Runabouts

posted on September 9th, 2009, 10:55 pm

Then I guess good thing they said the Constructors will haul a Tavara, right

As soon as we stop arguing realistically, then no more realistic conclusions can be released

Your points about the Tug are good, but again, we have no verification that a Venture is a Tug--aka a vessel mounted with extremely powerful engines designed exactly for that task (incidentally, with water friction you must also discuss displacement as well--it's much easier to move a ton of floating wood in water, then it is on land in fact, even if given wheels etc). Instead, I am led to believe that it is a motor boat--ok, it might be 30 foot one, but it ain't a Tug

posted on September 9th, 2009, 10:55 pm

None taken Dom.  As for pointing out it not being canon, you won't get any of that from me.  I live in reality first  :lol:  But I guess I'm still failing to understand what you're saying.  Momentum is calculated after the object has already started moving.  Starting from 0 there is none until acceleration begins, correct?  Once the object begin moving there is momentum.  So if it latches onto (i.e. tractor) another object while already in motion what would cause the "tractoring" ship to slow down?  There's no weight in space, only mass.  Shouldn't every object connected to the moving ship be moving along with the same thrust?  Again, my apologies if I'm off.  Not a physics whiz.

posted on September 9th, 2009, 11:16 pm

No, no.

I used the Venture as an example of a tiny ship moving a huge one. As things stand, it could move it, but it would take a substantial amount time to accelerate that mass to any useful speed. And forget about any kind of control for turning or decelerating. I said it could be done, but that's it.

Of course you need a ship specially designed to haul ships with any resemblance of control. Powerful engines, a combination of tractor and pressor beams and computer control for finetuning operations. With the masses, speeds and accelerations we are talking, human naked eye is NOT the way to make sure everything is OK.

posted on September 9th, 2009, 11:34 pm

indeed, it would have to be more of a grappling beam than a simple tractor. Something that perhaps exerts force over the entire vessel, providing more control instead of just pulling it from one point. But any solution would probably require a large amount of power.

posted on September 9th, 2009, 11:41 pm

Tug boats of that style are more likely to be used by Feds and Romulans.

I'd say that the Dominion would use a more "exotic" approach. Something like a ship that separates in several one-engine parts that attach themselves to the hull of the ship and move it.

Once more, I doubt klingons would have anything for moving derelict ships. Borg would simply dismantle them for raw metals, and maybe some tech to be assimilated, but I doubt they'd go to the bother of moving the ship.

posted on September 10th, 2009, 1:43 am

This game is based on trek physics not our perceptuilized physics of the real universe around us.

and the way I see it if an ant can move 200 times its mass then why cant say a runabout not move something similar?and take into effect microgravity in space and potential lack of inertia or presence of inertia depending on situations then a runabout could perhaps tow something unbeliveably massive but it would take it very very long to bring the mass up to any kind of "pratical" velocity. I would bet that a runabout's reactor or hull integrity or traction beam emmiter would burn out to quickly to make it practical for say towing a dominion standoff cruiser...but I think towing a galor depending on conditions is entirely "feasible" in the trek universe.

posted on September 10th, 2009, 3:57 am

Sounds like an  old topic ( about a year ago) which I brought up about a Tow repair ship combo. then every body  nixed the idea.

posted on September 10th, 2009, 4:10 am

Well the the  feasability part about  a runabout  moving a larger ship has merit . Nasa has planned to make a Space tug for asteroids  using a 10 tonned space craft . they  think  it will work  in therory. the craft can move up to a 1000 tons asteroid  by using micro gravity. So it is feasable yes. practical no  , It would take at least 15 years to nudge a asteroid  from a orbit that would strike the earth to one that would  barely miss the earth .

posted on September 10th, 2009, 4:17 am

wow,  all i wanted was a tow ship.  not start some huge star trek physics war.

catching up on everything since i got home,  i dont know where to start.  First of all, Wippien sux, i've been trying to log in for an hour now.  As for the topic at hand...

where to start.

in the real world, a lawnmower (i assume you mean a riding mower that has it own propultion device) as is can not tow a aircraft.  i will agree with you there 

the REASON it can not is that whole torque to friction ratio.  What we are trying to express is that in the depth of space, friction/resistence/gravity is not as large an issue as it is planet fall.

given a proper gearing ratio, a small vehicle can and in fact DOES move a aircraft.  typically TO the airport terminal, and back them out to the runway to take off.

IF a spaceship, turns OFF its engines, it disengages the "space tires / traction" eliminating 99.8% of the resistance.  thus making it tow-able

posted on September 10th, 2009, 6:20 am

and also dont forget the scene in( i forget what seeson) where U see a pergrine towing an excellsior....after they had lost DS9 to the dominion...maybe the season 6 opening scene? Where obrien is complaining about running from the dominion.

it WAS a peregrine, just maybe retrofitted with a couple extra tractor beams.

Actually, none of this matters because if i recall correctly tractor beams only emit a unidirectional stream of gravitons that pull the target ship in the direction of the emitter. Thus if you have a ship with strong enough tractor beams then in principle you can tow anything (yes even the earth , though it would be pretty difficult based on the fact the earth has its own strong gravity field). The key lies in the fact that the tractor beam isn't a tether so much as it is a sort of "telekinesis" if you will.

posted on September 10th, 2009, 3:27 pm

it WAS a peregrine, just maybe retrofitted with a couple extra tractor beams.

The name 'Peregrine' has never been applied to a specific design, so no-one knows what ship is a Peregrine and which isn't.

posted on September 10th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Not to get off topic but A peregrine is the federation assault fighter....now where there is dispute on most references is weather the Maquis raider as seen in the first episode of VOYAGER is a Antares, or Juday classifaction. I have also seen the Maquis Raider refered to as a Peragrine however in various episodes of DS9 the maquis used both The what I call peregrine and the Juday/Antares class courier vessels.

posted on September 10th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Not to get off topic but A peregrine is the federation assault fighter....now where there is dispute on most references is weather the Maquis raider as seen in the first episode of VOYAGER is a Antares, or Juday classifaction. I have also seen the Maquis Raider refered to as a Peragrine however in various episodes of DS9 the maquis used both The what I call peregrine and the Juday/Antares class courier vessels.

Also not to get off topic but adding Maquis Raiders would be awesome.

[Tyler]

posted on September 10th, 2009, 8:57 pm

Last edited by Tyler on September 10th, 2009, 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Federation assault Fighter is called 'Federation Attack Fighter' and nothing else.

Which is the Peregrine Class?

Also not to get off topic but adding Maquis Raiders would be awesome.

There is one on A2Files, you could use that?

posted on September 10th, 2009, 9:11 pm

Ok after reading the link tyler posted...I have concluded that Im gonna call the federation fighter as seen in the dominion war a peregrine and the "maquis raider II" a Juday/Antares class...... Just so I can personally know a difference beacuse we cant just go around calling ships "unconclusive name pending" class.....Thats my opinion and Im sticking to it. Until Rick Berman or some other Oficial trek source states otherwise.