that powerful tech could be small.

Also I see no problem with the core being a few feet big. The shuttle is small and slow with not very long endurence. Points to a small unit.

The can of coke I'm drinking right now is also small. Does that have any bearing on warp drive?

Post by **Teaos** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:15 am

It would if it was an advanced and power bit of technology like the cloaking device...

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:22 am

I Am Spartacus wrote:I quantified my statement with 'should.' As we all know, warp drive is pure technobabble, and without ejecting mass out the rear, no thrust of any kind in space is possible.

Actually, the concept of moving a ship without expelling reactant mass already exists, albeit in theory only, and in a manner dissimilar to warp drive, in the Alcubiere drive.

But the powerplant would have to be mere centimetres in height. I'm going to repeat myself: a warp core that size is not possible.

And you got your degree in warp theory from which University?

Actually, acording to the TNG tech manual the minimum M/AM reaction chamber has a volume of roughly 0.2 cubic metres, so it could easilly fit under the floor of a shuttle.

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:59 am

Captain Seafort wrote: Actually, the concept of moving a ship without expelling reactant mass already exists, albeit in theory only, and in a manner dissimilar to warp drive, in the Alcubiere drive.

The theory is flawed and will never be utilized to produce any faster than light travel mechanism. We're talking reality. There is no way to move in space without propelling mass in a given direction. Trek warp drive is technobabble.

And you got your degree in warp theory from which University?

UW-Milwaukee. You?

Actually, acording to the TNG tech manual the minimum M/AM reaction chamber has a volume of roughly 0.2 cubic metres, so it could easilly fit under the floor of a shuttle.

But you need a lot more than just the containment module. Reactant injectors, magnetic constrictors, power transfer conduits, plasma injectors, et al. Difficult to fit in a few cubic metres of space.

Not to mention antimatter containment pods, which must be at least several thousand cubic metres in capacity for interstellar warp drive. I'm afraid you can't fit those snugly under the floor of a shuttle.