www.ditl.org

Yeah, IIRC the city dwellers were pretty high-faluting there.

Jon's probably correct, too - I'd guess it's a lot easier to keep something where it is than to constantly adjust to a whole host of ever-changing conditions (such as with a moving and ascending/descending starship.)

Mikey wrote: There certainly are SIF's and the like; but nothing that would have to accommodate quite so many variables as variable-altitude atmo flight - the constant flux of gravity, pressure, shifting atmospheric conditions, etc., etc. It's a lot more complex than the comparatively straightforward SIF calculations necessary for space flight. Perhaps 'Trek-level automation could handle it, but since M-5 I don't think the UFP is willing to relinquish that much control to an AI.

I guess you're right. Flight would be tricky even with magic force fields and anti-gravity.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Best I can think to suggest is that they did call it something like the most amazing implementation of anti gravity in the known galaxy. Maybe antigrav on that scale is one of those "prestige project" things that just isn't too practical to go around sticking in ships?

That's probably the most realistic portrail too, even Atlantis in Stargate still uses some means of generating thrust for lift and not anti-gravity AFAIK.

Mikey wrote:Jon's probably correct, too - I'd guess it's a lot easier to keep something where it is than to constantly adjust to a whole host of ever-changing conditions (such as with a moving and ascending/descending starship.)

Thanks. You mean me, right?

Yes.

Oh, Graham mentioned the sheer weight of the Enterprise as being another factor, but doesn't that also depend on the mass lightening shield thingy (I forget the trechnobable term for atm, is that the SIF?)

No, the mass-reduction tech is part of the impulse drives. SIF is short for "structural integrity field," the magic force field that permeates the hull and helps keep it sound at velocities between "stupid" and "blatantly impossible."

Mikey wrote:No, the mass-reduction tech is part of the impulse drives.

We've never had a straight answer about where the mass reduction comes from under normal conditions. It might be the IDF, it might be the impulse engines, or it might be the warp engines. The latter are the only ones that have been shown to be capable of it, in Deja Q, but given the unusual circumstances we can't be sure whether that's one of their normal functions or simply a capbility.

The TMs say that mass reduction is from the "driver coils" which are part of the impulse drive system. The idea seems to be that plasma washes over the coils as it is shot out the engine and that creates the mass reduction field - kind of a bit like having an afterburner on the back of a jet engine.

Non canonical, but the whole idea of mass lightening is from the TMs anyway. There's no mention of it as part of the impulse drive in canon.

There is, however, a mention in Deja Q that wrapping a warp field around an object decreases its mass. It's how they tried to push the moon back into orbit.

Yes, IIRC that's the only canonical mention of a drive system being used to reduce mass - but in that instance it involves reconfiguring the warp field out of normal alignment and thus presumably couldn't be used for propulsion AND mass reduction at the same time.

The changes were about extending the field to enclose the moon, though. The mass lightening effect could be a normal function of warp drive, too. Maybe that's how they get around relativistic mass increases?

Mikey wrote:Yes.

Okay, sorry. Not used to being addressed by my RL first name on the site.

Soo, is it the conclusion then of this thread that it would be much simpler to make a Star Wars style speeder or even a Trek shuttlecraft levitate using anti-gravity than capitol ships?


Would it be easier to adjust the anti-gravity field on a smaller vehicle?

Who knows? It might be easier to turn lead into gold, for all we know.

Mikey wrote:Who knows? It might be easier to turn lead into gold, for all we know.

Hmmm......which tech would we rather have....