# Just what does a BUSSARD do?



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

For those of you that didn't know (like me)! Most of you probably know this.


In science fictionBussard Ramjets are common plot devices in science fiction.

"In Paramont Pictures' Star Trek universe, a variation called the Bussard Hydrogen Collector or Bussard Ramscoop appears as part of the matter/antimatter propulsion system that allows Starfleet ships to travel faster than the speed of light. The ramscoops attach to the front of the warp nacelles (usually red in all Federation ships, and for different nationalities they range), and when the ship's internal supply of deuterium runs low, they collect interstellar hydrogen and convert it to deuterium and anti-deuterium for use as the primary fuel in a starship's warp drive. The problems of low collection rates and interstellar drag are entirely avoided by the plot device of having the ship travel faster than light"

Not sure about them being "red in all Ferderation ships" though....



hal9001-


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

This theory has been around for awhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Larry Niven used them in many of his books. The math works out very well.

I think that on Star Fleet ships the term came latter, probably around TNG, though It could have been TAS. I always thought that it was kind of a reverse engineering calling them bussards but it works great and can explain the why the front ends of the nacelles have the glowing look.


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

Yeah, I have read all of Niven's stuff and It pre-dates ST and it is a really cool theory..
I think I heard Piccard use the term the first time and the nerd in me was happy..Piccard was a cool nerd thing too google *that* Name

Steve


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It spins around with an orangish glow with lights of color flashing inside and looks cool on screen. Beyond that.........


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Yeah Mach 7, Wikipedia is where I got that quote from! I just quoted the ST part.

You can sure tell the Rodenberrys and the Lucas's (and others) read their Sci-Fi becuase they 'borrowed' a lot from them. It helped being friends with the likes of Asimov too!

hal9001-


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The Bussards on Federation starships are there to supplement the deuterium supply, in those instances where you're just a bit out of easy range of a starbase capable of refueling. But they're not the primary, by any means, since the warp drive takes too much fuel for that to be practical for a ship beyond a certain size.


----------



## Chris Pike (Jul 23, 2005)

It occurs to me it would be more clever to speculate that the bussards scoop up antimatter particles as regular matter is vastly more abundant and could be derived from just water. In theory empty space is seething with anti protons and posi protons coming into existence and then cancelling each other out almost instantly - perhaps the bussards are able to gather these anti protons before they disappear whilst at warp. Maybe warp drive using matter/antimatter depends on this method of acquiring enough antimatter fuel for the process in the first place - possibly still difficult to create antimatter in enough quantities even this far ahead in the future?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Why would you create an engine that can takes you thousands of years away from Earth and not have an energy supply onboard that can get you safely home without relying on having to suck-up fuel from space. Suppose, like sailing ships of old that ran into dead calm waters, you entered a region of space where there was nothing to fuel your ship? In my mind, and in Roddenberry's original concept for "Star Trek", the technology was relyable and worked on a very simple basis and needed no explanation. It was not until "The Next Generation", after his health failed and his death, that the new producers and writers started to muddy the waters with convoluted techno-nonsense, taking what was once a simple concept, man exploring space in a ship without having to explain things to the audiance, to spoon feeding a small group of people who feel the need for the show to be treated as if it were actually based on reality. It is a fantasy show after all!


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

RSN said:


> "convoluted techno-nonsense"
> 
> 
> Hear! Hear! Also know as *Techno-Babble*....
> ...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Personally I like having a technology with elements beyond our understanding. Those four square lights on top of the TOS-E Primary hull, they could be essential for providing some ship function which we know nothing about. 
They started defing the ships technology a bit too closely with TNG- they wanted the writers to know how everything worked and where it was so they could use it in a story properly. 'X' stopped working, so you cannot do 'Y' until it is repaired or replaced. 
IIRC the Bussards were never intended to provide the ship with fuel, + or -, they were to supplement the fuel stored on board to extend the range.
In the TOS tech manuals I believe they were described differently- they grabbed and constricted space and the balls at the stern restored it, this process was how they moved the ship. With the TNG the engines became massive field generators and the shape of the field created motion.

I like the spinney glowy things regardless of 'function'- they look cool and give a unique appearence to ships in that universe.


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

What does a Bussard collector do? 

It collects Bussards. Didn't you guys know that?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I always thought that Bussards just circled around dead things. Otherwise, I know nothing of Bussards from MY _Star Trek_ (the Original Series).


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Trek Ace said:


> I always thought that Bussards just circled around dead things.


Trek Ace, I've got a lighting kit for the Big E that in the instructions the 'Bussard' collectors are refered to as 'Buzzard' collectors!

hal9001-


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

mach7 said:


> I think that on Star Fleet ships the term came latter, probably around TNG, though It could have been TAS. I always thought that it was kind of a reverse engineering calling them bussards but it works great and can explain the why the front ends of the nacelles have the glowing look.


Reverse engineering is disassembling and analyzing something in order to re-create it. On the TOS _Enterprise_, the spinny sparkly lights inside the translucent domes on the fronts of the engine nacelles were just a cool-looking practical effect. Calling them “bussard collectors” is an example of _retconning_ (retroactive continuity).



Trek Ace said:


> I always thought that Bussards just circled around dead things.


So _that’s_ what happened to all those dead Redshirts.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

Depends who you ask - Pakleds will tell you they generate the crimson force field.

They are not strong


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

A few years back, a bunch of folks over on the TrekBBS got into a protracted discussion of this very issue. Most of those who were party to that conversation have since left there, most voluntarily (due to a very strong "clique" group... something lots of website share, of course). I was one of four people who were mainly participating, though others (including, if memory serve, CRA) also participated.

We ran through the actual spacial density of hydrogen believed to exist in "average" deep space. We made a few initial assumptions (ie, ~10% of the output of the matter/antimatter reactor's power would be used in a "spin reversal" device to generate antimatter). We came up with a reasonable "forward effective area" for the bussard collector's projected cone of action (the part we see isn't the whole thing... it basically projects a conical energy field ahead of the ship which allows large objects to pass through but draws in free gas.)

Now, bear in mind that the amount of energy available will vary with the speed of the ship as a result. The faster you go, the more interstellar hydrogen you scoop up, and thus the more total energy output you get.

Basically, at WF6 (old scale, 6^3 * c), you'd have the ability to produce more power in one hour than the current annual power demands of the entire planet Earth.

Now... assume that the ship requires about half of that total power output to propel itself at that speed (that's the assumption we made at the time). If the ship had no fuel except for that carried in internal tankage, the ship would run out of fuel in about five days, as I recall. 

The whole point of the original series ship was that it was supposed to be able to operate independently, without refueling, resupplying, or so forth, for an extended period (up to five years, in theory at least). It was supposed to be more akin to a classic sailing vessel than to a modern aircraft carrier, in that sense.

This isn't to say that it's impossible that the Enterprise didn't get a resupply/refuel rendezvous every few days (and there are a handful of episodes which would seem to infer such things, though others which clearly deny it just as overtly). But it's true that we never saw any such thing. A lack of a positive proof isn't the same as a disproof, but it is reason to refuse to accept an unsupported claim "on faith," if you're inclined to do so. I never saw a resupply/refuel rendezvous, so I have no reason to believe that they occurred regularly.

The TOS Enterprise "refueled" itself as it traveled. This is somewhat akin to old sailing vessels in a sense, or to the slightly more recent steamships which harvested wood to fuel boilers en-route. The Enterprise "harvests" fuel en-route, which allows it to continue (in theory) indefinitely.

That's what the bussard collectors were intended to do. And the math, especially at "cruising velocities," is pretty reasonable, if you discount the current Alcubierre drive theory, which require either infinite or "negative" energy (see this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, considering that it wasn't even determined that those _were_ Bussard collectors until well after the show had ended and the model was either packed away in the Paramount prop department or on display at the NASM, we're taking some liberties in determining creator's intent beyond a certain point.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The premise on the Original Series was that the Enterprise operated on a chain reaction of matter and anti-matter flowing through lithium/dilithium crystals........period. There was no mention of having to "gather " fuel from space. To me the orange glow from the engine was just a visual used to show the imense power they were generating to the audiance. There is nothing that even hinted that they needed anything more. I guess some people want to over examine it and try to flex their brain, as they started to in The Next Generation and beyond, but for me, clean and simple is the only way to look at it! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> The premise on the Original Series was that the Enterprise operated on a chain reaction of matter and anti-matter flowing through lithium/dilithium crystals........period. There was no mention of having to "gather " fuel from space. To me the orange glow from the engine was just a visual used to show the imense power they were generating to the audiance.


Yup, I believe you're correct.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Of course, it's fun to build on that foundation, but let's not make these folks out to be some sort of astrophysicists. They were trying to put together a science fiction tv show that was a little smarter than all the other science fiction tv shows that had come out to that point, and in doing so, set the groundwork for most of the shows that followed (not just the sequel Star Trek shows, either).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, they often _consulted _astrophysicists!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Yep, they did.

The reason that this is called "science fiction" rather than "fantasy" is that it's intended to at least SEEM plausible.

Given that the Enterprise reacts matter and antimatter, and given that it reacts those in order to produce what are supposed to be "massive amounts of energy," it's simply implausible that it could carry enough fuel aboard to keep it operating for more than the shortest period of time. We KNOW the absolute maximum possible energy yield for a m/am reaction. And we know that the Enterprise was intended to fly through space, far away from any HQ operation, "where no man has gone before." We know that the original series bible talks about Kirk being out of ANY contact with higher authorities for months or even years on end, much like classic sailing captains often were, and thus having to be "the face of the Federation" to those they encountered (granted, of course, that the Bible didn't mention the Federation as the name of the political entity when it was written, but the concept is the same).

The basic math precludes the ship being able to do what it was supposed to do, carrying nothing but a "gas tank" full of matter and another full of antimatter. Even if 100% of the ship's mass was made of reactant, the ship would run out of gas before Alpha Centauri was in their rear view mirror...

Thus, there are only two options available. First, the ship "harvests" fuel en-route, or second, the ship has some sort of "magic drive" which violates all of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. (Say, a "zero point energy" system? Which, of course, nobody had ever so much as hypothesized in the late '60s.)

Yes, it's "just a TV show." But if you want to imagine how the ship could really work... if you want it to be "science fiction" rather than "spacey fantasy"... then you're limited to the above two. And the first is far more reasonable, I think.

But if you don't want to think about it at all, you don't have to... because it IS just a TV show!

**************

Edit...

One more thing... it's not unreasonable to assume that folks working on the original show were familiar with the concept of the "Bussard Ramjet." The inventor, Robert Bussard, came up with the idea in 1960, after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard

And the most relevant quote from there:

"In 1960, Bussard conceived of the Bussard ramjet, an interstellar space drive powered by hydrogen fusion using hydrogen collected with a magnetic field from the interstellar gas. Due to the presence of high-energy particles throughout space, much of the interstellar hydrogen exists in an ionized state (H II regions) that can be manipulated by magnetic or electric fields. Bussard proposed to "scoop" up ionized hydrogen and funnel it into a fusion reactor, using the exhaust from the reactor as a rocket engine."

Trek often used bits derived from popular awareness of proposed science concepts. Even the design of K-7 was based upon a theoretical "deployable space structure" proposed for the US space program, after all.


----------



## roadskare63 (Apr 14, 2010)

very cool thread hal9001...
gives this worm low artistic type a lot to ponder:thumbsup:

i like many simply enjoy sci-fi, but DO like to theorize how the technology works,
and like to hear other people do the same:wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I guess it is all how you view a TV show or movie. To me, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was Science Fiction, using existing science to tell the story, i.e. propulsion, either liquid fuel or the Discovery's nuclear, and realistically addressing the need to create gravity on the Space Station and the aforementioned Discovery, or the use of Velcro shoes to stay on the floor. 

"Star Trek" like "Lost in Space" and "Star Wars" were fantasy, either addressing problems like propulsion and gravity with "theoretical" science that take great leaps of faith to accept, or just ignoring science altogether just to tell a fun story.

They all told fun stories, so I don't really care beyond that!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If you want to see just how fleshed out the tech was on Star Trek, read "The Making of Star Trek". You will find that while they did more work on this aspect than other shows of the time (no names please), there was still more than a little "good enough, next problem" going on, accompanied by a healthy side helping of "making it up as they went along."

They settled on matter/antimatter annihilation pretty early on as the energy source for the warp engines, and figured these magical crystals were major components of the power system, possibly to account for how their initial thoughts on how much energy you'd get from a m/a reaction were a bit off, but they really didn't go much beyond that point (which is why the arrangement tended to change from episode to episode). Remember, the emphasis was supposed to be on people and story, not gadgetry (I'm pretty sure is says precisely that in the Writer's Guide). This fixation on trying to nail down each and every circuit, while present during the network run, really didn't take off until the 70's, and the more fleshed out tech in subsequent productions is a reaction to that.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> If you want to see just how fleshed out the tech was on Star Trek, read "The Making of Star Trek". You will find that while they did more work on this aspect than other shows of the time (no names please), there was still more than a little "good enough, next problem" going on, accompanied by a healthy side helping of "making it up as they went along."
> 
> They settled on matter/antimatter annihilation pretty early on as the energy source for the warp engines, and figured these magical crystals were major components of the power system, possibly to account for how their initial thoughts on how much energy you'd get from a m/a reaction were a bit off, but they really didn't go much beyond that point (which is why the arrangement tended to change from episode to episode). Remember, the emphasis was supposed to be on people and story, not gadgetry (I'm pretty sure is says precisely that in the Writer's Guide). This fixation on trying to nail down each and every circuit, while present during the network run, really didn't take off until the 70's, and the more fleshed out tech in subsequent productions is a reaction to that.


So true, but even in "The Next Generation" they didn't let 1987 technology get in the way of the story telling. I remember watching "The Naked Now" and Data told Riker it would take hours to search Starfleet databanks to find a reference to "Taking a shower fully clothed". I was working with computers and my programmer had a fit when that came on, even in 1987 it would take only minutes to find that info, but in the fantasy world of "Star Trek", the stroy dictated that it take hours so the disease could spread throughout the starring cast!!


----------



## jimkirk (May 27, 2010)

RSN said:


> The premise on the Original Series was that the Enterprise operated on a chain reaction of matter and anti-matter flowing through lithium/dilithium crystals........period.


That is what I thought also.
Iirc the Jupiter 2 used deutronium as fuel not the Enterprise.
The Jupiter 2 had Atomic Motors and the Enterprise had warp drives.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Science Fiction doesn't have to rely only on existing science to be science fiction. Hard SF can also grow from proposed scientific ideas, theories, postulations, whatever ya call 'em, and show us how people and/or mankind deal with them.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

jimkirk said:


> That is what I thought also.
> Iirc the Jupiter 2 used deutronium as fuel not the Enterprise.
> The Jupiter 2 had Atomic Motors and the Enterprise had warp drives.


That is exactly what I meant. They tell you, or show you and that is all you need. First rule of story telling, "Buy the premise buy the bit.". Long winded explanations serve no purpose to the story but to slow it down. So, if it is not existing science, whether you call it proposed scientific ideas, theories or postulations, it is just a fantasy in someone's mind who proposes it, until it can be show to work in reality. Just how I look at this crazy mixed up world of ours, but I understand and respect anothers differing view. :thumbsup:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> They settled on matter/antimatter annihilation pretty early on as the energy source for the warp engines, and figured these magical crystals were major components of the power system, possibly to account for how their initial thoughts on how much energy you'd get from a m/a reaction were a bit off, but they really didn't go much beyond that point (which is why the arrangement tended to change from episode to episode).


And in _Trek_ TOS, the precise function of the dilithium (originally lithium) crystals was never spelled out in detail; we just knew they were a critical part of the warp propulsion system. Dilithium crystals were something valuable, compact and easily portable, which could be sought after, traded for, bought, sold, smuggled or stolen. They were a MacGuffin.


----------



## GKvfx (May 30, 2008)

From an Art Director's point of view - 

The Bussard serves as a visual cue. Something that allows you to relate to the supposed workings of a fictitious mechanical craft. In other words, it's a truck grill. And the one for the refit Enterprise is inspired by Richard Taylor's fondness for a 1940 Ford truck - 










Now, back to the science...... 

Gene


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jimkirk said:


> That is what I thought also.
> Iirc the Jupiter 2 used deutronium as fuel not the Enterprise.
> The Jupiter 2 had Atomic Motors and the Enterprise had warp drives.


Never really watched LIS very devotedly, so I can't say for certain that it was fueled by DEUTERIUM (not "deutronium")... but it's entirely possible.

Deuterium is simply an isotope of hydrogen. "Normal" hydrogen consists solely of a proton and an electron. This means that it has an atomic number of one, and an atomic weight of one. Deuterium, on the other hand, has an atomic number of one, but it also has an additional nuclear particle, a neutron (no electrical charge... aka a "neutral" charge), so it's atomic weight is two... hence the "deu" bit.

Tritium is simply hydrogen with TWO neutrons... that is, it still has an atomic number of one, but an atomic weight of three.

Hydrogen is the most plentiful matter in the universe, by far. It's also the easiest matter to react in a fusion reaction, and is likely also the best matter/antimatter reactant. However, while a fusion reaction is going to be benefited by those extra neutrons (which act as "bullets" to stir up additional reactions.. the more free neutrons out there, the more reactions occur... which releases even more neutrons... hence the term "chain reaction"), a matter/antimatter reaction would not be benefited at all. (One electron and one positron cancel each other out, resulting in total conversion to energy, and the same with the proton and the "anti-proton.") The best way to react matter and antimatter is at the subatomic particle level... not at the atomic level, or (potentially) the molecular level. Those neutrons would be nothing but dead weight for a m/am reaction... mass which provides no benefit. So, it's unreasonable that the Enterprise would use deuterium, or tritium for that matter, for the m/am fuel source... but very likely it would use those to power the fusion reactors which are part of the impulse drive system.

It's also entirely reasonable to assume that the Jupiter II, were it powered by a fusion powerplant, would use deuterium as its principle fuel source.

Basically, the writers and staff for each show simply put "real science" terms into their shows. LIS was a bit less "robust" in how they treated science, of course... at least, after the pilot and the first few eps, right?

But... neither was propelled by "tibanna gas" or a "hyperdrive motivator" or whatever... they used real science terms, and concepts... while Star Wars uses pure fantasy. Sure, they went well beyond real science... but science was (at least in the case of Trek) the foundation upon which it was built.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Warped9 just did a revisiting of LIS, perhaps he could shed some light on what the stated power source of the Jupiter 2 was.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

The Jupiter II used "deutronium" for fuel. Whether they chose that name to avoid people saying "but deuterium can't really do that" or simply got the name wrong, is anybody's guess. I give them enough credit to say it was the former, but what do I know? :wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I love it when people tell someone else they are wrong about something that they then admit they know little about. To me, that is not giving an opinion, that is just ignorance. If you don't know, then don't correct. "Lost in Space" established very concretely that DEUTRONIUM, not deuterium, was their source of atomic fuel. They even went so far with the concept that it was established that the element was so rare and valuable it was used like currency throughout the galaxy, like gold on Earth. 

Yes deuterium, not deutronium, exists in the REAL world but in the REEL world of fantasy, like LIS and "Star Trek", anything a writer makes up can power a ship. I like what someone posted earlier, they are MacGuffins created by writers to forward a story, not to dominate them of be overanalyzed..............just my opinion. :thumbsup:

As an aside, writer Peter David used Deutronium as a power source for Cardassian weapons and their early warships in one of his books. Peter is a BIG "Lost in Space" fan and good friend of Bill Mumy's, as well as beig one of the best Trek authors. So now a little bit of "Lost in Space" is part of Trek history. Oh, and no one needs to remind me in 7 paragraph reply that "The books are not canon, if it was not on screen, it is not real Trek!"...............I know.......I know!!!!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Larry523 said:


> The Jupiter II used "deutronium" for fuel. Whether they chose that name to avoid people saying "but deuterium can't really do that" or simply got the name wrong, is anybody's guess. I give them enough credit to say it was the former, but what do I know? :wave:


It was actually created intentionally so as not to confuse the viewing public with real science, separating it from the reality they were creating in the fictitious universe of the show. That is also the reason the name of the ship was changed to Jupiter 2 from Gemini XII, so people did not associate it with the real Gemini program going on at the time. The Gemini XII mission actually took off early in LIS' 2nd season. I imagine Jupiter was picked to compliment, yet separate, the ship from the Saturn program that would follow. Even before the Saturn program began, set decorators were using early artist renderings of the Lunar Module and other aspects of the Saturn program to adorn the cabins on the Jupiter 2, during the run of the show, and the walls of Alpha Control in the 3rd season!

"Lost in Space" was not as removed from real science as people want to think, they just relied on fun storytelling to entertain, rather than getting bogged down with techno-nonsense.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

RSN said:


> Larry523 said:
> 
> 
> > The Jupiter II used "deutronium" for fuel. Whether they chose that name to avoid people saying "but deuterium can't really do that" or simply got the name wrong, is anybody's guess. I give them enough credit to say it was the former, but what do I know? :wave:
> ...


It’s the same reason why _Star Trek_’s “lasers” were changed to “phasers” for the second pilot, and “lithium crystals” were changed to “dilithium” early in Season 1.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

scotpens said:


> It’s the same reason why _Star Trek_’s “lasers” were changed to “phasers” for the second pilot, and “lithium crystals” were changed to “dilithium” early in Season 1.


Yup! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ever wonder what happened to the Jupiter 1?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Ever wonder what happened to the Jupiter 1?


I always theorized it was a test ship that may have been on its way to Alpha Centauri ahead of the Jupiter 2, just like all the Apollo tests before 11 landed on the moon. But I never needed them to explaine anything on the show, it was just the Jupiter 2.............now let's get on with the story!! :thumbsup:


----------



## jimkirk (May 27, 2010)

CLBrown said:


> Never really watched LIS very devotedly, so I can't say for certain that it was fueled by DEUTERIUM (not "deutronium")... but it's entirely possible.
> 
> Deuterium is simply an isotope of hydrogen. "Normal" hydrogen consists solely of a proton and an electron. This means that it has an atomic number of one, and an atomic weight of one. Deuterium, on the other hand, has an atomic number of one, but it also has an additional nuclear particle, a neutron (no electrical charge... aka a "neutral" charge), so it's atomic weight is two... hence the "deu" bit.
> 
> ...


Thanks for a science lesson that really has nothing to do with an Irwin Allen show.
In the show they indeed called their fuel "Deutronium". 
That is what the drill rig was for,to obtain the Deutronium from whatever planet they happen to be on.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN, seriously, get over your attitude. I was discussing a topic, in a web forum, for enjoyment and amusement. It's called "conversation."

You've had a bug up your butt against me since the day I first posted here, and your attitude is getting really, really old.

You can participate in a conversation, you can contribute, or you can ignore... any of those are OK. You can toss out additional facts, or debate points, that those are OK. But that's not what you do. Your post, below, was HOSTILE towards me. You may have thought you were being "sly" by making snarky comments about "paragraph seven" or so forth (since, from my very first post here, you've been whinging about how much you hate posts longer than a sentence, it seems, and how, as a result, I should just go away).

I'm talking about something I want to talk about, with people who (by and large) seem to want to talk about it as well.

All I did was provide some info about what "deuterium" is, in reality, for the benefit of anyone who might be interested in knowing, and who might not actually know. I hardly think that's justification for one more of your "anti-people-I-wish-wouldn't-come-to-my-private-hangout" diatribes.

It's getting really, really old.




RSN said:


> I love it when people tell someone else they are wrong about something that they then admit they know little about. To me, that is not giving an opinion, that is just ignorance. If you don't know, then don't correct. "Lost in Space" established very concretely that DEUTRONIUM, not deuterium, was their source of atomic fuel. They even went so far with the concept that it was established that the element was so rare and valuable it was used like currency throughout the galaxy, like gold on Earth.
> 
> Yes deuterium, not deutronium, exists in the REAL world but in the REEL world of fantasy, like LIS and "Star Trek", anything a writer makes up can power a ship. I like what someone posted earlier, they are MacGuffins created by writers to forward a story, not to dominate them of be overanalyzed..............just my opinion. :thumbsup:
> 
> As an aside, writer Peter David used Deutronium as a power source for Cardassian weapons and their early warships in one of his books. Peter is a BIG "Lost in Space" fan and good friend of Bill Mumy's, as well as beig one of the best Trek authors. So now a little bit of "Lost in Space" is part of Trek history. Oh, and no one needs to remind me in 7 paragraph reply that "The books are not canon, if it was not on screen, it is not real Trek!"...............I know.......I know!!!!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> RSN, seriously, get over your attitude. I was discussing a topic, in a web forum, for enjoyment and amusement. It's called "conversation."
> 
> You've had a bug up your butt against me since the day I first posted here, and your attitude is getting really, really old.
> 
> ...


CLBrown, I have NEVER gone after you personally and if what I commented on happened to reflect on what you have posted then it is indeed YOU who need to "Get over YOUR attitude"! I am also having a conversation, with people who have the same interests and as you can see there are many others who share my opinions on the subject and not necessarily yours. If you cannot handle opinions other than yours and see them only as some sort of attack then don't read my posts. If you don't like my view, you had darn well better say something about the other posts, by other people, who say the same thing and get the heck off my back for speaking my mind on a subject of which I know as much about as you!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Is this the part where we break out the rulers?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Is this the part where we break out the rulers?


Works for me! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

In all "seriousness" and getting back to the topic of what the fictional collectors were supposed to do. As with everything in TV, it was overdone and overused. Just when it was established that they were gather fuel supplements for the ship, the writers then began extrapolating on their capabilities. Soon they were capable of directing and expelling energy, focused like a phaser beam, as well as clouds like a chemical fire extinguisher. As I have said, the more they tried to make it seem real, the less I believed their function. I about had a fit when they showed monitoring stations INSIDE the engines..........wasn't that what Main Engineering was for?!! Also, there was no way to access the room they designed, as no easy access could fit in the support pylon. (Unless the size of the ship was rescaled after Ten Forward was crammed into an area too small for it!)The only way, and the silliest, would be to beam people into the room.

Simple is always the best way to go, I wish they had stuck to Gene's original vision in that, the ship takes the crew into space and the how's were not that important.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

RSN said:


> Simple is always the best way to go, I wish they had stuck to Gene's original vision in that, the ship takes the crew into space and the how's were not that important.


As much as I like blueprints and tech manuals, I don't like stories that depend on technobabble. To me, this was one of the major problems with certain episodes of _The Next Generation_. They weren't solving a "people crisis" like TOS always seemed to do, but some technical issue which didn't draw you into the story like a people problem would.

That being said, I also agree that the things they had the deflector and nacelles doing in The Next Generation were pretty far out. If only they'd clean your windows they'd be the perfect do-all devices!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fozzie said:


> As much as I like blueprints and tech manuals, I don't like stories that depend on technobabble. To me, this was one of the major problems with certain episodes of _The Next Generation_. They weren't solving a "people crisis" like TOS always seemed to do, but some technical issue which didn't draw you into the story like a people problem would.
> 
> That being said, I also agree that the things they had the deflector and nacelles doing in The Next Generation were pretty far out. If only they'd clean your windows they'd be the perfect do-all devices!


This is exactly the type of thing, for me, that turns Trek from Sci-Fi to fantasy. They took Bussard's theory, adapted it for the "Next Generation" to explain the lights at the front of the engine, (Which it really doesn't!) but then they had them do things that no designer would have been able to do. I mean, you can't reverse the fan on your car engine as you go down the raod to push a squirrel out of the way. It is designed and built to cool the engine only!

Don't get me started on the deflector dish!!!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

RSN said:


> . . . I mean, you can't reverse the fan on your car engine as you go down the road to push a squirrel out of the way.


I hear the Japanese are working on that.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I've always wanted frickin' laser beams to melt the snow and ice ahead of my car.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> I've always wanted frickin' laser beams to melt the snow and ice ahead of my car.


All you need to do for that is to recalibrate the halogen lights to emit a more concentrated beam by rerouting them through the alternator, using the engine coolant as a conductor! :thumbsup:


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

RSN said:


> All you need to do for that is to recalibrate the halogen lights to emit a more concentrated beam by rerouting them through the alternator, using the engine coolant as a conductor! :thumbsup:


You forgot to reverse the polarity! You ALWAYS have to reverse the polarity!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fozzie said:


> You forgot to reverse the polarity! You ALWAYS have to reverse the polarity!


Dang it.....no wonder it never works!!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Again, in seriousness to the topic, the only incarnation of the Enterprise, and in my opinion the BEST, that looked like it would gather particles was the refit. The front of the engines had what appeared to be louvered panels that could be opened to collect matter in space. The original and all other ships had an actual solid surface that glowed from inside with the power from the engines, but they in no way looked like they could collect anything through the domes covering them. Just my observations. :thumbsup:


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

From the Star Trek Encyclopedia by the Okudas (pg 59):

"...The Bussard collectors created a large magnetic field used to attract interstellar hydrogen gas that could be used as fuel by the ships fusion reactors. The Enterprise Ds Bussard collectors were back-flushed with hydrogen to create a dramatic, but harmless pyrotechnic display that was successful in frightening the Pakleds... "

I was recently watching a show on the Discovery Science channel that featured Dr Michio Kaku. He was discussing different ways you might be able to power a space ship to go very long distances (ion engines, solar sails etc). He indicated that free hydrogen is available in space and that it could be collected and used to provide fusion power for a star ship. This would avoid the need to carry so much fuel on board (as chemical rockets must do today).


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

bccanfield said:


> From the Star Trek Encyclopedia by the Okudas (pg 59):
> 
> "...The Bussard collectors created a large magnetic field used to attract interstellar hydrogen gas that could be used as fuel by the ships fusion reactors. The Enterprise Ds Bussard collectors were back-flushed with hydrogen to create a dramatic, but harmless pyrotechnic display that was successful in frightening the Pakleds... "
> 
> I was recently watching a show on the Discovery Science channel that featured Dr Michio Kaku. He was discussing different ways you might be able to power a space ship to go very long distances (ion engines, solar sails etc). He indicated that free hydrogen is available in space and that it could be collected and used to provide fusion power for a star ship. This would avoid the need to carry so much fuel on board (as chemical rockets must do today).


I get that, but it was always the impression on the Original Series that the matter and anti-matter reaction, channeled through the dilithium crystals was all that generated power for the ships engines and that they carried what they needed. To me, the crystals accelerated the reaction so that smaller amounts of anti-matter were needed and refuling at Starbases would not be needed as much. I know a lot has been extrapolated after the original 79, but I always liked the simpleness of if it. Just remember, "The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

We've lost the starboard power coupling!!



RSN said:


> Again, in seriousness to the topic, the only incarnation of the Enterprise, and in my opinion the BEST, that looked like it would gather particles was the refit. The front of the engines had what appeared to be louvered panels that could be opened to collect matter in space. The original and all other ships had an actual solid surface that glowed from inside with the power from the engines, but they in no way looked like they could collect anything through the domes covering them. Just my observations. :thumbsup:


This is not canon, but my personal take on the TOS nacelles is that the dome generates the magnetic field to attract (or scoop?) interstellar matter. The matter _intakes _are the louvered rings behind the dome. The sparkly stuff we see thru the dome could be either interstellar matter reacting as it slams into a capture field, or a mysterious power source that powers the bussard collection field, or... or popcorn being made, or... or...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> We've lost the starboard power coupling!!
> 
> 
> 
> This is not canon, but my personal take on the TOS nacelles is that the dome generates the magnetic field to attract (or scoop?) interstellar matter. The matter _intakes _are the louvered rings behind the dome. The sparkly stuff we see thru the dome could be either interstellar matter reacting as it slams into a capture field, or a mysterious power source that powers the bussard collection field, or... or popcorn being made, or... or...


Good concept that makes great sense, but again, we only see one conduit, in the engine rooms of any of the Enterprise incarnations, showing energy flowing out toward the engine, but nothing coming back down to be stored somewhere. So I really think it can be anything to anybody without anyone being wrong. Now I want popcorn!!


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

...or you may want to have an fusion reactor to power the ships systems independent of the warp engines. Redundant power supplies using a different technology would be a smart thing to have in the event warp engines crap out. This is common in today's aircraft. Jet Fighters are equipped with small wind driven generators that can be deployed to power critical avionics in the event of engine failure. or...you may just want to scoop up free hydrogen to react with the antimatter. That way the ship is not totally reliant on fuel carried on board.


----------



## Avian (Feb 16, 2010)

I agree that the simpler, the better. Since antimatter can react to any type of regular matter - hydrogen, oxygen, polyester or kitchen sinks, the need to scoop up more matter from the interstellar medium always seemed a bit silly.

A kilo of antimatter produces about 43 megatons of energy interacting with regular matter. And since we don't know how much energy is required to maintain a warp field, you could say just about anything with regard to the amount of antimatter you need. And a ship the size of the Enterprise seems like it could easily carry many tons of antimatter.

Now, if you postulate that scooping up hydrogen actually re-fuels the _impulse engines_, then maybe we're getting somewhere. 

P.S. I hope Data has a strong magnetic containment field in his brain if it really operates on positrons. Otherwise his head would explode.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> Good concept that makes great sense, but again, we only see one conduit, in the engine rooms of any of the Enterprise incarnations, showing energy flowing out toward the engine, but nothing coming back down to be stored somewhere. So I really think it can be anything to anybody without anyone being wrong. Now I want popcorn!!


Ah, hence the antimatter storage up in the nacelle. Or, simply, the conduit to bring it into the hull are there, but we never see them (we don't see a lot of stuff, why should not seeing _that _matter?)


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Ah, hence the antimatter storage up in the nacelle. Or, simply, the conduit to bring it into the hull are there, but we never see them (we don't see a lot of stuff, why should not seeing _that _matter?)


I don't know, the engine looked pretty hollow in The Next Generation when they showed it in an episode and I don't ever recall seeing any storage area in any of the "official" layouts done by the graphic artists for the show. That is what I based my assesment on.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

As in all things fictional, to each his own.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> As in all things fictional, to each his own.


Yup, that is what I said a few posts back. :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> We've lost the starboard power coupling!!
> 
> 
> 
> This is not canon, but my personal take on the TOS nacelles is that the dome generates the magnetic field to attract (or scoop?) interstellar matter. The matter _intakes _are the louvered rings behind the dome. The sparkly stuff we see thru the dome could be either interstellar matter reacting as it slams into a capture field, or a mysterious power source that powers the bussard collection field, or... or popcorn being made, or... or...


That's my view of it as well.

TOS - the field is created by the dome. The dark grey rings behind collect the matter. (This also applies for the NX-01, by the way.)

TMP - The field is created by the coppery shape about 1/10 back from the front of the nacelle (exposed on either side of the nacelle). The collector is the "grill" in front of that.

TNG - The field is created by three side-by-side copies of a newer versions of the TOS dome, combined into a single oblong housing. The collector is the yellow bezel behind that.

TNG-Film - The field is created by three triangularly-arranged copies of a newer version of the TOS dome, and the matter collection is at a darker strip between the two exposed red regions.

That's how I see it. The only place this doesn't seem to fit is for the Phoenix... and since the Phoenix only ran at speed for a few seconds, it's entirely reasonable to say that it, unlike other ships mentioned, was carrying its entire fuel supply on-board (and even that it may have been powered by a lower-yield power-generation system, such as conventional nuclear fission power, or some early - in Trek terms, I mean - fusion power system).

Other cultures don't necessarily use the same approach... Klingons, for example, seem to have a dramatically different "scoop" arrangement, and there's no VISIBLE "scoop" arrangement at all for many Romulan ships (the exception being the D'Deridex).

But there's always been some form of forward facing "scoop" setup on every Trek hero ship... from the TOS Enterprise onwards. Whether you accept this as a simple stylistic element, with no intended functionality behind it, or if you treat it as intentional (as I, and others, tend to do), is a matter of personal preference, of course.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> That's my view of it as well.
> 
> TOS - the field is created by the dome. The dark grey rings behind collect the matter. (This also applies for the NX-01, by the way.)
> 
> ...


You bring up an interesting idea and one that as a viewer and not necessarily a follower of non-canon blueprints, beyond the original and refit Enterprise, I have never figured out. Where were the warp engines on the BoP. Clearly there is what appears to be a single engine in the rear, but it more resembles an impulse engine rather than two warp generating nacelles like most other ships showed.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

My view is that those giant interlocking baffles on the "shoulders" are warp field generating magnetic plates.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> My view is that those giant interlocking baffles on the "shoulders" are warp field generating magnetic plates.


I guess I have always looked at it from the design perspective of the model and that would have been the hinge mechanism for the wings. If it were in space all the time, it would not have needed anything that bulky, but since they made it planet-worthy, it would have to stand up to gravity and wind forces, and would need that hefty attachment point.......but I can live with that idea.


----------



## whereisanykey (Sep 25, 2011)

It's interesting to see Doug Drexler's cutaway picture of the Constitution Class Starship.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

the notion that the TOS E would not carry enough m-am for it's mission is an interesting, especially combined with the dilithium allowing the extraction of a larger amount of power more efficiently from the reaction.

reason: it recalls the episode where Kirk burnt out most of his crystals trying to rescue harry mudd and his women. scotty remarked that all ship's power was then being pulled through a crystal lump the size of his fist. without it, they'll start spiralling into the atmosphere of the mining colony they went to for replacement crystals. the enterprise was in a definite power down mode, as though the normal m-am reaction was insufficient to power her even in orbit.

fascinating.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

charonjr said:


> the notion that the TOS E would not carry enough m-am for it's mission is an interesting, especially combined with the dilithium allowing the extraction of a larger amount of power more efficiently from the reaction.
> 
> reason: it recalls the episode where Kirk burnt out most of his crystals trying to rescue harry mudd and his women. scotty remarked that all ship's power was then being pulled through a crystal lump the size of his fist. without it, they'll start spiralling into the atmosphere of the mining colony they went to for replacement crystals. the enterprise was in a definite power down mode, as though the normal m-am reaction was insufficient to power her even in orbit.
> 
> fascinating.


It is, isn't it?

From a story-telling standpoint, the TOS Enterprise was really intended to be analogous to earthbound sailing vessels... which had to be largely self-sufficient, and which operated without direct support (and without even any real contact with "home") for extended period of time.

The very construction of the ship was done in such a way that it calls up mental impressions of sailing vessels, in my view, as well.

The series "bible" tells about how Kirk, being away from any higher HQ for extended periods of time, would have to fulfill all roles of "the Federation" (military, diplomatic, exploratory, etc) on his own, without any expectation of relief or support. Though the series itself pulled back on that somewhat, it was also made a BIG DEAL out of when you'd have multiple starships in the same place. This was pure "age of sail" intent.

During the real "age of sail," ships would leave port and would be without support for many months, and sometimes quite a few years, at a time. If a mast was lost, they'd have to find a forest where they could harvest a tree which could serve as new mast, or new yardarm, or so forth. And until that structure was replaced, the ship would be severely hobbled. (FYI, that's sort of the role which dilithium crystals serve in Trek storytelling terms, isn't it?).

These sailing vessels depended on nature... the wind, along with natural ocean currents... for their propulsion and navigation. They didn't have "coal tenders" which had to periodically meet up with them to resupply their fuel, as early steamships did, or "oil tenders" which most modern naval vessels have. They relied on the environment they were in, in order to derive their power.

Kirk was, after all, supposed to be "Horatio Hornblower," remember. Not a modern naval commander, but a hero of the "Age of Sail."

And, I do need to point out again... the Bussard Ramjet was first publically revealed back in 1960, and was very much part of the broad public awareness at that point, especially in "scienti-fiction" circles. Bussard's invention was, and still is, the only practicable stardrive system ever postulated which would be self-sustaining ("solar sails" are perhaps more analogous to "age of sail" concepts but are useless from such a storytelling standpoint... DS9's "warp sail" story aside).


----------

