this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
67 points (70.1% liked)
Greentext
4604 readers
2034 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, converting energy into matte, when you could be using said energy to get home does seem a bit wasteful.
Replicating 1 gram of matter from energy takes 90 TJ, so replicating a sugarcube would be roughly the power of a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Yeah I guess. Although I guess the question is how much energy does warp drive use or how much energy does the engine output given some amount of dilithium or whatever? No real way to know since it's sci-fi. As far as I know the only physics we have on this is that paper that showed you'd need negative energy to make warp happen. Which is obviously not super helpful for figuring out what it would be in the hypothetical world of Star Trek where they found some way to make it physically possible.
I just imagine that their energy production has to be absolutely insane for warp travel to not only be feasible, but a fairly common thing more akin to launching a boat than a NASA mission.
You bring up a good point however, its basically a generator, and it needs fuel. So even if its not much energy saved, saving any was crucial for them when they never knew where they could next get dylythium.
So even though leaving the lights on only costs a couple cents day, well if you're traveling for 10 years, those couple bits of energy add up. Especially considering they did have a decent sized crew and children on top of it!
Not to mention that this was written in the 80s and 90s. Lighting was signficiantly more of the average person's energy bill before LEDs so it made sense to the audience back then.