ALL STOP

[crashinbrn]

i was watching star trek. and the captain said 'All Stop'. and my mind started spinning.

knowing that everything in space is moving towards us or away from us, the solar system is spinning, along with all the components contained within are moving as a unit. the galaxy is spinning and moving. the universe is expanding.

all that said, is 'All Stop' possible? and if so, and a ship stopped, would things start flying past the ship? is 'all stop' even measurable? if everything is moving how would you know?

it's never really bothered me before now.

 

[HRacct]

i was watching star trek. and the captain said 'All Stop'. and my mind started spinning.
all that said, is 'All Stop' possible? and if so, and a ship stopped, would things start flying past the ship? is 'all stop' even measurable? if everything is moving how would you know?

Welcome aboard, Crashinbrn,

Nice to have a fellow trekie in our midst. This question has been asked a few times in the past, and usually about the same way as you did. And there are out there real scientists who can probably give you the proper words to address this issue.

But I would just say that the computer controls would slow the vessel's forward movement down to a stop, and the internal (inside the ship) gravity controls would take care of the peoples movement. They will probably use real words I can't even begin to spell.

All that said, I had a friend who said he would prefer to be known as a trekER, and NOT a trekie, because he was serious about his craft. But to each his own, I guess.

 

[yevaud]

"All Stop" is a meaningless concept, unless it's relative to something.

 

[drwayne]

This question came up here a couple of months ago.

All Stop is NOT a speed command, it is an engine setting command. It means stop the engines,
not stop the ship.

Star Trek of course does not seem to grasp the notion that stopping the engines doesn't stop
the ship - they, in many ways clearly do not understand Newton's laws.

 

[docm]

Trek warp bubbles are supposed to be walled-off sections of spacetime containing the ship. FTL travel is accomplished by moving the bubble, not the ship which stays stationary inside its local spacetime. Nothing prevents a local spacetime from moving FTL through an external spacetime, carrying its contents with it. Stop the bubbles induced motion through the external spacetime and you have "all stop".

 

[StarRider1701]

i was watching star trek. and the captain said 'All Stop'. and my mind started spinning.

knowing that everything in space is moving towards us or away from us, the solar system is spinning, along with all the components contained within are moving as a unit. the galaxy is spinning and moving. the universe is expanding.

all that said, is 'All Stop' possible? and if so, and a ship stopped, would things start flying past the ship? is 'all stop' even measurable? if everything is moving how would you know?

it's never really bothered me before now.

Welcome to SDC. As noted this question has come up before. In your OP you left out several important items. As a Star Trek fan myself (loath "Trekkie" and not too fond of "Trekker" either) I know that the "All Stop" command usually comes when a ship (Enterprise, Voyager, Defiant, etc) is approaching something. Space station, another ship, some stellar or interstellar phenomenon - something! So often there is an unspoken "relative to that thing we're approaching before we hit it!" aspect to the "All Stop" command. In your post you didn't mention anything about the situation, circumstances, happenings other than the order "All Stop."
Yes, I know that command has been given on occasion when the ship is simply out in the middle of "Gawd Awful Nowhere" just going from point A to point B. Under those circumstances that order can mean "Lets not get any farther away from point A or any closer to point B." All Stop is a lot shorter and easier to say.

 

[crashinbrn]

thx for all the replys!! i did search for all stop too.

and i figured that since it was on star trek, science fiction topic would work.
as far as terms, i probably say Trekkie more , trekker just doesn't roll off the tongue for me.

so the consensus here is all stop is relative to their surroundings or destination.

i suppose my mind started spinning was when i was thinking 'lack of all motion' relative to real space.
but i suppose science fiction is not exactly real either.

 

[drwayne]

consensus - 1

that is. I still stand strongly behind my answer.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Kirk should have said "station keeping Mr Sulu". It would have prevented all these questions.

 

[drwayne]

"But I can't captain, the viewing screen doesn't have a fourth channel!"

 

[MeteorWayne]

It still drives me nuts to this day how orbits "decay" when the engines fail.

 

[drwayne]

A line from one of my favorites - The Doomsday Machine

"We can maintain this speed for only 7 hours before we exhaust our fuel"

 

[strandedonearth]

"We can maintain this speed for only 7 hours before we exhaust our fuel"

Forced orbit. After the fuel runs out and the engines quit, the ship "falls" away from the planet, slowing down as it climbs up the gravity well. Mind you, I don't recall Kirk ever saying "Forced orbit, Mr. Sulu."

 

[drwayne]

"We can maintain this speed for only 7 hours before we exhaust our fuel"

Forced orbit. After the fuel runs out and the engines quit, the ship "falls" away from the planet, slowing down as it climbs up the gravity well. Mind you, I don't recall Kirk ever saying "Forced orbit, Mr. Sulu."

Actually, the line I quoted did not involve an orbit - the Enterprise was being pursued through space by the
Doomsday Machine.

 

[StarRider1701]

It still drives me nuts to this day how orbits "decay" when the engines fail.

Well, orbits do decay, just not anywhere near that quickly or drastically. Even as a young teenager watching the first runs I knew better than that, but what the hey? It made for some good drama.

Although I'm pretty sure that Kirk (or maybe it was Picard) did use the "station keeping" command once or twice.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Kirk should have said "station keeping Mr Sulu". It would have prevented all these questions.

Exactly.

"All Stop" would be a command to the engines.

Here's a ship's telegraph:

"Stop" doesn't mean "stop."

"Station Keeping" would be appropriate relative to some other known point. So, coming up on an enemy ship, "station keeping" would keep the implied distance constant. Similarly, station keeping relative to a dock, spacestation, etc..

PS - Welcome to SDC crashinbrn!

 

[drwayne]

Pointless stupid trivia (do I post anything else)

Engine room telegraphs are a means of conveying orders - not a control per se. I remember being disappointed
when I first learned that. (Silly stupid boy)

 

[StarRider1701]

"All Stop" would be a command to the engines.

"Stop" doesn't mean "stop."

The problem with your cute picture and your reasoning lost and drwayne, is that you are referring to a ship which funtions upon (or perhaps in) the water. We are talking about a SPACE ship. While some functions and commands may appear similar, these vastly different ships operate within a vastly different medium. Just because a command such as "All Stop" means one thing in a Wet Navy, does not mean that same command has the exact same meaning in a Space Navy. Thus, your reasoning is faulty. Please make the appropriate corrections or modifications. Thank you

PS. All Stop does mean the ship is stopping. In the water when you stop propelling yourself the water will stop the ship. It just takes a little time, depending on how fast you are going. In a spaceship, All Stop might include a silent, unspoken command to reverse the engines and come to a stop, because obviously space itself will not stop your forward momentum, unlike water. Perhaps someone needs to take the "Helmsman" course at Starfleet Academy.

 

[drwayne]

"All Stop might include a silent, unspoken command to reverse the engines and come to a stop"

If it includes this, then the silent command you refer to will start to intimately involve the "with respect
to what". Leaving things unspoken and assumed is NOT the way orders are given. There is a very
definite reason why orders to the helm are supposed to be clear and repeated back.

Yes by the way, I do understand the difference between motion through water and space.
I have a kickoff meeting on a sea modelling effort just next week. And there was that time
a couple of years ago when I made the mistake of getting on my hands and knees to
work on a telemetry box in a boat in the gulf - after a while I realized I didn't feel quite
as good as I did earlier.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

The problem with your cute picture and your reasoning lost and drwayne, is that you are referring to a ship which funtions upon (or perhaps in) the water. We are talking about a SPACE ship.

Okiedokey

While some functions and commands may appear similar, these vastly different ships operate within a vastly different medium. Just because a command such as "All Stop" means one thing in a Wet Navy, does not mean that same command has the exact same meaning in a Space Navy. Thus, your reasoning is faulty. Please make the appropriate corrections or modifications. Thank you

You're not going to make me pull out my copy of The Starfleet Technical Manual, are you?

PS. All Stop does mean the ship is stopping. In the water when you stop propelling yourself the water will stop the ship. It just takes a little time, depending on how fast you are going. In a spaceship, All Stop might include a silent, unspoken command to reverse the engines and come to a stop, because obviously space itself will not stop your forward momentum, unlike water. Perhaps someone needs to take the "Helmsman" course at Starfleet Academy.

OK, riddle me this: What command is given to reduce propulsion to zero from the engines?

On station keeping: Lt. Cmdr. Hikaru Sulu: Thruster at station keeping, sir. (.wave file)

 

[bdewoody]

It was even worse on the original BSG. They mentioned several times that without more fuel they would come to a stop.
Too many Sci Fi TV writers don't grasp the basics of space physics. Plus it would be hard to depict the true nature of space flight. X-wing vs. Tie-fighter was a popular sim but the physics were rediculous. On the other hand MS Space Simulator while highly accurate was difficult to master and ended up a bust.

 

[drwayne]

It was even worse on the original BSG. They mentioned several times that without more fuel they would come to a stop.
Too many Sci Fi TV writers don't grasp the basics of space physics. Plus it would be hard to depict the true nature of space flight. X-wing vs. Tie-fighter was a popular sim but the physics were rediculous. On the other hand MS Space Simulator while highly accurate was difficult to master and ended up a bust.

I mumbled about this in an earlier discussion - another funny thing is when the Enterprise is pursuing something
at high warp - and the thing being pursued slows dramatically, or stops - they have time to see this happen, figure out
that they ought to slow down, and give the order, all before running up the other guys tailpipe.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...Too many Sci Fi TV writers don't grasp the basics of space physics.

You know, I think they're actually scared to deviate too far from what the general public expects. The average watcher expects "flying", aerodynamically constructed spaceships. ie: In order to fly in space, it has to "look" like it can fly. The first "real" looking spaceship I remember was the Valley Forge from "Silent Running." (I saw that before I saw Discovery in "2001 A space Odyssey"

Plus it would be hard to depict the true nature of space flight. X-wing vs. Tie-fighter was a popular sim but the physics were rediculous. On the other hand MS Space Simulator while highly accurate was difficult to master and ended up a bust.

X-Wing vs Tie Fighter is probably my favorite "sim" ever, even though the realism was terrible. It was simply "fun." There have been some games with accurate depictions of space flight in the Sci-Fi realm. The oldest I can remember was an old game called "Mantis."

A Babylon 5 flight simulator/combat video game was in production and had made it all the way to Alpha testing when Sierra pulled the plug because they were afraid they would loose money on a "flight sim" game. Pity. That would have been very nice to experience.

 

[drwayne]

And of course there were those, like Irwin Allen, who were antagonistic at times to "reality"

 

[StarRider1701]

Reality has its place. But, after all we are talking about Entertainment. Why does "reality" have to rear its ugly head when we're having fun?!?