test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Starships use thrusters in combat

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited February 2012 in Ten Forward
So i was thinking, why starships cannot possibly be fighting at full impulse.

We are told full impulse itself is fairly fast, almost the speed of light (warp 1) but not quite.

anyay full impulse can traverse insystem quite quickly, which means it must be going thousands of kilometers an hour...

pray tell then if starships are fighting so close together, like say in Paradise Lost, where we see the defiant strafing the lakota, if the defiant was at any kind of impulse speed, it would have strafed the lakota in like a millisecond, because the lakota isnt thousands of miles long, its less than 1 km.

So therefore, I posit that starships are actually only using thrusters in combat.

take shattered mirror. Theres no way a pilot could react fast enough travelling at any kind of impulse speed, to dodge around deep space nine like the defiant does. one burst of impulse would put it thousands of miles away from the station.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    However, they mention Impulse in many combat situation in the episodes. The game itself doesn't let us fight at full Impulse because it takes all the energy, you could argue the same happens in the show during combat situations.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Well, if we want to get really technical, space battles in Star Trek take place across thousands of Kilometres. The ships would never come within visual range of each other. But that doesn’t go well on screen if you can’t see both ships fighting, so a bit of visual discrepancies are needed to make it entertaining.

    More to your point though about thrusters, the best strategy involves a variable speed algorithm. Anything at a constant speed, direction and rotation makes for easy targeting calculations. Which means travelling at full impulse is probably not a good idea, as it complicates your targeting ability (the faster you are, the faster your calculations have to be) and makes you easier to hit since your manoeuvrability will be greatly impacted.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    The only time battles took place over that kind of range was in TOS, where they reused a half dozen model shots with slightly different light effects for almost every battle, no matter how many times they changed the enemies.

    In every other series, combat typically took place at closer ranges than we have in game - the Enterprise D rarely engaged an enemy from more than two ship lengths, and a couple episodes had the Defiant and an enemy outside of each other's weapons ranges at only 7000 meters. In a handful of cases Voyager and the Enterprise D fired as far as 20-30 km, but never after TOS were combat ranges higher than 50 km ever again referenced.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I hate to disagree, but I remember a few episodes of TNG and DS9 where combat took place at up to 300 K. In TNG, it was the one where the USS Phoenix's Captain went rogue, going after Cardassian transports that he suspected were carrying weapons. In DS9, the episode where Tom Riker "borrowed" the Defiant for the Maquis, he was blowing up Cardassian ships/outposts at well over 100K
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    hevach wrote: »
    The only time battles took place over that kind of range was in TOS, where they reused a half dozen model shots with slightly different light effects for almost every battle, no matter how many times they changed the enemies.

    In every other series, combat typically took place at closer ranges than we have in game - the Enterprise D rarely engaged an enemy from more than two ship lengths, and a couple episodes had the Defiant and an enemy outside of each other's weapons ranges at only 7000 meters. In a handful of cases Voyager and the Enterprise D fired as far as 20-30 km, but never after TOS were combat ranges higher than 50 km ever again referenced.

    I just watched "The Search part 1"(DS9) last night where they discussed if they should de-cloak and engage when the Jam Hadar ship came within weapons range of 100,000km. And TNG was loaded with examples where battles took place over thousands / hundreds of thousands of km.

    Aside from what is seen on screen, almost all stated combat distances take place as a distance greater than 5000 km. On episodes (the wounded I believe) was completely based around sensor readings of a pitched space battle at stated ranged greater than 100,000km.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Gameplay trumps realism.

    As already said, if we were using realistic speeds and distances, you'd pretty much never see your opponents with the naked eye. The only realistic way to display the battle would be as dots on a tactical display, which wouldn't be much fun for most people.

    I rationalize it as the distances are actually in thousands of kilometers, and the views are all computer-enhanced so I can see something useful.

    I haven't come up with a good one, though, for why I'm looking at my own ship from outside. But first person views make me motion sick, and I need the visual anchor of third person view to play at all, so I pretty much just ignore that one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Cruis.In wrote: »
    So i was thinking, why starships cannot possibly be fighting at full impulse.

    They don't. If I recall, I drop to sub-impulse almost every time combat begins. But as others have said, gameplay overrules "reality".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I'm pretty sure there's at least one shot in season 3 of DS9; in the episode "The Die is Cast", where the Defiant is under weapons fire from a Jem'Hadar attack ship. The beams are fired from out side of visual range.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    They don't. If I recall, I drop to sub-impulse almost every time combat begins. But as others have said, gameplay overrules "reality".

    I don't think OP is talking about gameplay mechanics but Star Trek in general.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I don't think OP is talking about gameplay mechanics but Star Trek in general.

    Really? I can't really tell...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I think this post from http://www.st-v-sw.net does a pretty good job of explaining why ships sometimes engage each other at the close ranges we see in the shows.
    First, as to the claim of short ranges, this is sometimes true. *In DS9, it was fairly*common for vessels to close to such ranges in combat.* Sometimes this was accidental, as occurred in "Tears of the Prophets"[DSN6] when the Allies fly through a supposedly inactive weapons platform field only to have the platforms finally become active while the fleet is on top of them. **

    Other times it made some tactical sense, such as when Sisko took the heavily outnumbered Federation fleet right in to the Cardassian lines in "Sacrifice of Angels"[DSN6]. *The Federation goal was to get some ships through to DS9 within a certain time limit by opening a hole for Federation ships to fight through and warp out of while the enemy fleet was engaged with the remainder. *We can also theorize that this prevented the enemy from combining too much firepower on individual ships and prevented them from targeting warp cores with abandon. *The Dominion goal was to both prevent the Federation from passing and, later, to pretend to open the hole and then surround the Federation ships, thus taking the opportunity to crush a Federation fleet. * In both cases, a fairly tight fleet formation (e.g. ships within visual range of one another) and close combat were the tactical desires of the day.

    Riker gave another possible reason for closer range combat, when he believably suggested to a Klingon captain that he close to 40,000 kilometers in order to shorten the opposing vessel's response time.* This could refer to the target vessel having opportunity to adjust shield power or structural integrity or all manner of other systems to help compensate for the incoming fire and its effects. *We can even easily take this idea a bit further. *For instance, phaser beams do not move at lightspeed relative to the firing ship, so it should take at least one second and probably more for a phaser to travel 300,000 kilometers (one light-second). * A jinking and dodging ship might be a bit harder to hit*

    Shorter-range combat may favor the more maneuverable vessel, as seen to excellent effect in many Defiant Class battles. *On the other hand,*ships with superior weapons arc coverage might try to keep close to try to keep a maneuverable vessel with poorer arcs from owning the fight.* * In other words, a vessel with forward-only weapons might be able to weave and dodge and take frequent shots at 200,000 kilometers, but if you are in close against them you can try to keep to their side or tail or otherwise prevent them from facing you, and if you have good coverage on your vertical and lateral sides, you can pound them with impunity.

    Closing all the way to visual range could only enhance such an effect, and could (a) make it more difficult for the enemy to direct its fire against specific systems, and (b) make the concept of shoot-to-kill somewhat less attractive, since a warp core explosion is something one would prefer to steer clear of.* Such short-range combat may also be useful in regards to receiving torpedo fire, which could negatively affect the firing ship at close enough range (as noted by Riker on a couple of occasions, e.g. "The Nth Degree"[TNG4]).

    It may also be that phasers and disruptors lose energy or focus or some other helpful criteria over distance, a logical supposition whether due to energy 'leakage' or simple focus blooming or frequency spread decohesion or some other technobabble.* How much loss is unknown, but s,a;; percentage points at high range could count up quickly into more required shots across the ranges available.* Thus shorter-range combat may also have the benefit of enhancing directed-energy firepower, an advantage for a vessel interested in either conserving torpedoes or with beam weapons as its primary firepower.

    Finally, we also have the note from production designer Joe Johnston, who noted that the Mutara Nebula from Star Trek II was not there merely to be pretty, but to create a plot device that would allow the ships to fight at sailing ship ranges, as Nick Meyer (the director) wanted. *That's quite a bit of expense and trouble to go to just for the purpose of maintaining the reality of the universe, but it was well worth it for the sake of believability.

    In short, then, there are many possible reasons why starships might fight at closer ranges despite having weapons capable of longer range fire. *However, just as occurred in Star Trek II when causing short-range fire was tactically beneficial because the odds were made even, it is logical to presume that there is tactical benefit in the other cases as well.

    ...

    Translating to Star Trek, one can readily imagine scenarios in which keeping close range might be beneficial to certain vessels, insofar as forcing the enemy to limit his firepower (e.g. phasers over full-yield torpedoes), choose his targets more carefully rather than cause a core breach right beside the ship, limiting enemy maneuverability to avoid shield collisions that might knock everyone to the floor, and so on. * But this reasoning only counts against opponents of equal range.

    The moral of the story is that having long-range weapon technology doesn't always mean you use it at long range. *Sometimes it is superior to go in close and fight it out.
    - http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSW-WeaponRange-Trek.html
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    I am in fact talking about the show in general and not the game. hence why it is in ten forward and not in sto discussion. i thought it would be obvious. however... i find those ranges ridiculous also...and i have thought of them which is what led me to this......theres no way they could be at hundreds of thousands of kilometers, and see them on screen right next to each other.

    and for the person who referenced the die is cast where they rescue odo, sisko tells kira to hold fire until they are within 500 meteres.

    if phasers are sublight weapons and torpedoes can be used at warp speed, why then do torpedoes take longer to reach targets than phasers.

    i maintain that although they established these things on the show with their written, that their writing was inherently flawed. Impulse speed cannot be used in close range combat if it is as fast as they claim it to be on the show. Also they cannot be fighting at 100's of thousands of kilometeres when in fact we see them so close together and zipping around one another.

    certainly in all fights we see in ds9 and tng, the ships are almost on top of each other. and if thats just perspective, then why are they shown so big? and not in a more distance view.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    The problem is the weapons appeared to perform at relativistic speeds. A torpedo that can be fired out of the forward tube while at warp 9 ought to single handedly destroy any ship when you consider that energy equals mass times speed. A 100kg torpedo going at warp 9 would decimate a ship. But the torpedos always seem to leave the ship at the same relative speed regardless of whether the ship is moving or not.

    So I wouldn't take too much stock in their abilities. One of the reasons I like STO is the torpedos have a set speed while phasers are considered instant.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    If you want to talk about realism, why are spacecraft banking in an environment without air resistance?

    Granted, nearly every space opera science-fiction show/movie has this problem (Babylon 5 comes to mind as an exception, at least some of the time).

    "A 100kg torpedo going at warp 9 would decimate a ship."

    Only if completely converted to energy, otherwise its incredible momentum (45 billion kg-m/s^2) would probably just cause it to punch through the hull and keep going. In fact, at v > c, Einstein's energy equation breaks down, as you start getting imaginary results.

    On the other hand, blowing stuff up is fun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    pvnrt wrote:
    If you want to talk about realism, why are spacecraft banking in an environment without air resistance?

    The banking makes some sense. In terms of the center of a ships mass, banking may provide more stability that just turning on a dime. Plus, the turn rate of cruisers are awful.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    The banking makes some sense. In terms of the center of a ships mass, banking may provide more stability that just turning on a dime. Plus, the turn rate of cruisers are awful.

    Banking reduces the energy required for the internal inertial dampeners to overcome centripetal acceleration.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    What about in TNG or VOy when firing on a planets surface from orbit. these ranges are over 100km some of them 200km..

    and if it were real a photon would reach more like 1million KM in range. and phasers about 500,000KM there is little to brake down light in space.
    even a Powerfull pen laser would travel further than 10KM in space now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    pvnrt wrote:
    If you want to talk about realism, why are spacecraft banking in an environment without air resistance?

    Granted, nearly every space opera science-fiction show/movie has this problem (Babylon 5 comes to mind as an exception, at least some of the time).
    [...]

    Actually, even B5 ignored this from time to time (watch the Star Furies fly). The new BattleStar Galactica was a better example, although it had its "airplanes in space" moments, too.

    For Trek, I have always assumed thart "impulse" is actually some kind of below-lightspeed waro drive that works just like a warp drive: You switch it on, you move, you switch it off, you stop.

    But let's not discuss what this would do to physics. :-)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    But let's not discuss what this would do to physics. :-)

    Physics is routinely ignored in Sci-Fi.

    That being said, I think warp, um, warps space time. So in effect, you are not bound by the speed limit of this universe because you technically aren't in this universe. Impulse engines, if I recall, are just glorified chemical engines and rely on ye olde thrust to move the ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    [...] Impulse engines, if I recall, are just glorified chemical engines and rely on ye olde thrust to move the ship.

    According to canon, they are fusion rockets, but of course, this still means Newtonian space flight. Which obviously isn't the case, at least not in STO. So I keep my "impulse is a sublight warp drive" theory, as it works better for me. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    The impulse Drives are just powerful ion based propulsion. hence they leave ion trails like in so many episodes.

    1701 - D Full forward impulse speed is like 0.7 LS or something like that.

    Tho the warp Scale is Not linear
    warp 4 is not 4 times faster than warp 1 it's more like 7 times.
    In a episode of tng
    A trip to a planet at warp 3 was going to take 21 mins but at warp 5 it was 4 minutes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Berlorian wrote:
    The impulse Drives are just powerful ion based propulsion. hence they leave ion trails like in so many episodes.

    1701 - D Full forward impulse speed is like 0.7 LS or something like that.

    Tho the warp Scale is Not linear
    warp 4 is not 4 times faster than warp 1 it's more like 7 times.
    In a episode of tng
    A trip to a planet at warp 3 was going to take 21 mins but at warp 5 it was 4 minutes.

    It's an exponential scale. According to one of the TNG writers or set designers (or something), it was something like velocity = (speed of light) x (warp factor)^(10/3)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    velocity = (speed required for plot) x (warp factor)^(10/3)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    pvnrt wrote:
    It's an exponential scale. According to one of the TNG writers or set designers (or something), it was something like velocity = (speed of light) x (warp factor)^(10/3)

    Which I never liked. It would have made more sense if it were a logarithmic scale. In that warp 8 wasn't 100% faster than warp 7, but only 0.3 times faster than warp 7.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    pvnrt wrote:
    It's an exponential scale. According to one of the TNG writers or set designers (or something), it was something like velocity = (speed of light) x (warp factor)^(10/3)

    That was the TOS scale. TNG had a different one.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_factor
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    If I remember, TNG's scale was based on the energy/power needed to reach a certain warp velocity. So a logarithmic scale would not make sense. And most likely the exponential formula used instead is plausible.

    It is curiously ironic how close the warp factor dilemma mimics real world understanding of the speed of light, given that we used to think it required infinite energy to reach FTL, but recent studies have proven this may be wrong. (link)

    TNG Warp 10 is supposed to represent infinite travel, yet we see ships flying at Warp 14 in All Good Things, perhaps because someone broke the laws of warp theory but the scale wasn't modified?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    ITNG Warp 10 is supposed to represent infinite travel, yet we see ships flying at Warp 14 in All Good Things, perhaps because someone broke the laws of warp theory but the scale wasn't modified?

    I think some admiral got tired of saying, "Helm, set a course for Earth and engage at Warp 9.9999999997" and decided "to hell with this" and adjusted the scale.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    So if we're going faster than what was Warp 10 in Voyager, why haven't we all devolved into large slug like critters? :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2012
    Funnily enough, according to Mike Okuda torpedoes are always launched at warp speed no matter if the ship is standing still or at warp. It's probably why that Klingon fleet that attacked DS9 didn't fair too well. :p
Sign In or Register to comment.