Talk:Thruster

Name
There's already an article on RCS thruster, which do we use? This one does have a slight reference to Trek technology. Also, basically, Newton's Third Law applies to any propulsion system. Enzo Aquarius 10:18, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * If the RCS thruster is generally the only type of thruster mentioned on Trek, thruster could concievably redirect to it -- like in ST6 when they say "thrusters", we know that they mean RCS thrusters.
 * however, if there are other types of thrusters (ion? tachyon?) mentioned, thruster would be a (very) brief definition and disambiguation instead. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel


 * Reaction control thrusters and maneuvering thrusters are intended to be the same thing, according to production staff, most of the general references to "thrusters" also fall into this category. So instead of having 3 articles on one topic, we should create 1 article, noting the three names, and do as this article does, and link the other thruster types in the "related links" section. --Alan 02:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PNA
PNA - This article needs to be cited or verified or something because as I see it now, there are no Trek references made in it what so ever. I've added a list of (seemingly) different thruster types, which may be alternate names for one another, but there is no way to tell. Additionally, I added a few components which were specifically associated with "thrusters" in some way. --Gvsualan 19:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forum:Speed of Thrusters
I am curious if anyone has any ideas about the min/max/normal speed of Thrusters used on galaxy-class and similar ships. I know that the entry on "thrusters" states that Riker backed the ship off at 100 kph. Is that a normal speed?? Thanks.
 * From what I understand, Thrusters are definately slower then the Impulse drive... but give the ship enough power to move when it needs to without impulse (See that one where picard navigated it through an astroid feild or when Archer did the same thing. --58.6.1.178 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of mentions of newton's third law, charged particles etc?
Unless anyone can find somewhere in canon we're treated to the information in the first paragraph, I'd like to change it to something like:

"Thrusters were propulsion devices that generated very little speed, but were useful in various other situations. It was possible to use maneuvering thrusters to alter a ship's course, to rotate about an axis, or to move short, precise distances without the use of impulse drive." --AnonyQ 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Two years later, I agree and have removed the information. I implemented the suggested first sentence, as it is much truer to canon. Feel free to improve on it though. Here's the removed information for reference:


 * "A thruster system relies on Newton's Third Law. This states that 'every action must have an equal and opposite reaction.'"
 * "Positively and negatively charged particles are separated. Using a set of magnetic fields, these particles are accelerated to the direction, opposite to the direction the starship or other body is trying to reach. Due to the impulse of these particles as they're expelled, a force acts on the body in the opposite direction, equal to the force with which the particles are expelled. As a result, the body is accelerated in this direction."
 * "Charged particles are a side-effect of many quantum level reactions, such as matter-antimatter reactions. As a result, charged particles that can be used for the thruster systems can be found as a warp core by-product."
 * –Cleanse ( talk 08:09, January 27, 2011 (UTC)