WTF? Dolphins and whales on the E-D?

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Using thrusters in intersteller space for travel is like using ores on an aircraft carrier.

Except you'd be using ores as a method of propulsion. On a starship the RCS thrusters used to control the direction of travel at sublight speed. That's canon. If you cut impulse the thruster can still be used to control drift.

What the thrusters control is pitch, bank, and yaw. Using them to control the direction of travel in its entirey is wasteful.

That's the idea behind thrusters, to control the direction.

[stitch626]

What I'm saying is: all thrusters can practically do in deep space is control the direction of pointing, not the direction of movement. Say a ship is drifting in a northward direction and they want to go east. Using only thrusters, they would have to turn the ship (which is a rotation and does not change the direction of movement, and is not really a problem) and then stop the ship from moving in the north direction and start it moving in the east direction. It may not seem like a big deal but the fuel costs would be enormous.
It would be like using a lego propeller to move a real life boat. It is inefficient.

[Mikey]

Exactly. Thrusters would control the facing, but actually accelerating - meaning changing either the speed or direction component of velocity - with thrusters and not impulse engines would be ridiculously impractical, if even possible at all.

[stitch626]

Well, not a problem for shuttle craft, but for a starship...

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Well, not a problem for shuttle craft, but for a starship...

If thruster power was in proportion to the size of the ship, it wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be moving very fast, but the idea is they used impulse to get up to speed, then they let the ship drift with impulse power set to minimum or off to reduce the amount of interference on sensors.

[stitch626]

But there is no proof that impulse engines interfere with sensors. And you may not have seen my post a bit higher, thrusters are fine for changing direction of pointing but not good for changing direction of movement.

[Sionnach Glic]

If thruster power was in proportion to the size of the ship, it wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be moving very fast, but the idea is they used impulse to get up to speed, then they let the ship drift with impulse power set to minimum or off to reduce the amount of interference on sensors.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that you have not proven that impulse engnies emit interference for the subspace sensors? And before you say it "subspace sensors should recieve interference from subspace systems" is not proof.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

If thruster power was in proportion to the size of the ship, it wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be moving very fast, but the idea is they used impulse to get up to speed, then they let the ship drift with impulse power set to minimum or off to reduce the amount of interference on sensors.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that you have not proven that impulse engnies emit interference for the subspace sensors? And before you say it "subspace sensors should recieve interference from subspace systems" is not proof.

How should I put it then...from what we've seen in Star Trek the sensors search for energy right? So the energy emitted by the ship would show up on the scanners. That takes up computer computation that could be used analyzing signals further out. And you can't just rewrite the code to ignore your own ship's emmissions because that could ingnore similar emissions by accident, or ignore someone or something hiding in it's shadow. By reducing the energy output it reduces the energy showing up on the scanner, making it easier to spot other energy signatures.

[Sionnach Glic]

Then why have they never once in the entire show turned off their engines to scan for another ship, even when doing so should, by your logic, have been advantageous? Face it: we have no indication that engines interfere with sensors, and plenty of indication that they don't.
Ergo, engines do not cause interference in sensors. Case closed.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Then why have they never once in the entire show turned off their engines to scan for another ship, even when doing so should, by your logic, have been advantageous? Face it: we have no indication that engines interfere with sensors, and plenty of indication that they don't.
Ergo, engines do not cause interference in sensors. Case closed.

FYI, when you go "Case Closed" that makes you look like an asshole, not to mention it increases the chances of me taking up the arguement.

And while we haven't seen any indication other then this one case with the Saratoga. But think about it, most of the ships we see on a regular basis were eitheer to of the line starships like the Enterprise, or 100 years more advanced where sensors would be far more advanced.

[Captain Seafort]

*snip waffle*

Blackstar it would really help your case if, when asked to provide evidence of something, or when someone makes a solid case against your position., you didn't go off on one of these woe-is-me tangents that do nothing except make you look like a bad loser. All you're doing is giving off extremely strong "I'm getting the sh*t kicked out of me and I'm trying to distract everyone from that fact" vibes.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

*snip waffle*

Blackstar it would really help your case if, when asked to provide evidence of something, or when someone makes a solid case against your position., you didn't go off on one of these woe-is-me tangents that do nothing except make you look like a bad loser. All you're doing is giving off extremely strong "I'm getting the sh*t kicked out of me and I'm trying to distract everyone from that fact" vibes.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You must be imagining things

[Captain Seafort]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You must be imagining things

I'll say it more simply then: shut the f*ck up before you make yourself look even more stupid than you already do.

[Sionnach Glic]

FYI, when you go "Case Closed" that makes you look like an asshole,

Does it look like I give a damn? The case is closed, regardless of what you think.

not to mention it increases the chances of me taking up the arguement.

Which makes you look pretty damn stupid when you do so and don't have any evidence. Which is pretty much all the time.

And while we haven't seen any indication other then this one case with the Saratoga.

Wow, what brilliantly circular logic.
You: "The Saratoga had its engines off."
Us: "Why?"
You: "Because the engines interfere with sensors."
Us: "Prove it."
You: "The Saratoga had its engines off."

But think about it, most of the ships we see on a regular basis were eitheer to of the line starships like the Enterprise, or 100 years more advanced where sensors would be far more advanced

What part of PROVE YOUR CLAIMS do you have trouble understanding? Either provide evidence, or stop being stubborn and concede the point.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I'll say it more simply then: shut the f*ck up before you make yourself look even more stupid than you already do

Perhaps you should do something constructive for a change.

FYI, when you go "Case Closed" that makes you look like an asshole,

Does it look like I give a damn? The case is closed, regardless of what you think.

not to mention it increases the chances of me taking up the arguement.

Which makes you look pretty damn stupid when you do so and don't have any evidence. Which is pretty much all the time.

And while we haven't seen any indication other then this one case with the Saratoga.

Wow, what brilliantly circular logic.
You: "The Saratoga had its engines off."
Us: "Why?"
You: "Because the engines interfere with sensors."
Us: "Prove it."
You: "The Saratoga had its engines off."

But think about it, most of the ships we see on a regular basis were eitheer to of the line starships like the Enterprise, or 100 years more advanced where sensors would be far more advanced

What part of PROVE YOUR CLAIMS do you have trouble understanding? Either provide evidence, or stop being stubborn and concede the point.

Stubborn to the last I see. I've never been good at explaining basic stuff, and you're clearly too stubborn to even look at the possibility, so this conversation will probably end up in one of the usual circle arguments. So to save time, I'll let it go.

Perhaps you, Rochey, can explain for us then why the Saratoga didn't move away from the probe if it's impulse drive was on. Logically if you encounter a potential threat like that you'd reverse course and study the data to decide on your next move, not fly right at it. This suggests that for whatever reason the impulse drive was offline. Or the captain was an incompetent idiot.