Fusion power is not enough power to produce the amounts of Anti-matter used in the shows, and Matter-antimatter reactions are used to power several major ships systems and even some colonies, as mentioned in several episodes, maybe YOU need to watch the showS more carefully.
The fact of the matter is Solar Power/Fusion does not create a "Post-Scarcity" society, and Matter/Energy converters also ignore thermodynamics in star trek. The heavy use of matter/antimatter reactors and energy/matter converters is beyond insane but it was necessary for plot not realism.
Also, as per thermodynamics, if you have enough power to produce enough anti-matter to create a warp-field, you can bypass anti-matter altogether and just use that powersource for warp fields, saving energy in huge amounts.
Also, try to be a little less rude/presumptuous in your replies next time
You failed to consider something very important.... Namely that the structure producing anti-matter is NOT the same as the one using it. Trying to fly a solar collector? Might be doable, but.... it seems like a bad idea to me. :P
I would like to see your "calculations" of the ratios.... or not. We never see numbers in the TV show so any numbers you were to produce would be irrelevant. Also that means we don't know how efficient the solar collectors actually are.
Zy, I stopped reading when you cited stars as "a source of antimatter". Stars are the ultimate recycling method - but they aren't "a source of antimatter"; the antiparticles produced in the proton-proton fusion reaction immediately mutually annihilate and produce gamma radiation and photons.
You can make antiparticles in cyclotrons - it's fairly common, in fact. The hard part comes in containing those antiparticles. Scientists were very excited a few years back when they managed to contain about a dozen antiprotons for nearly a second.
Presumably Trektech has solved the issues of antiparticle production and storage; admittedly the latter is a lot easier with the help of force fields, especially if your antiparticles all have the same charge.
You failed to consider something very important.... Namely that the structure producing anti-matter is NOT the same as the one using it. Trying to fly a solar collector? Might be doable, but.... it seems like a bad idea to me. :P
I would like to see your "calculations" of the ratios.... or not. We never see numbers in the TV show so any numbers you were to produce would be irrelevant. Also that means we don't know how efficient the solar collectors actually are.
It's not like i'm attacking Star Trek, but it's not 100% realistic.
Zy, I stopped reading when you cited stars as "a source of antimatter". Stars are the ultimate recycling method - but they aren't "a source of antimatter"; the antiparticles produced in the proton-proton fusion reaction immediately mutually annihilate and produce gamma radiation and photons.
You can make antiparticles in cyclotrons - it's fairly common, in fact. The hard part comes in containing those antiparticles. Scientists were very excited a few years back when they managed to contain about a dozen antiprotons for nearly a second.
Presumably Trektech has solved the issues of antiparticle production and storage; admittedly the latter is a lot easier with the help of force fields, especially if your antiparticles all have the same charge.
My point was that it was the only part of the universe where anti-matter is even found, however so temporarily it may be. Also, a small amount of anti-particles are not enough to power much of anything, and the process of making significant amounts of useable anti-matter is as significant an issue due Thermodynamics as storing it. Even weaponization research was recently ended by the United States Air Force.
You of all people should know the power requirements of producing significant amounts of antimatter. Can we also stop acting like I'm Satan because i committed some form of "sacrilege" by criticizing Trek science? This is a show with Transporters.
It's not like i'm attacking Star Trek, but it's not 100% realistic
Duh. What was your first clue? This is the franchise that doesn't realize that a beam to remove baryons from the Enterprise wouldn't leave a ship behind.
(For the uninformed, baryons include protons and neutrons.)
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Duh. What was your first clue? This is the franchise that doesn't realize that a beam to remove baryons from the Enterprise wouldn't leave a ship behind.
(For the uninformed, baryons include protons and neutrons.)
It's also a show with Heisenberg compensators. I just came into this thread to respond that Trek is wasteful because it doesn't really handle energy in a comprehensive or realistic way so it really is a nitpick since it's been hand-waved long ago. However I've practically been attacked for committing Sacrilege.
Duh. What was your first clue? This is the franchise that doesn't realize that a beam to remove baryons from the Enterprise wouldn't leave a ship behind.
(For the uninformed, baryons include protons and neutrons.)
I think some of those were tossed in as in-jokes. Kinda like that Okudagram with a nonsensical periodic table....
Another TV show that did it more blatantly was Eureka. In one ep there's a personal cloaking device tech.... except that making it required use of a rare, highly radioactive isotope of aluminum..... the isotope number given is the number of the STABLE form. Hehe....
@Zyr, no people, disagreed with you. Because we think your opinion is ill-informed.
I think some of those were tossed in as in-jokes. Kinda like that Okudagram with a nonsensical periodic table....
Another TV show that did it more blatantly was Eureka. In one ep there's a personal cloaking device tech.... except that making it required use of a rare, highly radioactive isotope of aluminum..... the isotope number given is the number of the STABLE form. Hehe....
@Zyr, no people, disagreed with you. Because we think your opinion is ill-informed.
Claiming whether or not i'm ill-informed is an assumption of my personal character, you can disagree with the opinion, not like it, yell at it, but never bring me into it. First thing you learn in any college debate, let alone a nerd debate over trek, which again is not exactly realistic.
Zy, your being ill-informed is not a character judgement. I'm not terribly well-informed on matters of popular culture; does that mean I'm a bad person? No, it does not. Being ill-informed merely means you should stand ready to become better-informed when the opportunity presents itself.
Zy, your being ill-informed is not a character judgement. I'm not terribly well-informed on matters of popular culture; does that mean I'm a bad person? No, it does not. Being ill-informed merely means you should stand ready to become better-informed when the opportunity presents itself.
Whether or not i'm informed is a judgement of me, and should not be discussed. I could have a degree in physics and you wouldn't know it. To say i'm ill informed is to make a character assumption, which is a no-go in debates. It's also an insult in academic circles when you know nothing about the person. So let's just not discuss wether or not i'm informed or how smart i am or am not and instead just focus on Star Trek. How hard is that, why do we have to talk about me at all? We don't, so drop it.
No. Whether or not you're "informed" is a judgement of your state of education on a particular topic. It would be astonishingly arrogant of anyone to claim that they had perfect information on all topics; we're all poorly informed about something.
You really need to be less defensive about your particular areas of ignorance. Remember, ignorance is curable; all you have to do is accept the education you're offered by those with better information on that topic. And recall that there's almost certainly something you know more about than someone else; I'm well-informed on matters of military geopolitics during the late Cold War, because that was what I lived at the time, but Worffan is vastly more educated than I on matters of ornithology and paleontology, while Patrickngo knows more about matters of combat and tactics than I probably ever will. I therefore bow to their areas of expertise, as in comparison to them I am ill-informed on those topics.
Fusion power is not enough power to produce the amounts of Anti-matter used in the shows, and Matter-antimatter reactions are used to power several major ships systems and even some colonies, as mentioned in several episodes, maybe YOU need to watch the showS more carefully.
The fact of the matter is Solar Power/Fusion does not create a "Post-Scarcity" society, and Matter/Energy converters also ignore thermodynamics in star trek. The heavy use of matter/antimatter reactors and energy/matter converters is beyond insane but it was necessary for plot not realism.
Also, as per thermodynamics, if you have enough power to produce enough anti-matter to create a warp-field, you can bypass anti-matter altogether and just use that powersource for warp fields, saving energy in huge amounts.
Also, try to be a little less rude/presumptuous in your replies next time
Replicators dont convert energy to stuff(or vice versa), they just create stuff from well, smaller building stones. I remeber something in TNG Tech manual about something something molecule-level or Atomic level. IF anyone have the manual feel free to correct me. As for transporters, dont they just handwave it with matterstream(or was it matter beam)???
As for use as starship(small shuttle still have fusion cores, not sure about the larger ones like runabout or delta flyer), not exactly a good idea to put a GIGANTIC HUGE BIG fusion core on it. Antimatter core would have losses, but atleast with antimatter they can build ships with reasonable size. As for the extrem energy requirement for warp...Well if you want FTL, you have to have rediculusly powerful reactor.
Speaking of ZPM, doesnt zero Point energy extractors(or whatever you wan to call it) pump out more energy than it takes?
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
As for the baryon-sweep part, I think people here missed that it is excessive baryons.(or is it me that remeberd wrong?)
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Replicators dont convert energy to stuff(or vice versa), they just create stuff from well, smaller building stones. I remeber something in TNG Tech manual about something something molecule-level or Atomic level. IF anyone have the manual feel free to correct me. As for transporters, dont they just handwave it with matterstream(or was it matter beam)???
As for use as starship(small shuttle still have fusion cores, not sure about the larger ones like runabout or delta flyer), not exactly a good idea to put a GIGANTIC HUGE BIG fusion core on it. Antimatter core would have losses, but atleast with antimatter they can build ships with reasonable size. As for the extrem energy requirement for warp...Well if you want FTL, you have to have rediculusly powerful reactor.
Speaking of ZPM, doesnt zero Point energy extractors(or whatever you wan to call it) pump out more energy than it takes?
According to Memory Alpha, replicators use transporter technology. Transporters breaks down Kirk and transmits the particles and Kirk's pattern to another location where it is formed into Kirk. Replicators are the last part of the transporter process. So if you have a big enough replicator, then you can keep on making Kirk clones with enough matter and Kirk's pattern to have a crew full of Kirks.
Well, Transporters have been shown creating duplicates of people, both in the TOS episode "The Enemy Within", and in TNG "Second Chances" (with the duplicate Will Riker).
Anyway, Enterprise established that engines faster than the Warp Three range require something with more energy density than fusion--either antimatter, or the Vulcan/Romulan approach of using artificial micro black holes, or something more exotic (e.g. tetryon reactor).
Well, Transporters have been shown creating duplicates of people, both in the TOS episode "The Enemy Within", and in TNG "Second Chances" (with the duplicate Will Riker).
Anyway, Enterprise established that engines faster than the Warp Three range require something with more energy density than fusion--either antimatter, or the Vulcan/Romulan approach of using artificial micro black holes, or something more exotic (e.g. tetryon reactor).
There is good reason for why McCoy was afraid of using teleporters and we should be too. Having our bodies disintegrated and a new body formed in another location would make any reasonable person scared of using them. Personally, I don't understand why they didn't use the teleporter as a cloning machine and have the clone explore exciting new planets. Could even use neural controlled waldoes to explore alien planets instead of risking the lives of the crew.
The only teleporter technology that I liked was the folded space transporter from the High Ground episode from TNG.
There is good reason for why McCoy was afraid of using teleporters and we should be too. Having our bodies disintegrated and a new body formed in another location would make any reasonable person scared of using them. Personally, I don't understand why they didn't use the teleporter as a cloning machine and have the clone explore exciting new planets. Could even use neural controlled waldoes to explore alien planets instead of risking the lives of the crew.
The only teleporter technology that I liked was the folded space transporter from the High Ground episode from TNG.
I'd rather use a shuttle
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
so you're suggesting they are simply not able to do this, yet... due to technological limitations set because they haven't felt like it yet?
and yes, I was bothered by the Bajor moon being converted... because the Federation considers the Bajoran Sector a critical point. Why they didn't have a Fleet stationed there is beyond me... you got a wormhole... great now I've got another gear to grind... anyways, why didn't the Federation put massive solar collectors in the Bajoran system. It's how they create anti-matter which takes a lot of energy.
the federation administrate the station, basically the federation control the station with the blessing of the bajoran government, however the bajorans run almost all the operations as it is their area of space. that means the federation only had limited control in bajoran space, meaning no energy collectors. besides bajoran and federation technology isnt designed to work together.
if the federation sent out a fleet especially that early, the bajorans will think the federation betrayed the bajorans and look like another occupying force to the bajorans and the federation state they have tolerance and understanding for another culture plus their prime directive, so the bajorans want the fleet gone, they are gone. so there is little point in sending a fleet for no real reason.
I suspect if Martok didn't goad Gowron in it, he wouldn't had attacked ds9.
that may have been the changling ordering the hit, remember they setup the romulan and cardassian intelligence groups with one changling, they can sure do a similar thing with martok.
You could find a way to mine Anti-matter from stars(the only natural source of antimatter remaining in the universe),
err, yeah... why dont you provide some proof to this claim first, that means building a ship that can mine this anti-matter from a star and learning about its properties first.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Fusion power is not enough power to produce the amounts of Anti-matter used in the shows, and Matter-antimatter reactions are used to power several major ships systems and even some colonies, as mentioned in several episodes, maybe YOU need to watch the showS more carefully.
There is a lot of "fiction" in this, but the anti-matter production in Star Trek is lots more efficient than anything we could come up with. I think it was in the realm of 80 % of the energy used up is converted into anti-matter. We don't know any processes that could do that efficiently it in the real world, of course.
And the Dilithium Crystals seem to be the "magic" trick to ensure that the matter/anti-matter annihilation yields mostly useable power.
Fusion and Solar Power are used to generate energy to create the anti-matter fuel.
It is kinda like we use oil today. In a century or so we consumed oil that is probably the accumulated remnants of thousands or milliions of years of plant life, formed over millions of years.
Maybe the yearly production of 100 fusion plants are needed to fuel a year worth of operations (partially at warp) for a Galaxy Class starship, but that's okay, because we can't put the 100 fusion plants in a Galaxy Class starship.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
There is a lot of "fiction" in this, but the anti-matter production in Star Trek is lots more efficient than anything we could come up with. I think it was in the realm of 80 % of the energy used up is converted into anti-matter. We don't know any processes that could do that efficiently it in the real world, of course.
And the Dilithium Crystals seem to be the "magic" trick to ensure that the matter/anti-matter annihilation yields mostly useable power.
Fusion and Solar Power are used to generate energy to create the anti-matter fuel.
It is kinda like we use oil today. In a century or so we consumed oil that is probably the accumulated remnants of thousands or milliions of years of plant life, formed over millions of years.
Maybe the yearly production of 100 fusion plants are needed to fuel a year worth of operations (partially at warp) for a Galaxy Class starship, but that's okay, because we can't put the 100 fusion plants in a Galaxy Class starship.
Short version: Starships use matter/antimatter not because it's easy to manufacture, but because it's as energy-dense a fuel as you can possibly get.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
antimatter in star trek is used as a power source for the warp engines because it requires a lot of energy but generally the ships are powered by fusion reactors.
There's no need. Think about what "recycled matter" is when they talk about replicators.
It's my understanding that the bulk of the ships power is generated from the Warp core. Fusion reactors are secondary.
it depends. Voyager was powered by the warp core... almost entirely. However the Galaxies were also powered by the fusion reactors. You'd see Enterprise D wandering about with no warp core and short of warp drive, be absolutely fine.
I wonder how Voyager was able to run for as long as it did with no antimatter. I don't recall a single episode in Voyager where they had to trade for some Antimatter to fill up the Voyager's tanks. It is not like they can use the Bussard Collector to collect a significant amount of antimatter from space and it is extremely doubtful that Voyager carried 7 years worth of antimatter from the Alpha Quadrant.
Say what you want about SGU, but at least it is more realistic than Voyager ever was. Especially with the whole getting close to a star to recharge Destiny's energy.
You don't collect antimatter from space - you're unlikely to run into a significant amount of it, as this universe seems heavily biased toward normal matter. Instead, you create it using a cyclotron. Where would you keep one? Well, maybe that's what they put in where the diagram calls for a second warp core...
You don't collect antimatter from space - you're unlikely to run into a significant amount of it, as this universe seems heavily biased toward normal matter. Instead, you create it using a cyclotron. Where would you keep one? Well, maybe that's what they put in where the diagram calls for a second warp core...
But as others have said, antimatter is very energy dense so it is not something that you would make on a starship. So you need to put in more energy to create antimatter than what you would get out of it and if a starship is already generating that much energy, then it doesn't need antimatter. It would be something that is obtained from a refueling station or starbase.
But as others have said, antimatter is very energy dense so it is not something that you would make on a starship. So you need to put in more energy to create antimatter than what you would get out of it and if a starship is already generating that much energy, then it doesn't need antimatter. It would be something that is obtained from a refueling station or starbase.
That's great - if you have access to such a location. Lacking that, you use the fusion reactor to power a cyclotron, making a few grams of antimatter at a time, and gathering that up to power your warp drive. It takes some time, yes, and there are energy losses in the process - but for the warp drive, you apparently need all that energy at once, so it has to be in the form of antimatter, because in the '60s the writers of the original series didn't know the properties of antimatter but thought it sounded properly sci-fi.
How did the Voyager manage to generate enough antimatter? All I can say is, how did the Voyager manage to replace those irreplaceable photon torpedoes, and shuttlecraft, and personnel?
I'd really love to see a hard reboot of the entire series, preferably run by Behr and Moore, where those questions would actually have answers...
I wonder how Voyager was able to run for as long as it did with no antimatter. I don't recall a single episode in Voyager where they had to trade for some Antimatter to fill up the Voyager's tanks. It is not like they can use the Bussard Collector to collect a significant amount of antimatter from space and it is extremely doubtful that Voyager carried 7 years worth of antimatter from the Alpha Quadrant.
Say what you want about SGU, but at least it is more realistic than Voyager ever was. Especially with the whole getting close to a star to recharge Destiny's energy.
1. They had a dilithium convertor, using one of those fusion reactors.
2. They never complained of an antimatter reserve problem... which had me wondering... because clearly they had to replace their torpedoes, which uses a good chunk of antimatter. Same with their shuttles.
3. They were often complaining about Deuterium reserves... which shouldn't be an issue as red dwarfs make those.
4. If we gotta reboot, we should reboot Voyager. That show had promise... but didn't do it because the writers never used a guidebook or looked back.
I loved SGU. It was... accurate. (well, it tried for it anywayS)
That's great - if you have access to such a location. Lacking that, you use the fusion reactor to power a cyclotron, making a few grams of antimatter at a time, and gathering that up to power your warp drive. It takes some time, yes, and there are energy losses in the process - but for the warp drive, you apparently need all that energy at once, so it has to be in the form of antimatter, because in the '60s the writers of the original series didn't know the properties of antimatter but thought it sounded properly sci-fi.
How did the Voyager manage to generate enough antimatter? All I can say is, how did the Voyager manage to replace those irreplaceable photon torpedoes, and shuttlecraft, and personnel?
I'd really love to see a hard reboot of the entire series, preferably run by Behr and Moore, where those questions would actually have answers...
Then why not just use the fusion reactor to power the warp drive? You get more energy out of doing that than converting energy from the fusion reactor to antimatter to warp energy.
Then why not just use the fusion reactor to power the warp drive? You get more energy out of doing that than converting energy from the fusion reactor to antimatter to warp energy.
you need a certain output, apparently in the gigawattage range to maintain the bubble... something fusion reactors cannot do.
Comments
I would like to see your "calculations" of the ratios.... or not. We never see numbers in the TV show so any numbers you were to produce would be irrelevant. Also that means we don't know how efficient the solar collectors actually are.
My character Tsin'xing
You can make antiparticles in cyclotrons - it's fairly common, in fact. The hard part comes in containing those antiparticles. Scientists were very excited a few years back when they managed to contain about a dozen antiprotons for nearly a second.
Presumably Trektech has solved the issues of antiparticle production and storage; admittedly the latter is a lot easier with the help of force fields, especially if your antiparticles all have the same charge.
It's not like i'm attacking Star Trek, but it's not 100% realistic.
My point was that it was the only part of the universe where anti-matter is even found, however so temporarily it may be. Also, a small amount of anti-particles are not enough to power much of anything, and the process of making significant amounts of useable anti-matter is as significant an issue due Thermodynamics as storing it. Even weaponization research was recently ended by the United States Air Force.
You of all people should know the power requirements of producing significant amounts of antimatter. Can we also stop acting like I'm Satan because i committed some form of "sacrilege" by criticizing Trek science? This is a show with Transporters.
Duh. What was your first clue? This is the franchise that doesn't realize that a beam to remove baryons from the Enterprise wouldn't leave a ship behind.
(For the uninformed, baryons include protons and neutrons.)
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
It's also a show with Heisenberg compensators. I just came into this thread to respond that Trek is wasteful because it doesn't really handle energy in a comprehensive or realistic way so it really is a nitpick since it's been hand-waved long ago. However I've practically been attacked for committing Sacrilege.
Another TV show that did it more blatantly was Eureka. In one ep there's a personal cloaking device tech.... except that making it required use of a rare, highly radioactive isotope of aluminum..... the isotope number given is the number of the STABLE form. Hehe....
@Zyr, no people, disagreed with you. Because we think your opinion is ill-informed.
My character Tsin'xing
Claiming whether or not i'm ill-informed is an assumption of my personal character, you can disagree with the opinion, not like it, yell at it, but never bring me into it. First thing you learn in any college debate, let alone a nerd debate over trek, which again is not exactly realistic.
Whether or not i'm informed is a judgement of me, and should not be discussed. I could have a degree in physics and you wouldn't know it. To say i'm ill informed is to make a character assumption, which is a no-go in debates. It's also an insult in academic circles when you know nothing about the person. So let's just not discuss wether or not i'm informed or how smart i am or am not and instead just focus on Star Trek. How hard is that, why do we have to talk about me at all? We don't, so drop it.
You really need to be less defensive about your particular areas of ignorance. Remember, ignorance is curable; all you have to do is accept the education you're offered by those with better information on that topic. And recall that there's almost certainly something you know more about than someone else; I'm well-informed on matters of military geopolitics during the late Cold War, because that was what I lived at the time, but Worffan is vastly more educated than I on matters of ornithology and paleontology, while Patrickngo knows more about matters of combat and tactics than I probably ever will. I therefore bow to their areas of expertise, as in comparison to them I am ill-informed on those topics.
Replicators dont convert energy to stuff(or vice versa), they just create stuff from well, smaller building stones. I remeber something in TNG Tech manual about something something molecule-level or Atomic level. IF anyone have the manual feel free to correct me. As for transporters, dont they just handwave it with matterstream(or was it matter beam)???
As for use as starship(small shuttle still have fusion cores, not sure about the larger ones like runabout or delta flyer), not exactly a good idea to put a GIGANTIC HUGE BIG fusion core on it. Antimatter core would have losses, but atleast with antimatter they can build ships with reasonable size. As for the extrem energy requirement for warp...Well if you want FTL, you have to have rediculusly powerful reactor.
Speaking of ZPM, doesnt zero Point energy extractors(or whatever you wan to call it) pump out more energy than it takes?
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
According to Memory Alpha, replicators use transporter technology. Transporters breaks down Kirk and transmits the particles and Kirk's pattern to another location where it is formed into Kirk. Replicators are the last part of the transporter process. So if you have a big enough replicator, then you can keep on making Kirk clones with enough matter and Kirk's pattern to have a crew full of Kirks.
Anyway, Enterprise established that engines faster than the Warp Three range require something with more energy density than fusion--either antimatter, or the Vulcan/Romulan approach of using artificial micro black holes, or something more exotic (e.g. tetryon reactor).
There is good reason for why McCoy was afraid of using teleporters and we should be too. Having our bodies disintegrated and a new body formed in another location would make any reasonable person scared of using them. Personally, I don't understand why they didn't use the teleporter as a cloning machine and have the clone explore exciting new planets. Could even use neural controlled waldoes to explore alien planets instead of risking the lives of the crew.
The only teleporter technology that I liked was the folded space transporter from the High Ground episode from TNG.
I'd rather use a shuttle
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
the federation administrate the station, basically the federation control the station with the blessing of the bajoran government, however the bajorans run almost all the operations as it is their area of space. that means the federation only had limited control in bajoran space, meaning no energy collectors. besides bajoran and federation technology isnt designed to work together.
if the federation sent out a fleet especially that early, the bajorans will think the federation betrayed the bajorans and look like another occupying force to the bajorans and the federation state they have tolerance and understanding for another culture plus their prime directive, so the bajorans want the fleet gone, they are gone. so there is little point in sending a fleet for no real reason.
that may have been the changling ordering the hit, remember they setup the romulan and cardassian intelligence groups with one changling, they can sure do a similar thing with martok.
err, yeah... why dont you provide some proof to this claim first, that means building a ship that can mine this anti-matter from a star and learning about its properties first.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
And the Dilithium Crystals seem to be the "magic" trick to ensure that the matter/anti-matter annihilation yields mostly useable power.
Fusion and Solar Power are used to generate energy to create the anti-matter fuel.
It is kinda like we use oil today. In a century or so we consumed oil that is probably the accumulated remnants of thousands or milliions of years of plant life, formed over millions of years.
Maybe the yearly production of 100 fusion plants are needed to fuel a year worth of operations (partially at warp) for a Galaxy Class starship, but that's okay, because we can't put the 100 fusion plants in a Galaxy Class starship.
Short version: Starships use matter/antimatter not because it's easy to manufacture, but because it's as energy-dense a fuel as you can possibly get.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
it depends. Voyager was powered by the warp core... almost entirely. However the Galaxies were also powered by the fusion reactors. You'd see Enterprise D wandering about with no warp core and short of warp drive, be absolutely fine.
I wonder how Voyager was able to run for as long as it did with no antimatter. I don't recall a single episode in Voyager where they had to trade for some Antimatter to fill up the Voyager's tanks. It is not like they can use the Bussard Collector to collect a significant amount of antimatter from space and it is extremely doubtful that Voyager carried 7 years worth of antimatter from the Alpha Quadrant.
Say what you want about SGU, but at least it is more realistic than Voyager ever was. Especially with the whole getting close to a star to recharge Destiny's energy.
But as others have said, antimatter is very energy dense so it is not something that you would make on a starship. So you need to put in more energy to create antimatter than what you would get out of it and if a starship is already generating that much energy, then it doesn't need antimatter. It would be something that is obtained from a refueling station or starbase.
How did the Voyager manage to generate enough antimatter? All I can say is, how did the Voyager manage to replace those irreplaceable photon torpedoes, and shuttlecraft, and personnel?
I'd really love to see a hard reboot of the entire series, preferably run by Behr and Moore, where those questions would actually have answers...
1. They had a dilithium convertor, using one of those fusion reactors.
2. They never complained of an antimatter reserve problem... which had me wondering... because clearly they had to replace their torpedoes, which uses a good chunk of antimatter. Same with their shuttles.
3. They were often complaining about Deuterium reserves... which shouldn't be an issue as red dwarfs make those.
4. If we gotta reboot, we should reboot Voyager. That show had promise... but didn't do it because the writers never used a guidebook or looked back.
I loved SGU. It was... accurate. (well, it tried for it anywayS)
Then why not just use the fusion reactor to power the warp drive? You get more energy out of doing that than converting energy from the fusion reactor to antimatter to warp energy.
you need a certain output, apparently in the gigawattage range to maintain the bubble... something fusion reactors cannot do.