Tractor beams

[Lazar]

Which "fact" I had already posited. However, it still stands to reason that maintaining a warp field requires considerably less energy than accelerating.

Yes, but not none at all. What I mean is that this statement:

Yep. Space is pretty empty. You don't need to exert constant thrust to maintain a given velocity.

doesn't apply in this case; it's is only relevant if you're talking about impulse. We don't know if Starfleet can build an engine powerful enough to propel a starbase-sized mass at warp.

[SomosFuga]

We know photon torpedoes have some kind of warp sustainer system that maintain the warp field and allows the torpedo to keep in warp for some time if they were fire at warp speed, but that and maintain a several hundreds meters starship (to say nothing of a starship towing SB 74) at warp through a medium range space travel without a warp engine are two very different things, you could probably need a very powerfull engine to do such a task.
Plus we have seen Voyager going out of warp immediately when they ejected the warp core in "Day of Honor" hence you probably do need a high-speed engine to do so.

About the torpedoes, source, I've never heard that they had FTL engines in them, if they did couldn't they speed up before impact to increase damage greatly...

And about the Warp core ejection. The warp core is the main source of power, and in order to keep the warp field stable you need power, which without a warp core, would be lacking severely. So no, it was not the engine that was the problem, it was the warp field colapsing that took them out of warp... If it was stated otherwise, then give me a source for it, I'll gladly accept being told I'm wrong.

About the torpedoes: I read that in Memory Alpha and DITL (green letters so not canon but at least backstage sourse) plus we have TNG ep. "The Emissary" when that klingon girl traveled at warp 9 inside a torpedo. I'm sure it's not the only time we have seen PT at warp, just hard to say exactly when.

About the warp core ejection: So, it was not the engine that was the problem, it was the warp field colapsing because they didn't had a warp engine to create and sustain it... If it was stated otherwise, then give me a source for it, I'll gladly accept being told I'm wrong.

[SomosFuga]

We know photon torpedoes have some kind of warp sustainer system that maintain the warp field(sic) and allows the torpedo to keep in warp for some time if they were fire at warp speed

Key point italicized.

you could probably need a very powerfull engine to do such a task.
Plus we have seen Voyager going out of warp immediately when they ejected the warp core in "Day of Honor" hence you probably do need a high-speed engine to do so.

None of this in any way indicates the presence of drag at warp speed. Hence, once the object is at the desired velocity, no thrust is necessary.

Maybe i am not understanding you (seriouslly) please correct me if i am wrong; what you are saying is that once you have reached the desired warp speed you may eject the warp core and you can still maintain that speed for an indeterminate time or distance?
If that is the case you could shutdown your starship's core and do the same and if that is the case why don't they do that in ST and forget about fuel troubles.

[Mikey]

Which "fact" I had already posited. However, it still stands to reason that maintaining a warp field requires considerably less energy than accelerating.

Yes, but not none at all. What I mean is that this statement:

Yep. Space is pretty empty. You don't need to exert constant thrust to maintain a given velocity.

doesn't apply in this case; it's is only relevant if you're talking about impulse. We don't know if Starfleet can build an engine powerful enough to propel a starbase-sized mass at warp.

It does apply; there is absolutely no reason to believe that mere maintenance of the warp field wouldn't sustain a constant velocity. Remember I said no further thrust, not zero expenditure.

[SomosFuga]

We don't know if Starfleet can build an engine powerful enough to propel a starbase-sized mass at warp.

Not to mention put that engine in a ship capable of towing that mass using a tractor beam.

[Lazar]

About the warp core ejection: So, it was not the engine that was the problem, it was the warp field colapsing because they didn't had a warp engine to create and sustain it... If it was stated otherwise, then give me a source for it, I'll gladly accept being told I'm wrong.

They needed the warp core to generate the energy to maintain the warp field.

It does apply; there is absolutely no reason to believe that mere maintenance of the warp field wouldn't sustain a constant velocity. Remember I said no further thrust, not zero expenditure.

Again, any talk of thrust is irrelevant, because it isn't thrust that gets you to a given warp factor. It's not that there's "no further thrust", it's that there's no thrust involved at all. I agree with what you're saying about maintaining the warp field and expending energy; I'm just saying that your initial statement isn't relevant because it only applies to Newtonian propulsion. The ability to maintain a Newtonian velocity without constant thrust has nothing to do with warp speed.

[Sionnach Glic]

We have never seen nor heard of anything like those in the fleet.

We've never seen nor heard of toilets in the fleet either. Yet by logic we can deduce they must exist.
Similarly, logic suggests tugs of some sort do exist. Starfleet's gotta have a way of retrieving damaged ships to a repair station some way. And there's no reason why they couldn't use such a ship to tow S74.

FTL, yes of course, but we are talking about a starship capable of towing SB 74 through thousands of light years all by herself, so again, we have never seen nor heard of anything like those in the fleet.

So every ship with a damaged engine just gets stranded with no hope of recovery? Of course not. Logicaly Starfleet has a tug vehicle of some sort designed for recovering damaged ships from a combat zone to a region where they can be repaired. There's no reason why they couldn't use such a ship (which would by design need to be capable of towing ships far larger than it) to tow S74. Or simply build a larger version for it.

[Mikey]

Again, any talk of thrust is irrelevant, because it isn't thrust that gets you to a given warp factor. It's not that there's "no further thrust", it's that there's no thrust involved at all. I agree with what you're saying about maintaining the warp field and expending energy; I'm just saying that your initial statement isn't relevant because it only applies to Newtonian propulsion. The ability to maintain a Newtonian velocity without constant thrust has nothing to do with warp speed.

Again, to claim that either of us knows enough about FTL travel to make that assessment is ridiculous (but I admit that applies to me as much as to you.) But if we disregard my use of the terms "thrust" and "drag," we can probably agree that whatever the exact mechanism, maintaining a given warp speed required less energy than acheiving that warp speed from zero.

[Lazar]

Fairy snuff.

[Mikey]

Fairy snuff.

I gave that up years ago.

[Tsukiyumi]

[stitch626]

maintaining a given warp speed required less energy than acheiving that warp speed from zero.

This would likely be correct, though the amounts would be minimal. The difference would probly be due to the changing of the warp field. While changing the field to move "faster" you would expend more energy than simply maintaining a semi-constant field.
This is all conjecture, mind you.

[kostmayer]

Then what exactly is the limiting factor in warp speed?

I'm sure theres been at least one on-screen occasion of someone increasing power to the Warp Drive in order to increase speed.

[stitch626]

Then what exactly is the limiting factor in warp speed?

I'm sure theres been at least one on-screen occasion of someone increasing power to the Warp Drive in order to increase speed.

I'd say the limiting factor would be how much power it takes to modify the warp field. The faster you want to go, the more modification you need. Eventually, you'll run out of power. Also, the ship's shape may interfere with the field (hence the shaking as ships go "faster" than they should).

[SomosFuga]

We have never seen nor heard of anything like those in the fleet.

We've never seen nor heard of toilets in the fleet either. Yet by logic we can deduce they must exist.
Similarly, logic suggests tugs of some sort do exist. Starfleet's gotta have a way of retrieving damaged ships to a repair station some way. And there's no reason why they couldn't use such a ship to tow S74.

FTL, yes of course, but we are talking about a starship capable of towing SB 74 through thousands of light years all by herself, so again, we have never seen nor heard of anything like those in the fleet.

So every ship with a damaged engine just gets stranded with no hope of recovery? Of course not. Logicaly Starfleet has a tug vehicle of some sort designed for recovering damaged ships from a combat zone to a region where they can be repaired. There's no reason why they couldn't use such a ship (which would by design need to be capable of towing ships far larger than it) to tow S74. Or simply build a larger version for it.

Of course Starfleet has at least one type of tug, we saw it in DS9 "A time to stand" towing an Excelsior Class with its tractor beams so i guess is possible to tug a starbase too, but as i was saying it's not the same to tug a starship and a starbase.
Lets compare using DITL numbers as a reference: The Federation Tug's length is 120 m.

Excelsior Class:
Length: 467 m
Beam: 185 m
Height: 100 m
Decks: 28
Mass: 2,350,000 metric tons

Starbase 74:
Diameter: 8,781 m
Height (main): 10,712 m
Height (overall): 13,356 m4
Decks : 2,765
Mass: 71,000,000 metric tons

Hardly the same.