Re:New study simulates gravitational waves from failing warp...
by lloeki on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @04:04AM
(#41107032)
> it’s not a drive in that it’s not providing atypical propulsion (ie, Star Trek warp drives,
AIUI in Star Trek, Cochrane's "space warp generator" and descendants are essentially the Alcubierre design: I don't seem to understand that the warp bubble provides any propulsion by itself (although grav waves could be surfed)
Instead AIUI actual movement is created by a secondary mechanism, which I'm unclear about from a cursory search. Maybe impulse engines? Or maybe those are inefficient/incompatible with warp and it's using a secondary system that comes as a (intentional by design) byproduct of nacelles, like a ramjet engine airplane essentially has two propulsion systems since requires forward speed so you gotta have regular engines.
Re:New study simulates gravitational waves from failing warp...
by throwaway48540 on Thursday August 01, 2024 @01:28AM
(#41126413)
In Star Trek it's the warp bubble doing all the work, impulse engines are sub-FTL.
It’s a “warp stasis” bubble or field: you’ve effectively suspended (or considerably slowed) the people inside to preserve them for the future — stasis.
I think you’re running into objections because while it is warp technology, it’s not a drive in that it’s not providing atypical propulsion (ie, Star Trek warp drives, Star Wars hyperspace drives, Babylon 5 subspace jump drives, etc).
You’re correct that we’re trying to define “warp drive”, but each of “warp” and “drive” are used independently — and your usage of “warp drive” doesn’t respect their independent usage. That you have a 1:1000 slowdown in perceived time to real time as your example suggests at some level you recognize this isn’t a drive.
I think warp stasis is a super cool technology all on its own, though.