Space propulsion

[that_punk_guy]

Heck, just stick a nice shiny light on there. No-one asked any questions when Gene Roddenberry did that.

Incidentally, no-one ever asked why the Warp Nacelle Pylons were so flimsy-looking:



Surely the stress of warp-speed propulsion would break these babies off? Was this ever accounted for? (Not much of a Trekkie, really.)

[that_punk_guy]

KennyR wrote:
In the future propulsion will be intertialess anyway and so won't need vents or exhaust ports. :-P

Technically, it wouldn't then be propulsion, would it? :-P

[that_punk_guy]

KennyR wrote:
No, I mean movement by using a phased and vectored, artificially generated gravitational field. You just fall in whatever direction you like, using the closest large mass to apply your force against. So technically it would be propulsion - but it wouldn't involve inertia, ie. throwing something backwards to go forwards.

That way aren't you just overcoming inertia much more efficiently? It's something I haven't thought about before, but doesn't even gravity have to overcome the inertia of a falling object to some extent - even though it's small enough that you could say it was free of inertia?

(I'm attempting to spark interesting conversation, because there's not enough of it at the moment... and probably failing miserably... ;-))

[that_punk_guy]

As long as we don't turn people into baboon stew in the process, I'm happy. :-)