Talk:Warp drive/archive

Canon (refers to an old version of this article!)
This is good (and much) work, but several details sound "invented". These parts should be removed. -- Cid Highwind 04:06, 3 Apr 2004 (PST)

Cid, I tried to stay as close to canon as I could on this one. Most of the details in the technology section are drawn from the TNG Technical Manual. The history section is almost completely canon, with some conjecture on my part based on the canonical sources.

The specific parts I speculated on were Cochrane's original Phoenix being fusion-powered and his move to Alpha Centauri being partially motivated by trying to integrate warp engines with matter-antimatter reactors. (The former I felt pretty safe with, 'cause Cochrane and his team are inoculated for radiation exposure in First Contact, and I was hoping they weren't playing around with a fission pile.)

Another part was the date of the refactoring of the Warp scale- I saw someone somewhere had a date of 2313 which jibed well with the refitted big E being capable of warp 12 and the TOS E achieving warp 14.1, but the TNG E only capable of warp 9.6. I also took the liberty of tying this refactoring in with the failed transwarp program of Excelsior. The part about the warp scale being a piecewise function was an idea I got when researching formulae for computing "new" warp speeds, when in actuality the scale is just a pretty picture drawn by Okuda, who never even took Calculus. (The slacker!)

I also speculated on why they built the Constellation with four nacelles when Roddenberry dictated all ships have only two. (The date of 2269 for two warp nacelles being optimal is from TNG TM, pp. 65, and I was also trying to see if ther was a way I could re-inject Franz Joseph's starship designs from the original TM into canon- I have a real soft spot for them.;-)) The time frame of their construction being in the 2290's was also my conjecture based on the fact that the ships are seventy-odd years old by the time of TNG and DS9.

The last really big leap on my part was figuring out why in the last season of TNG they set the speed limit at warp five, but just a few months and movies later everone's back gallivanting at warp nine. (I know the real reason was because of lazy writing, but I'm trying to sound credible here.)

I really tried to do my homework on this article, and if there are specific points you have issue with, let me know and I'll rewrite 'em. Thanks! --Chuckhoffmann 00:37, 4 Apr 2004 (PST)


 * Thanks for explaining all those points, Chuck. It's not that I don't agree with them, I just think that anything that is not directly "canon", even if it seems to be completely logical, should be marked as such. Otherwise, a visitor might assume that this conjecture is indeed canon for some reason. The style we often use for speculation is an indented and italicized paragraph, which you can achieve this way:


 * :SPECULATION HERE


 * I suggest that you separate facts from 'reasonable' conjecture this way in the article (pure speculation should probably still be removed) and add a short explanation why you came to those conclusions (like you did on this talk page). This also includes TNGTM info - I think we haven't yet decided whether this info should be included or not. -- Cid Highwind 01:19, 4 Apr 2004 (PST)

Canon vs. conjecture
I noticed that this article was changed to include some explanations for the existing conjecture. This is better than just offering the speculation "as canon", of course, but I still think that there might be better ways... Some examples:


 * ARTICLE: Cochrane's original warp engines were fusion-powered1


 * EXPLANATION: 1. The idea that Cochrane's original Phoenix was fusion-powered is my speculation based on the fact that in First Contact, Cochrane and his team are inoculated for radiation exposure after the Borg attack and I was hoping they weren't playing around with a fission pile.

Speculation based on canon facts. That's good, in my opinion. Could be rephrased a little, then integrated into the main text (but still marked as speculation, of course).


 * ARTICLE: In 2269, research was done that showed that the optimum number of warp nacelles for a starship is two, although warp nacelles in pairs can generate greater speeds and longer durations at a loss of efficiency. (This research of using four nacelles eventually led to the creation of the Constellation class starships in the 2290's.4)


 * EXPLANATION: 4. While developing Star Trek: The Next Generation, Gene Roddenberry decided that all starships should have 2 warp nacelles, so I had to come up with a convincing explanation of why a lot of starships have 1, 3 or 4 nacelles. Another, more selfish reason is that I'm trying to re-integrate the Franz Joseph Schnaubelt-designed starships back into canon. The date of 2290 as the date for the building of the Constellation class is based on the ships being about 70 years old at the time of TNG.

Roddenberry's decision is not canon, and we saw at least some ships with 1 or 4 nacelles, so no explanation is necessary. That bit can simply be deleted from the article. GR's decision might make a nice anecdote (footnote) on some page, though (if it is indeed valid, some people seem to doubt even that)...


 * ARTICLE: The warp scale (...) was refactored in 2313.6


 * EXPLANATION: 6. I saw someone somewhere had a date of 2313 for the refactoring of the Warp scale

This is basically some number picked randomly just to have a number. A less specific reference, or none at all, would be just as good in this case.

There are some other ideas I have, but this should be enough for the moment. If you think these need some discussion, just let me know. Otherwise, someone can just incorporate those changes... (I will do tomorrow if there are no objections) -- Cid Highwind 19:08, 22 Apr 2004 (CEST)


 * Not exactly "tomorrow" (which would have been a little too fast, anyway), but I just incorporated those changes because there were no objections. I also moved the remaining footnotes to the relevant sections to allow easier editing in the future. Let's talk about some of those other bits: -- Cid Highwind 17:32, 28 Apr 2004 (CEST)

I'm glad to see somebody else noticed the # nacelles ish, & at least tried to address it. Is there any canon on why 2 nacelles is std? (I always presumed Gene picked it 'cause he liked the esthetics.) & if so, why Roms & Vulcans use the "arc"? Or do they (both?) use a whole different warp field theory? weyoun shran 12:42, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

History - 21st century

 * The history of the first unmanned test vessel sounds like TNGTM-info (see: canon). It should be removed if that's the only source.
 * Footnote 1 and the related part of the article is speculation and should be removed(?). Is the relocation to Alpha Centauri canon (then cite a source) or speculation based on "Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri" (then add this as a comment)?

Images
This article still needs a lot of images. Of the top of my head, I'd say Constitution at warp, slistream, different types of warp-cores, intrepid with nacelles in different position for comparison, but there's lot's more to be added. -- Redge | Talk 17:27, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * Those images would not be suitable for the article - Slipstream images are at quantum slipstream drive, where they belong; warp core images are at warp core, where they belong; and images of the Intrepid should be at and/or variable geometry pylons. Only the Constitution at warp would be suitable. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:41, Aug 13, 2004 (CEST)

Instead of episode screencaps, I think the best addition would be one or more diagrams. There must be a few Trekkies here familiar with Trek-physics who can mark up something. Maybe a diagram explaining the nature of a warp shell and the surrounding space...?

Comment
It's interesting to see how my original article, written over a year ago, has morphed over time. I think this article is better than my original, which goes to show how the Wiki concept really works. --Chuckhoffmann 03:48, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Update. In the finale for Enterprise they talk about reaching warp 7. Does this conflict with the time barrier being broken in /"The Menagerie"?


 * Not necessarily, because we are aware that the warp scale was changed at least once between TOS and TNG. Whats to say that the scale was updated between ENT and TOS? Zsingaya 08:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting. In "The Cage", Lt. Tyler mentions to the American Continent Institute--the crew of the Columbia which is from 2236--that they would not believe how fast they would be able get home, due to the time barrier being broken. Hinting at a more significant seed than Warp 7 which we know was reached in the late 22nd century. How much more significant is Warp 8 or 9 from 7? Of couse we have no idea if a similar Excelsior-transwarp incident occured, setting them back. Nor if the Columbia is a lower FTL research vessel like NX-01 and 02. I'm siding with Zsingaya on this one. The warp scale can change in a century like it did with the 24th century from the 23rd. AC84 04:08, 15 Jun 2005 (PAC)


 * I think that once more we've got lazy writing to thank for a series of "canon" numbers that are skewed and are generally irreconcileable. There isn't a huge problem with the warp 4.5 to 5 thing in Enterprise, let's face it, humans were in a rush to get out of there.  Starting with the Vulcans tooling around at cruising speeds of warp 6.5 (faster than TOS Enterprise's cruising speed) is a problem though, making us wonder what was going on in the research department for the next century.  Although we might try to pull out the re-calibrated scale argument, it doesn't really work.  Archer's comment in Broken Bow about thirty million kilometers per second from now on, though a touch high for warp 4.5, is about right for the generally accepted warp speed cubed formula of Kirk era.  Of course trying to relate any scale to the apparent travel times in Enterprise is pointless.  Routinely and miraculously they manage to cover a light year in a few hours (sure, six hours at warp 9, TNG scale), and Qo'noS is apperently only four days away (incidentally the time it should take the ship to go one light year at warp 4.5).

21st Century Physics
If you'd like, I'll tweek some of the science here by using warp theory of the 21st century combined with what we see in Star Trek. Keras 23:12, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Galaxy-class construction

 * By the time the starship was being designed in the 2360s, warp technology had progressed to the point where speeds of warp 9.6 could be sustained for up to twelve hours, although warp 9.2 was considered the "red line".

According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the Galaxy-class was being designed in the 2340s, which is what the article stated before it was changed to the 2360s. While I know the Tech Manual isn't considered canon, wasn't there a canon reference stating the Galaxy-class were being designed in the 2340s? --From Andoria with Love 00:54, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Link
I am removing link to wikipedia on warp drive, our external link policy states only to link to wikipedia for things beyond our mandate, the WP article talks about warp drive in star trek. The wikipedia link to that other drive remains. Jaz 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Speed Limit & Response
Fortunately, a solution was developed less than 8 months later that was gradually implemented on all vessels, and Starfleet vessels were again able to use the maximum capacity of their warp drives, first through the use of variable geometry nacelles, as on Intrepid-class vessels, which also allowed a warp engine of essentially the same construction as those on the Galaxy class to achieve speeds of warp 9.975 (VOY: "Caretaker"), and later through new nacelle design, as on the Sovereign-class.

This seems to be largely conjecture. It seems logical that Voyager had a 'better' warp drive than the Enterprise-D not only due to the increased speed, but the fact that it was constructed over ten years after it, and we saw it break the speed limit all the time. There is nothing to suggest however that this improvement is down to the nacelles being able to move (as I understand it, they were included both as a 'cool' factor and to make the design fit with Roddenberry's stated design rules, namely that the nacelles must be able to 'see' each other). Similarly, though the Sovereign nacelle is visually very different to that of the Galaxy, is there anything other than conjecture to suggest it is a 'better' design which allows for travel beyond the speed limit? - 84.66.206.48 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Warp speed insanity (from Reference Desk)
Ok, I may be a bit overanalytical, but....

If you follow the facts as submitted in Enterprise and other sources, the Klingon homesystem is about 1/3 as distant from Earth as the NEAREST star is.... ...yet nobody ever seems to comment on this....

Any explanations?

I might add that by the same references, the "detour" to rigel in Broken bow would have taken about 7 weeks, one way.

So by the "official" Warp speed scale Warp 4,5 = Warp 12 (following the cochrane scale)

/Obbas


 * In "Star Trek: Star Charts", they say that the vulcan starcharts showed a subspace shortcut, that allowed them to get to Qo'noS so quickly. This however isn't canon, but does show that people have noticed it, and tried to explain it. So yes, several people have commented on it, and no, it doesn't make sence. It would have taken several weeks to get to Qo'noS, but as the producers say, "it makes for good drama". -AJHalliwell 18:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's what we call "dramatic license". :D There are several fandom explanations as to why this happens - search for "warp highway" on Google, for example - but the only real explanation is to make the stories as "speedy" as possible - a journey of several weeks or months between places either results in stories cutting out those weeks and months, with unrealistically slow character development as a result, or numerous "bottle shows" enroute. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, while they didn't have to go all the way to Qo'noS, it seemed awfully quick for the Enterprise-A to rendezvouz with the IKS Qo'noS One in ... one would assume that the rendezvous took place at or near the Neutral Zone, so they could escort the Klingons all the way to Earth. But that is just assumption, of course. -- umrguy42 03:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not argue the dramatic licence, Star Trek is not a science show afterall. But the same senselessness is endemic, if not pandemic, to the entire "Trekiverse" Most obvious in Enterprise. By the first 10 episodes warp 4.5 has been effectively described as everything from 100c to 1000c interchangeably. So my problem is with any sort of "official" speedchart, rather than the show itself... If W4.5 is ca100c then the first season should span about 2-5years worldtime, or else the universe consists of nothing but warp highways. Take the first episode again, ignoring the Qo'noS part... rigel to earth, 3day stop then earth to rigel is summed up as "a few days" total... ...that makes 30 lightyears in at most 10 days unless more than 2 weeks constitutes "a few days"... ...avarage speed between 1000 and 2000c

Why bother with creating a warpspeed scale when it is utterly without relevance to the "reality" of the show?
 * Well, they didn't "create a warp speed scale" -- they used warp factors to be a measure of speed, with the high numbers being dangerous and fast for the engines and the low numbers being slow for the engines. It was very much a random association as any two points in the Star Trek universe are usually 1 commercial break away at high warp and two or three acts away at low warp, no matter what the scientific measure of distance between them.


 * It was later writers, such as the Star Fleet Technical Manual, and various other sources that presented the measure like the "cubed scale" (c = WF3) which is now honored for TOS-era (and ENT)..


 * When new TNG science advisors tried to redesign the scale, as presented in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, they made it an asymptotic curve so it would never reach warp 10, but still allow for references to near-infinite speeds. They established a list of values for each warp factor, so its easy to figure how far the ship traveled at warp when a duration and speed are applied, but they rarely checked these for any kind of accuracy.


 * TNG has referenced subspace phenomena creating "corridors" where warp travel is only possible in certain areas, where surrounding space is less permeable along the boundary, meaning the ability to traverse them at warp is diminished, and, far enough into the effect, prevented altogether. This effect was mentioned in an extreme form, an entire "un-warpable" sector, in VOY


 * This proves that warp factor speed is only an approximate value, as courses must be chosen that avoid areas of space where anomalies inhibit the effectiveness of warp drive -- we've already been shown that space can be "rough passage" and cause starships to move slower than they would in "Nicer" space -- many take it that mean that a starship traveling Warp Factor 2 (old scale) could be going 8 times the speed of light, in warped space, exactly as the speed factor describes, but traverse less distance, in less time, if they were in a disruption such as the Hekaras Corridor. There have even been technobabble mentions of the "permeability" of subspace, meaning the Warp 2 might not work as well, and the navigator must plot courses to the best places to go to warp at. (this is part of the "warp highway" theory here)


 * So, based on canon facts, how can we use the measurement of the warp factor to illustrate any of these points at all? if Enterprise traveled warp five, as Archer mentioned they were at a value approaching 125 times the speed of light, but the amount of distance covered seems far greater -- because distance covered at x speed is variable based on a quality of the space, because it has been nearly proven that traveling at a warp speed means you move at a certain mutliple of the speed of light, but the amount of distance you cover and the time you might do has been proven variable by the episodes i mentioned, because a quality of the space itself negates all or part of the warp field of a ship, it means that because of the "space warp", speed becomes variable is comparison to the time to cross distance X. this could be an explanation of why the term "warp" is used at all, and an explanation for why certain astronomical distance relationships seem skewed in Star Trek.


 * However, Memory-Alpha endeavours to accurately record only the episodic canon information to illustrate this, as this theory has not been mentioned specifically, besides the vague allusions to warped warp speed values in episodes i mentioned. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Just rewatched Voyager, season 2 ep. 1 There, Paris makes a comparison Warp 9.9 "About 4 billion miles/s" which would translate to a galactic circumnavigation taking 15 years if relatively constant....

Like a list of federation members, the exact way to calculate warp has never been explained in canon trek exactly for this reason. Writers want to be able to have some freedom without being chained rules and regulations. Could you imagine how bad Broken Bow would have been if it took them a month to get there? Jaz 04:38, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

my personal rationalization has been that the "Weather" in subspace can have drastic effects onwarp factors, rather like the wind affecting a sailing ship. but that's just me.

Citations and Speculation
This article needs some help. It doesn't cite sources and engages (so the speak) in too much speculation in the body of the article rather than in background sections. I'll try to get to it at some point, but if others want to wade in. . . . Aholland 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The slow pace of technological advancement
In the traveler Weasly makes a tremendous breakthrough in warp field travel. This could have been achieved by a computer. Weasly took only 15 second to enter in the data. A computer could have tried out every single combination in that time. Evolution algorithms could have also been used assuming that a isoliner chip wasn't using its full power for the simulation to be done in real time. The computer core of the enterprise could have done a trillion simulations for a trillion generations in one second.


 * The above is all speculation. (based on what info I don't know.) Noclevername 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Just wondering if someone can answer me a question. How does 'Trek's Warp drive compare to the Hyperdrive used in 'Wars and 'Gate? (I mean, behind the scenes) and does the hyperdrive actually have a place in the 'Trek universe? --Jacen Solo 04:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i think hyperdrive is much slower than warp, the people in wars could hardly get from planet to planet in a fast time.


 * I have a question, if the enterprise went warp 11 and in voyager when Paris went to warp 10 he was everywhere in the universe at once and hyper-evolved how can this happen?


 * First off, hyperdrive in Star War and Stargate is significantly faster than warp drive in Star Trek. In trek, it takes about a century to cross the galaxy. In Star Wars, the Millenium Falcon can cross the galaxy in a number of days. In Stargate, ships can fly from one galaxy to another in 2.5 weeks, and go anywhere within the galaxy in hours.


 * That's not really a fair comparison between SW and ST. there's no reason to believe that the SW galaxy is any larger than ours, or that it is even half as big - consider that the falcon was capable at sublight speeds to get from a "Deep" space staging area to Bespin in a matter of days.


 * The Hyperdrive is much faster, Obi-Wan got form Coruscant to Kamino in a couple of hours. Coruscant is a Core world and Kamino is outside the Republic in Rasi Maze!


 * Second, not sure which Enterprise you are talking about going at warp 11. I am guessing you mean the TOS Enterprise. The explanation for that is that the warp scale seems to have changed between TOS and TNG. Warp 10 in TNG era (including Voyager) does not mean the same thing as Warp 10 in TOS. As for the hyper-evolution, that was just a dumb, stupid, idiotic plot device. One most fans try to ignore, along with the entire episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Warp Speed Levels
I looked around and couldn't find it, and I was sure I had seen it before, but what is the "definition" of the warp speed levels?
 * Normal Cruise:
 * Maximum Cruise:
 * Maximum Rated:

As I said, I'd seen them around before, but to no avail in a search, I cannot find them again.--Terran Officer 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i am tempted to say that it is modeled after Navy terminology:
 * 1/3
 * 2/3
 * All Ahead Full [which equals about 3/4's power]
 * Flank [or Max Rated]


 * I really don't know were the 2 correlate other then flank=max rated; I'd hazard a guess that each ships 'cruise speed' is different depending on class; ie - a Constitution Class' Normal Cruise would be different from a Galaxy Class' 'Normal Cruise'. – Farfallen 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about normal cruise, maximum cruise, or maximum rated warp speeds for different types of vessels, but I can give you the number/velocity correlations for warp speeds. Don't know if that helps or not.


 * Warp 1= 1x the speed of light
 * Warp 2= 10x
 * Warp 3= 39x
 * Warp 4= 102x
 * Warp 5= 214x
 * Warp 6= 392x
 * Warp 7= 656x
 * Warp 8= 1024x
 * Warp 9= 1516x
 * Supposedly, there is no warp 10, although TOS is fairly inconsistent with that, notably in The Ultimate Computer.T&#39;Pishek 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I were the engineer I'd say that normal cruise it is related to sustainable velocity.


 * Normal Cruise is what velocity can be maintained 24x7 between scheduled refits without needing additional maintenance. It may also be calibrated for optimal fuel economy.


 * Maximum Cruise is equally sustainable 24x7 but will require additional routine maintenance. Fuel use is less economic.


 * Maximum Rated would be the furthest the engines can be pushed without breaking safety limits. Temperatures and instability may make this not possible to sustain for more than a few hours, and the engines will need an overhaul at a starbase after such a trip.


 * As for impulse power, this is more typical of naval 1/3, 2/3, full ahead. These are quoted as sizable fractions of light speed too. Can't remember exactly what. But way too fast for docking.


 * Thrusters are small speeds like 100kph or less for docking maneuvers. But of course, this is all meaningless because of relativity. A bit like when Janeway orders an "All Stop" ;-) -- Jamie


 * Strictly speaking, in canon it has never been explicitly stated what velocities the warp factor correlate to. This is an intentional move by the writers to prevent needless nitpicking, and to allow for creative license. --- Jaz 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In Star Trek Reference Manual it was speed = speed of light x Warp Factor ^ 3


 * Plus there are some episodes which state warp factor, distance and ETA together, especially from Data, from which we can calculate the relationship. TNG was most accurate to the reference manual, while Voyager's speeds are too fast! -- Jamie 27mar08 23:35 GMT

Speed limit overcome?
What was the first episode where a starship exceed the Warp 5 speed limit? -- StAkAr Karnak 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends. In, they use the line "maximum warp" after traveling at warp 5. That could mean passing the warp 5 limit, or it might not (probably does). The first time they specifically say they have been given permission to exceed the warp 5 limit (or mention it again at all since ) is in :
 * PICARD: "Geordi, the medical situation on Barson Two has worsened -- Starfleet has given us permission to exceed warp speed limitations so we can get back on schedule."
 * GEORDI: "We'll be able to give you warp eight if you need it."
 * Not only do they mention permission to exceed the limit, but they even give us the number. There ya go. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Warp-capable
This should be merged with warp drive. It is already discussed there. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge --GNDN 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. what're we waiting for? -- Sulfur 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can a ship warp through a planet or object?
I was thinking this and I forgot if a ship (while in warp) could go through a planet or object with out being harmed. I read the wiki page on warp drive and I couldn't find this.
 * In 24th century Trek (TNG onward) the answer is no. It can't go through stuff without an phasing cloaking device. I don't know about TOS, but in they did go through Questar M-17 using warp. --Bp 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In The Voyage Home when they were using the BoP to slingshot around the sun it was quite a worry that Spock might miscalculate and they could get burnt up. That's a pretty clear indication that flying into a star and presumably any other solid or semi-solid object would destroy the ship, at warp or not.--Pearse 15:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is basicly, no. A planetary gravity field would disrupt the warp drive I believe anyway. In Enterprise, Tucker said it was dangerous to fly a ship through a gravametic field distortion at warp. Unlike Hyperspace of other space shows (SG, SW, etc), warp is still in "normal space"... so interactions with normal matter is possible (such as why communication is possible while atwarp, where it's not in Star Wars). --58.6.1.178 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I think the answer is yes. In the first place, I'm not sure that a reference from Enterprise really applies to the "normal" way warp speed behaves in the Star Trek universe, since the NX-01 is a prototypical, and not a simply typical, warp ship.  In the second, I thought the deal in  was that they were worried about being able to apply the brakes in time.  How I've always read that scene is that they were trying to come out of warp right on top of the Earth (for reasons that make no particular sense), and that they were worried that as they came out of warp they might hit the atmosphere.  I would've thought they'd have a much bigger margin of error if they just aimed for some other, not-so-crowded part of the solar system, then fly back to Earth once they established they'd made it to the right time.  In other words, the concern about hitting Earth has nothing to do with passing through it at warp, but about simple, normal-space collision.


 * I personally have always thought the line in Star Wars IV was put in explicitly to contradict Star Trek, where passing through planets is never really shown to be all that big a deal. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a Lucas quote to that effect, if you really want it.)  FTL travel in the Star Wars universe is a much more difficult affair than it is in the Star Trek universe, what with ships needing to travel along very proscribed routes.  The whole Kessel Run thing that Solo brags about is a feat of navigation and calculation, not of speed.  He figured out how to cover a shorter distance, not how to go faster.  That's why he says he "in less than 12 parsecs", rather than a certain speed.  Check out the A New Hope DVD commentary for more information; Lucas goes on quite a bit about the mechanics of Star Wars universe FTL travel there.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vulcan Warp Drive Date?
Query: On the Vulcan page, it says "The Vulcans might have had warp drive at least a hundred years prior to the 9th century BC"; however, on the "Warp Drive" page, I found this statement: "The Vulcans (and, by extension, the Romulans) had warp drive in the 3rd century AD (Earth calendar), although the technology was lost during that planet's civil war, and was not reacquired until several centuries later". Which is correct? (Or both?) --206.82.28.11 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The 9th Century BC reference is based off of the fact that P'Jem was an established during that time, and I guess the presumption is that they had to have some sort of advanced space travel to successfully make that trip. I'm not sure where exactly the "100 years before" reference came from, however some vague reference about it taking the Vulcans 100 years to "crack warp 2" comes to mind, though I'm not sure how that is related, directly. Also, since Surak lived during the 4th century, not the 3rd, it seems as though the Vulculans has still possessed some sort of advanced space travel. The 4th century again supported with the reference to the Debrune (another offshoot). --Alan del Beccio 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vulcan Warp Drive and the Speed of Progress
Humans develop warp drive independently in...216X? And they're limited to warp five in the time of Enterprise...yet are up to eight or so by the time of Kirk, and if I remember correctly, in All Good Things, the future-captain-Picard (formerly Crusher) ordered an escape speed of warp...sixteen, thirteen?

Thus, in about 150 years, the Federation went from 5 to 7-8, another 100 years, from 8 to 9.9, another 50 or so, from 9.9 to 13/16 (which raises the question...isn't warp 10 supposed to put one "everywhere simultaneously? (VOY: Threshold) So why do they have a warp speed over ten?)

Yet the Vulcans got warp drive in the 9th century BC, and they didn't have anything greater than warp 5-6 over 30 CENTURIES later, at the founding of the Federation? Even if the technology was lost in a civil war and it took "several" centuries to regain it......that's slow progress. Wow. Is this addressed anywhere in non-canon sources? Additionally, if the Federation expanded in about 250 years to the degree that it seems to have done, and explored the amount it seems to have explored....why in thousands of years had the Vulcans not seemingly explored more?

-- Jephthah


 * Interesting. Perhaps humans progressed faster because of the combined efforts of more than one race? It makes sense that if humans AND Vulcans were working together, things might go a bit faster. But another point: In TOS "The Naked Time," after rebooting the engines the Enterprise goes into a time warp because they are "going faster than it is possible to go." So what does THAT mean?-T&#39;Pishek 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All of that is reasonable, but I really don't think that this issue is convincingly addressed. The writers said it took the Vulcans thirty-some centuries to make the progress that it took humans a tenth of that time to make, and it did.  If it doesn't make sense, tough.  As with most Trek technologies, timelines, and concepts, laws of probability, physics, and anything else that gets in the way of conventional Trek ideas...simply don't exist.  Creative license.  Yay Hollywood.


 * Beyond just creative license there's plenty of possibilities as to why this occurred. Perhaps specific minerals and/or materials weren't discovered until after Humans developed their own warp drive that allowed warp speeds to be greatly increased.  This would have placed a limitation on the Vulcans as well since they didn't have them either until they were discovered.  You also can't discount that the Vulcan Science Directorate wasn't stifling progress, as shown in Star Trek: Enterprise they were not open-minded to say the very least (how many times did we hear that they had "concluded that time travel was impossible"?).  That type of attitude would certainly hinder scientific progress, because why try an experiment if you're already certain it won't work?  Personally I don't find all this a mystery, just not totally explained.


 * As to the warp speeds that Jephthah mentioned, I'm betting that there was yet another redo of the warp speeds chart by the time of, perhaps new technologies and even functional transwarp had come along by then in that timeline.


 * Why hadn't Vulcan explored more? I think that Star Trek has consistently taken the attitude that Humans are the main drivers behind exploration in the Federation.  Certainly this is due to the show being created and written by Humans, but it explains why the Vulcans hadn't explored more — they just didn't have the same drive to explore that Humanity does in the Star Trek universe. :) --Maestro4k 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Warp speeds
Is there any coherent progression to the velocities achieved by ships at particular warp speeds? In several episodes of Voyager, I've correlated moderate warp (5, 6,maybe) to about 1 to 1.5 lightyears per day. However, I seem to remember in one episode that after "two days at high warp" the ship traveled approximately ten lightyears. It might have bean three days, might have been seven lightyears, and incidentally I found it very convenient that the narration said "high warp" instead of a factor, thereby eliminating the possibility of inconsistency through maintaining audience ignorance....Later, in "Night," a subsequent Voyager episode, Chakotay comments that 2,500 lightyears would take two years, leading to 3.42 ly/day

This got me thinking about whether or not there was any authorized statement on how fast warp speeds are intended to be, and what the relationship is between the different warp "factors." Linear - warp 2 is twice warp 1, warp 3 is 1.5 as fast as warp two, etc....or something like the Richter or decibel scales - maybe warp 2 is ten times warp 1, warp 4 ten times warp 2, warp eight ten times warp 4, etc....or exponential? Warp two is (Warp 1)^2, warp three, (Warp 1)^3...that's the speed squared...not the factor. Is there any official decision on this? Any baseline speed for warp 1 and formula for the calculation of the other speeds? Since warp ten claims to be "everywhere at once," I'd think it would have to be some sort of exponential function...but I'm looking for something more concrete and explicit than this logical deduction (oh, that's an ironic statement in the context of Star Trek...but true)

I'm also wondering whether the use of the terms may be inconsistent...take, for instance, that the Enterprise in TOS makes it to and from the edge of the Milky Way once per season (sometimes with deus ex machina help, of course, not for all three trips, both ways each trip), while, a century later, Voyager needs eighty years to cross from the Delta to Alpha quadrants. Granted, this can be explained away if one tries..."Maybe Earth is on the far edge of the Alpha Quadrant, so its closer to the galactic edge than to the Delta Quadrant," or a myriad of other ideas...but that's hardly the point. I'm just looking for some speed references. --Og


 * According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, here's the rough speeds that each warp factor corresponds too:


 * Warp 1 =   1x Speed of light
 * Warp 2 =  10x Speed of light
 * Warp 3 =  39x Speed of light
 * Warp 4 = 102x Speed of light
 * Warp 5 = 214x Speed of light
 * Warp 6 = 392x Speed of light
 * Warp 7 = 656x Speed of light
 * Warp 8 = 1024x Speed of light
 * Warp 9 = 1516x Speed of light
 * "The actual values are dependent upon interstellar conditions, e.g., gas density, electric and magnetic fields within different regions of the Milky Way galaxy, and fluctuations in the subspace domain. Starships routinely travel at multiples of [the speed of light], but they suffer from energy penalties resulting from quantum drag forces and motive power oscillation inefficiencies."


 * The power required to maintain the fractional warp factors increases sharply past warp factor 9 as you approach warp factor 10, that's a large part of why 10 is unattainable (warp 10 requires an infinite amount of power to reach), plus the manual does say that you'd be occupying all points in the universe at once as well. They used a spreadsheet to keep track of speeds on TNG, but the manual doesn't include the actual formulas unfortunately.  The setup of the speeds does allow for Q's moving the ship around without violating the warp factor scale though, he's just out there in 9.9999+ territory.  They note that in the episode  that the Traveler was propelling the Enterprise at about warp 9.9999999996.


 * The speeds of each warp factor were changed from TOS and TNG (and later) series and I don't remember the exact changes at the moment. Thanks to that you can't compare the numerical warp factors directly though.  I'm not sure that there's really a good explanation for how the original Enterprise managed to get to the edge of the galaxy so often.


 * As for the length of time for Voyager to get home, remember that ships can't run at their maximum rated warp speed indefinitely, their normal cruising warp speed is lower, and thanks to the progression there running at even warp 6 vs warp 9 will make a huge difference in the time it'll take for them to get home. --Maestro4k 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's very helpful. I must say, though, that I'm still just a bit disappointed at the lack of continuity. I've just been watching VOY: Dark Frontier, and I noticed that the sphereship that they attack - interesting premise of the episodes, that Voyager would choose to attack, but that's hardly the point - is eight lightyears away, travelling at warp 2. Janeway comments that the sphere is "three days away by maximum warp." If warp 9 were Voyager's maximum warp - and I'm certain, from earlier episodes, that its something closer to 9.6 - 9.9...then that would put the ship 12.46 (3*1516/365) ly away, not 8. Perhaps their maximum warp is reduced due to another deuterium shortage or engine malfunction...but reduced below 9.0? Maybe a large amount of time passed from the sphere being sighted in Astrometrics to the discussion in the briefing room. Even if the sphereship were traveling in a direct line away from Voyager, at warp 2 it would only add 10*3/365 = .082ly to the journey. A margin of error of 55.75% in estimating travel times (12.46ly - 8ly = 4.46ly / 8ly = .5575) wouldn't be up to Starfleet specs...at least, I wouldn't think so. Oh well. Thank you again for the information. I suppose that continuity and precision shouldn't be expected across producers, directors, writers, and series, at least not with such precision. They got to the sphere in the end, anyway. --Og