Talk:Coaxial warp drive

I believe the drive was not used again by Starfleet because bending time (A form of time travel) went against the prime directive, Not because it was Impossible to build a stable version.
 * The drive folds/bends space, not time.

Change or delete this statement
Since the drive wasn't seen again, it presumably turned out to be impossible to make a stable version.
 * I don't believe this statement to be true, I believe they would of left this technology to be figured out for the people at Starfleet. And plus It was already demonstrated that it was during the flight that took place when the impostor took Paris' place and left Paris unconscious to fly his Coaxial warp ship.(Signed ip Anon :))
 * Certainly they would not have just left it for Starfleet to figure out, we saw with the Quantum Slipstream drive, the Transwarp drive, etc., that they didn't just "leave it for Starfleet". --OuroborosCobra talk 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why wouldn't they of tried it, even if they already proven it could be stable? I believe they didn't want to take the risk, as said by Tu'vok and ?? an explosion by this kind of technology could be devastating. that should be the main reason. and not that they concluded it to be impossible to make stable... which we see and know it can be. (Signed ip Anon :))
 * They did try it, in, but they could not get it to be stable. Similar to the Quantum Slipstream, it was stable on the NX-01-A, but not on Voyager. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But I want referring to the time where the "body snatcher" alien was trying to flee from voyager. I'm referring to the part where Paris as a transformed alien was knocked out, and auto piloted into Coaxial Warp somewhere else. That test worked and was stable. and it wasn't normal warp either. (Signed ip Anon :))
 * That would be Transwarp drive. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is still the coaxial warp, not the transwarp. He is referring to Seth. Problem is, IIRC that was on Seth's ship. They were not able to get it to work with stability on Starfleet ships. Similar, as I said, to the Quantum Slipstream drive. Worked on the NX-01-A ship, but NOT on Starfleet ships. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and edited the article to reflect this. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the above statement, for being speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 21:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * After specifically re-watching this episode to clarify this issue, I've come to the following conclusion:
 * After Tom Paris integrated a polaric modulator into the alien Steth's coaxial drive, the drive was used without mishap (implying that the original design issue was corrected). Steth (disguised as Tom) then modified one of Voyager's shuttles to utilize coaxial warp for propulsion and attempted to escape in it at the end of the episode.  Tom's intervention with a chromoelectric pulse prevented Steth (disguised as Capt. Janeway) from successfully initiating coaxial warp with the shuttle, but the final fate of the modified shuttle or coaxial warp technology was never discussed during the rest of the episode or the series.  I imagine this was a plotting/writing oversight, as the crew of Voyager would naturally use the most efficient, safe transportation technology available to reach the Alpha quadrant more quickly.  (JSG)


 * That would be a nitpick unless discussed by Trek staff. --31dot 02:43, February 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, I was attempting to address the point of logic/continuity which was raised above. I didn't initiate the conversation myself, nor did I attempt to include it in any of the official descriptive entries on the site.  As for bringing up plotting/writing, I was merely speculating upon the most likely reason for the difficulty in explaining any seeming inconsistency of events within the Voyager continuity.  I didn't think it had a hostile tone.  (JSG)


 * Please sign with ~ or clicking the Signature button. I did not think the comment was "hostile", but talk pages are not meant for general discussion or mere speculation; comments should pertain to changing the article.  By calling it a "plotting/writing oversight" my assumption was you were requesting its inclusion in the article. I was simply stating that nitpicks are generally not permitted, not that the comment was bad. --31dot 11:12, February 27, 2012 (UTC)