How are shuttles capable of warp speeds?

[Captain Seafort]

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.

Difficult, but not impossible.

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.

The 6 1/2 million ton E-D requires 3000 cubic metres for a three-year mission. Assuming this scales linearly with mass and mission duration the 4 ton shuttle should require around 300 cubic centimetres for a six month mission. Even assuming shuttle warp drive is only one one hundreth as efficient, this would still only be a box (for example) a metre long by 60 cm wide by 5 cm high. there enough space to fir that under the floor.

[Teaos]

We're talking reality.

Huh I was under the impression we were talking about a fictional TV series...

There is no reason it can't be small. Also there enough space at the back or under the floor for a resonable sized warp core.

[Dean Martlou]

i think modern shuttles tend to have them on the top, some okind of a "dilithium swirl chamber" or something.

honestly, it sounds like bull to me, but there you go.

[DBS]

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.

But I don't think that is how the "treknology" behind M/AM warp cores works in trek. The antimatter doesn't directly propel the ship at all (even if it did it would just be a decent sublight engine), apparently the energy released is used to power the engines. Don't ask me how the bloody thing works, I don't know, and it probably breaks eight or nine laws of physics...

But assuming that the Trek Tech doesn't rely on using the antimatter for propulsion itself, the warp core need only be as big as the space you need to collect the energy released (in whatever mind-bending technobabble method they have to do that. ) So if you need less power, one would assume that the core itself might be smaller.

Fuel is another matter.... OI!

[Reliant121]

I know this my not have much varience (Escuse me if spelling is wrong. Im blonde) but when the delta flyer was fitted with a transwarp coil, it was about as big as a large tankard. Their should be sufficient space for a small tankard to be fitted even in a small little shuttle.


__________________


"Revenge is a dish best served cold. It is very cold... in space" Khan noonien singh

[Xjün]

Is there any reason that everything would have to be jammed under the floor?

Seems to me that there could be a small reaction chamber and fuel supply in each nacelle along with the drive coils.

[Teaos]

I think thats were they keep the fuel probably. Somewhere out of the way.

[Captain Seafort]

Is there any reason that everything would have to be jammed under the floor?

Seems to me that there could be a small reaction chamber and fuel supply in each nacelle along with the drive coils.

I don't think there would be enough space. The warp core would be small (see my post above), but not that small. I think it would be more efficient to have a single reactor under the floor, where it could be easilly accessed in-flight, and would have better protection than if it were in the nacelle.

[Teaos]

I do think most the stuff is in the nacelles with only fuel and a few bits out. Shuttles aren't exposed to to much danger so they don't need to be robust.

[Captain Seafort]

Shuttles aren't exposed to to much danger so they don't need to be robust.

They shouldn't be designed for what they usually encounter, they should be designed for what they could encounter, and given the number of times we've seen a shuttle crash, the reactor should be in the main hull, not stuck out on the front of the nacelle.

Besides the issue of protection, there's maintainability to think about. If the drive fails in interstellar space then your options are a)if the drive is in the nacelle put an EVA suit on and go outside for a look, or b)if the drive is under the flor, lift a floor panel up. I know which I'd prefer.

[Teaos]

We also need to take into account size. Shuttles need to be able to fit easily in a shuttle bay so a small size is important. Also it may be easier to produce a self contained unit. Build a warp nacelle with everything but the fuel tanks in it and it would be very easy to build/replace. Also shuttles are almost never used on long missions. If they get in trouble the mother ship will come get them.

[Mikey]

Teaos' idea also fits with GK's theory that starships construct their own modular shuttles. I also think that a warp drive (and fuel supply, etc.) could be EXPONENTIALLY rather than arithmetically smaller as you scale down the size of the driven vehicle, so a sub-floor unit could make sense for a shuttle.

[Graham Kennedy]

A GCS is around five million tons. Shuttles are more like 50 - 100,000 times smaller. If you shrank the E-D's core down by 100,000 times, how big would it be?

Even assuming that the E-D core benefits from economy of scale to a huge extent, and a shuttle core was only 100 times smaller, that would still make the reaction chamber inches in size. I don't find it THAT hard to picture something a foot or two across and a few inches deep being used as a warp core reaction chamber.

[Captain Seafort]

The minimum I used was based on the TNG TM, pg 129, which describes the photon torpedo sustainer engine as a cylinder with a 20 cm diameter, 50 cm long, and one twelfth minimum mater/antimatter reaction camber size. Crunch the numbers and this gives the minimum M/ARC volume of just under 0.2 cubic metres - giving a sphere about half a metre across. While you could just about fit a chamber that size in the nosecone of a Type-6 shuttle's nacelle, there wouldn't be room for reactant injectors, magnetic constrictors or fuel. In larger shuttles, that space is taken by busard collecters so there's simply no room. It makes far more sense to put the warp core underneath the floor, where there's more room for a larger core, fuel, and it's easier to acess from the crew compartment.

[Teaos]

So the size makes sense and the placement is completly up to us. Personally I like the idea of the self contained unit with only the fuel not in the nacelle area but I could see most of it being under the floor or at the back.