Talk:USS Voyager/archive

Talk:USS Voyager

Date of Voyager's return

 * See: Forum:Date of Voyager's return.

Stardate Year
Well, according to the VOY Season 1 DVD extras, they specify the year as 2377 for Season 1. Not sure how that fits with the canon course, but if you load in the extras disk and look at the Janeway Interview, you'll note the interview date (97), and then a year scroll to 2377 for Season 1. Which if true, means the stardate years are 2377 to 2383. DCody 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not work on so many levels. By 2377, there was no Maquis to speak of, they had long since been killed or destroyed by the Jem'Hadar. The uniforms seen in Voyager had been retired pretty much by 2373. We see an Admiral Kathryn Janeway back at Starfleet in 2379. I'm sure there are many more problems, but those are some glaring ones. The DVD extras either say something different, or are flat wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Voyager's route home?
This article might be a good home for a geographical survey of the Delta Quadrant and Voyager's route through it, as discussed here. It wouldn't need every planet visited, but a list of the major areas might be useful. -- Josiah Rowe 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
 * I think Regions visited by Voyager might be a decent idea for an article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 11:49, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

USS Voyager prototype
Shouldn't the information from USS Voyager prototype be moved here and the page deleted? It's all background info and doesn't exist in canon Trek! --Defiant | Talk 12:00, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it falls under background information -- if we are creting pages for other facets of the craft (directors, performers, composers -- then we should start with some info on costumes, sets, props and models -- the prototype page is waiting some more sibling articles about the other models built for the series, and a top level page to list all of the above. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:04, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the creation of these "prototype" articles. I think there's a big difference between people that have lives outside of Trek and models that were built specifically for Trek. For instance, the Voyager prototype is much more related to Voyager, it was built purposefully for that reason and no other, than Jeffrey Combs is related to Shran, he only played the Andorian and has other functions, both in Trek and outside. Prototype information can easily be displayed on starship articles, but where does information about a director, actor or composer go if they have appeared several times in Trek? Obviously, the option that will give most space is if we create behind-the-scenes personnel pages and use the relevant starship pages for "prototype" info. Also, is there a third option? Is it possible that we could do both - create new pages for prototypes but also display the information on the relevant starship pages. I realize my response may be seen as a "personal attack" (just about anything can be seen as that, these days!) but I'm only trying to help find the best solution for MA. I hope other Archivists realise this. --Defiant | Talk 14:36, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Crew Complement
Ah, the red shirts just keep appearing. While it gives the exact numbers given on two separate dates, In my opinion I think it should say "~150" or approximately 150 some how. Cause the idea of Voyager's crew was always 150, they always mentioned it. But when ever they needed an exact number, it'd vary (147, 141, 153) And they were always different, rarely actually accounting for red shirt deaths. Well, I suggest 150. Any disagreements? - AJHalliwell 11:12, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got no problems with "c. 150" or "~150", because the number did fluctuate quite a bit. In fact, it changed so often that a website cropped up to keep track of it, which. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 08:07, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * As of Stardate 50912.4, Voyager's compliment was 148. -- Kooky 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We come in peace (shoot to kill, men)
Where is it stated that Voyager made first contact with some 400 species? That number seems like a bit of a stretch. I know since the Delta Quadrant was unexplored territory that there were likely to be many first contacts, but 400? I dunno about that... --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * In 168 episodes, where they could not have met more than one or two new species in each, there is no chance that there were 400. Especially since they met no new species in many episodes. Mr.gn


 * Irrelevant, there have been numerous mentions of them meeting new species in between episodes, as well as "cantina style" episodes like "Tsunkatse" where they meet up to a dozen unknown aliens at once. -- Captain MKB 02:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that section is entirely uncited and I would be interested in the quote. 400 is alot, but easily possible as the number of new species "catalogued" or whatever by the Voyager crew over a seven year period. I looked everywhere I reasonably thought of in the last ten minutes, and couldn't find it. It's already PNA'd, so I won't mess with removing or inciting anything (nothing is cited) but it definitely needs to be rewritten and have any unsure material removed to the talk page.--Tim Thomason 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Speculation
I removed the following:


 * It is a possibility that Starfleet succeeded to perfect the travel at quantum slipstream speeds, and they we're probably very interested in Voyager's armor technology, because they needed it to perfect their resistance to the Borg. It is a possibility that this armor will be upgraded onto newer ships in the sake of defense.

This is idle speculation that could be added as background info, but since there is no such evidence in subsequent Star Trek projects (namely, ) to suggest how the technology was used following Voyager's return, it seems unnecessary to me. However, it's here if anyone wishes to discuss it. --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 *  The vessel was presumably decommissioned in 2378 when the ship returned to Earth after 7 years in the Delta Quadrant.
 * pfft...possibly - show it &mdash; Morder 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More specifics
There can be more added to this article (e.g. schematics, in the Delta Quadrant). If USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) article is as big as it is, why can't Voyager be? They explored a totally different region than the Enterprise. --Galaxy001 05:44, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Jaz 05:59, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Casino?
Voyager had a casino on deck 2? I'd be interested in the reference for that.


 * It did not. Jaz talk]] 04:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why is it listed? MrPsychic 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its non-canon. Probably speculation.  If non-canon, it can be gotten rid of (if it already has not).  :)  Galaxy001talk 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * *g* this isnt speculation. it is a translation error. i take this table from the german version of the article. our offical german translation called the mess hall as casino. *gg* --Shisma 09:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Landing
Idle speculation or was this mentioned in an episode? -- Captain M.K.B. 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... Voyager also had the capability of landing on the surface of a Class-M planet, then returning to space.  The USS Voyager'' was the first starship capible of doing so.


 * This ability was demonstrated in VOY: "The 37's". During an interview I once saw about the making of Voyager, I'm not sure exactly where anymore, they (several staff members) spoke about how they wanted to have the ship consistently land on planet's surfaces, but opted for use of the transporters due to the visual effects techniques and budget costs. They then stated that, when the show was actually in production and airing, it would be occasionally feasible due to an improved budget and increase visual effects techniques.  During that discussion, one person had stated that this was the first ship in Star Trek history capable of doing this.  So you could say the producers can confirm this ability.--Gravydude 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The note about its place in Star Trek history is misplaced then... the article should be written from the of the Star Trek universe, where no known ship has been able to land. A note could be placed in the background section, where we talk about Star Trek 's history, as opposed to the Federation's. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We still do not know if it was the first starship capable of landing on a planet's surface; we know there are at least 2 other Intrepid class starships, and we can assume all Intrepid class starships could land (why would Voyager be any different?). An interview/documentary is not considered canon! - weebiloobil 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For all we know, there could have been a dozen other designs that could land in the 23rd and early 24th centuries -- the fact about Voyager is that is the first ship to have its own series that could land. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The space shuttle is a space ship that can land on an M-class planet. It is part of the star trek canon, too.

Tom Paris
I just want to make sure that I am accurate in my assumption before making any changes, but isn't Tom Paris a Lieutenant and not a Lieutenant Junior Grade. In Caretaker, Janeway grants a field promotion to Lieutenant, and his pips on the collar indicate that rank. I ask this because if you read from StarTrek.com, they indicate that he holds the rank Lieutenant until he is reprimanded and reduced to Ensign.

The following link goes to StarTrek.com and describes Tom Paris as a Lieutenant.

Thank you for helping me double check this.....


 * Actually, as you can see in these images, he wears the grade of Lt. J.G. This is a similar problem as Lt. Commander Chakotay. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But if you watch in the first season episodes, he wears the rank of Lieutent not Lieutenant J.G. --Brad 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not exactly the best choice of pictures... as the image of Paris shows him as an "Ensign" (on another note, that image is wrong, it's from 2376) before his promotion in [{e|Unimatrix Zero}}, and he wore standard Rank pips, not a maquis bar. - AJ Halliwell 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blaah, finally found a pic of his pips. (On the brightside, we finally found someone whose headshots are always facing left :P) For the first five years he was a full lieutenant (seen here in Ex Post Facto) and was demoted to Ensign in "Thirty Days." He was then promoted to Lieutenant junior grade a year later in "Unimatrix Zero, Part I" and spent the last year as a Lt. jg (seen here in "Drive"). - AJ Halliwell 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I thought the picture looked a little funny. I just thought it was an odd angle. Thanks anyways for answering the question. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar
Old sidebar moved here. Some information might need to be re-included, eventually cited if it hasn't already. Also see Template talk:Sidebar starship. -- Cid Highwind 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deckplan stuff
I added notes to the talk page for, I think, Intrepid class decks, or something like that. That page might need to be merged or at least the info I put there added here. -- Lt. Washburn 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That suggestion has already been brought up (Talk:Intrepid class decks) and rejected. --From Andoria with Love 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph, Bio-neural Systems
I just began a plan to bring the article up to the same level as the other main ships of the series', and already, i stubled into a problem. The artacle says that Voyager was the first ship to have Bio-Neural Systems, but arn't those common to all intrepid-and-later ships?– 7th Tactical 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. I don't know. But I think Voyager was the first Intrepid. --68.124.23.146 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of that, and in fact evidence to the contrary in the USS Intrepid (NCC-74600). --OuroborosCobra talk 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looked it up. Second, not first. --68.124.23.146 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's an old argument, but I remember that when they find the replicator in the wreckage of a Kazon ship when Seska gave them the tech. They say that there are bio-neural fibres in the remnants of the replicator. Janeway says that no other Federation ship would have them. I would be surprised if the Intrepid didn't, but that's certainly what the line suggests. Tim 79.73.73.166 18:55, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * We know that there can be differences from ship to ship within a class, see the USS Excelsior and the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) (B) (differing in the area around the navigational deflector) or the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (d) and USS Venture (additional phaser arrays on the warp nacelles), the USS Phoenix and the USS Farragut (NCC-60597) (different pod mounting). The bio-neural gel packs could have been a development first implemented on Voyager. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:37, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Warp Core
Was there any mention of why Voyager's warp core was the way it was? Most other warp cores consisted of the two tubes converging at the dilithium chamber and having the rings of light converging there as well. But in Voyager's core, there was no such thing, it was more like floating shadows in liquid. Rajrajmarley 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Voyager warp core is not unique in this respect. Take a look at the NX warp core, the Constitution warp core, the Constitution refit warp core, the Constellation warp core, the Nova warp core, and possibly some others. In fact, the Intrepid warp core pretty closely matches the Constitution refit one. While it is mostly fanon speculation, many consider the two classes of ships to be pretty near each other in size, so it may be that is the reactor style used in ships of this size. Fact is, of the warp cores we have seen there seems to be about an equal number that use the "rings of light" to those that do not. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Distance traveled
I notice that in the list of events that shortened Voyager's trip home, the following paragraph concludes: This last sentence seems particularly speculative to me. I'm willing to grant the original math (100K LY diameter of Milky Way = 50K LY side length for a quadrant, 43.1K+ additional LY travelled to whatever Voyager could cover on her own normally... but we just don't know how close to the Beta Quadrant they got. They could have (and probably did) have to take a more circuitous route home than just a straight line, having to go back occasionally, things like that. (It comes to mind that depending on the positioning, they might have had to make more of an arc to avoid crossing through the center of the galaxy, for example - meaning that while Earth was 70K LY away by a direct path, they would have to go further than that since they couldn't *take* a direct path.) I would also argue the speculative conclusion in the following in the beginning paragraph: --umrguy42 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore, it is safe to say that Voyager must have been very close to the Beta Quadrant, and might have even already crossed its borders during the last months of its journey."
 * thus, we can conclude that the Caretaker's Array and Voyager's starting point was on the far edge of our galaxy, not that far away from the border of the Delta Quadrant to intergalactic space.
 * There is no need for anyone to speculate or calculate what distance Voyager traveled, what route it took, where it started out from, etc. As there is a perfectly clear and canonical map from the background monitor graphics in astrometrics of the route of Voyager, prior to  see the last image on this page. And we know they got as far as the delta quadrant borg transwarp hub before coming home. Position was depicted here . I dont know how far off the conjectural calculations are from the canonical depictions on the page, maybe someone wants to check that out though. --Pseudohuman 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I calculated 54,000 lightyears roughly based on the information supplied on the "voyager's journey", discounting Q's course correction suggestion and Seven and Harry's one, it comes to just under 50,000 lightyears travelled. Where did 48,000 come from? Is there a citation or did someone do the maths themselves? - 15.195.201.88 04:15, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that if Voyager was 75,000 light years away and it was calculated that it would take 75 years to get home using normal means, that means on average Voyager should go 1000 light years per year, so Harry and Seven' five year shortcut should be 5,000 light years. Since the show lasted Seven years, and each year seemed to be treated as a year in show time as well. so we can assume around 6-7000 light years during the course of the show. -AgentExeider 24:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What is up with Voyager's shield strength?
We've seen it a dozen times: Voyager will come under enemy fire. However, every time they are, it seems their shield strength will drop immensely from full power to something like 40% or something really low with just 1 or 2 shots fired at them. If I was a Starfleet captain in the Delta quadrant, frankly, I'd be embarrassed. Why is it that on TNG, and DS9, the Starfleet ships that come under fire never seem to have as weak as shields? You would think that Voyager being one of the most advanced ships in the fleet, it wouldn't have such poor shield engineering. Even being designated a Science vessel, Starfleet should have the decency to give Voyager (or Intrepid class vessels) a little more defensive capabilities for encountering the unknown.

An in-universe theory I have on why Voyager seems to have such weak shields might be that ships in the Delta quadrant pack more weapons-fire punch that those found in the Alpha quadrant. Since no other Starfleet vessel has ever encountered enemy fire in the Delta quadrant before, the power of weapons in the Delta and Alpha quadrant are not on the same scale. Which quadrant you were in would determine how strong your ship's weaponry was; think of it simply as a relative scale.

One more reason that seems plausible is that Voyager is a tiny ship compared to a Sovereign or Galaxy. Surely this definitely has some aspect on how much enemy weapons-fire its shields can handle. -- Viaesta 07:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we know the shields are weaker? --OuroborosCobra talk 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we know the shields are weaker? They may not in actuality be "weaker" per se, but they do not appear to be able to withstand as much weapons-fire as a Galaxy-class or Sovereign-class, needless to say those Starships are more powerful, but at least with Voyager being one of the fastest/advanced ships in the fleet, you would think that its shields would be up to par with those big ships. When watching TNG, the Enterprise will come under attack and when Picard asks for status report, you would hear "Shields at 90%, or shields are holding" etc. You hardly see the bridge exploding all around. Voyager comes under attack, and everytime, it seems she is being banged up big time; bridge exploding all around, Tuvok saying shields are at something really low like 30% or something, you get the idea. -- Viaesta 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In every Star Trek episode/movie ever produced, the ships technical specifications (which includes shields, weapons, and most frequently, transporters) remain, or fail precisely as long as the dramatic narrative requires. This is in no way exclusive to Voyager, and you're giving too much dramatic credit to TNG to pretend the Enterprise-D wasn't brought to a standstill by two Klingon Bird-of-Prey's, captained by Ferengi no less .  Or destroyed out right by another 80 year old Bird-of-Prey crewed by Klingons .  The alternative is for Voyager to have walked through the Delta Quadrant without ever having an altercation.  This isn't a Voyager phenomenon, its a Star Trek norm, and a dramatic necessity.  – Hossrex 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in much agreement with your comment. To have Voyager stroll through the Delta Quadrant like a big bully would give the narration frail character conflict. -- 128.200.210.140 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still disappointing to see it getting owned in the Delta Quadrant time and time again. Viaesta 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You sound like a Robert Beltran sympathizer. He thought it was real weak, too. Enjoy the interview 99.163.51.166 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It could very well be that weaker shields were substituted for heavier armor. More specifically ablative armor. Perhaps Voyager was designed to "armor tank" rather than to "shield tank". Of course one could also suggest in that case that the ship's systems needed more power than could be afforded and therefor a weaker shield was substituted for better armor. See Armored Voyager http://outalance.battleclinic.com/Models%20Please/ship.php?id=3727

--Jalespe 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Voyager didn't get ablative armor until after getting their shields knocked out a hundred different times. The enhanced armor was brought from the future at the end of the series. So Starfleet's design never was about armor "tanking". Let's note that the hypothesis of "dramatic requirement" is not contradicted here either. 76.247.105.88 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be a factor also that while Alpha Quadrant ships have regular tune-ups, replacements and refits available, Voyager did not, also Voyager was on a skeleton crew which left less people to do maintenance and repairs, and like previously mentioned, Delta Quadrant weapons technology is different. 70.188.130.152 04:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Jason

In-universe: New aliens, new guns. All these new people they meet every week don't all make their weapons the same way, Tuvok has a line in about needing to study a new ship before they can have a effective response (this didn't help them too much in that episode when three ships started going at them though). In the Alpha Quadrant, we're dealing with the same species who have been around the block with us a few times before, we've seen their stuff, and even their new stuff is based on the old, so the shields are designed to take those hits. But put them up against some new stuff from the Delta, or even the Gamma Quadrant (the first few times shields did squat against the Dominion), and things don't work out so well. This is the only thing I can think of that makes a tiny ship like Voyager able to take on any Borg ship without it being over at the second shot. Take enough hit from the same people, and you know what to expect. - Archduk3 11:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say more a dramatic cop out than necessity. That is, talented and caring writers w could both move the plot forward AND maintain some technical consistency. Sometimes they do, sometime they follow Braga and don't bother....--just sayin'...

Computer Rating
We have no idea what the clock speed of the computer is, or if indeed their computer even uses a central clock for processing, we only know how many calculations per second it can perform. I think the processor rating should be in FLOPS not PHz because there are plenty of processors that may take mulitble clock cycles for a single opperation, and others which, by use of parralel processing, achieve multible opperations in one clock cycle. 24.30.50.182 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The line in is "Simultaneous access to forty seven million data channels, trans-luminal processing at five hundred seventy five trillion calculations per nanosecond."  --Bp 12:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make it 5.75e+20 operations per second, or in modern terms, 57,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 flops, or 57,500,000,000,000,000 megaflops, or 57,500,000,000,000 gigaflops, or even 57,500,000,000 teraflops. In contrast, the fastest computer today, the IBM Roadrunner at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has a rating of 1.026 petaflops, or 1,026,000 teraflops. Unless my math is off. :P--97.104.58.44 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilithium chamber
Where is the dilithium chamber of voyager's warp core, sometimes, B'elanna says to vorik to go to control the chamber but how can he reach it?
 * It could be below main engineering, maybe accessed through that door next to the ladder? --Nero210 09:08, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Warp core ejection
I noted that in the CG video of the ejection of voyager's warp core, the antimatter injector is larger than the hole on the top of the second level of the engineering. There are two possibilities: What do you think?
 * 1) The injector seems larger but it isn't;
 * 2) The hole in the engineering can be automatically enlarged.


 * No, the core itself easily fits though the ejection port. Keep in mind that the support pylons do not get ejected with the core, just the "cylinder" and the base (hidden from view while in engineering.) ---> See in these pictures... the pylons are visible at the base, but notice in the ejection image, they are missing.Jlandeen 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)





Duplicate room!
Holodeck 1, on the floor plan here, seems to be on both decks 10 and 14, both claiming to be referenced from "Darkling". Can someone confirm which is right? --Gaeamil 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Deck 6 contains both holodecks as reflected by the information currently in the article.Jlandeen 11:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PNA-cite
The section regarding "first contacts" needs numerous citations. Most especially, the claim that it made more first contacts than any ship since the original Kirk era Enterprise, and the claim of over 400 species. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "most especially" part is probably the easiest, it was from :
 * Hendricks: "You've made first contact with more species than any captain since James Kirk."
 * Janeway: "It helps being the only Starfleet ship within 30,000 light-years."
 * The 400 species part is discussed above. --Alan 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like, frankly, vandalism. An anon changed it from 50 on 11/17/2005. --TribbleFurSuit 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of Warp Core's
Someone I was talking to on another site has mentioned that the Intrepid Class has a back-up Warp Core and used an image of the MSD as a base for that. The MSD has what looks like a second Core at the back of the ship, is really it another Core? – Fadm tyler 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen the same image. On paper, I'd say it's there based on that image (although technically apocrypha as technical manuals aren't considered cannon). But according to the series, nope. There have been several episodes where Voyager has lost their core for instance, and they were dead in the water. If they had a back up, there wouldn't have been a problem, or a major plot device. -- Cygnis 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So technical manuals cannot fire cannonballs? Good to know. -- Captain MKB 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cannon, canon, Canon&trade;... you've seen one, you've seen them all. ;) -- Cygnis 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-watched the entire series over the last few weeks, I have a few shows left but I know that Voyager / Intrepid class has only 1 warp core. I can be sure of this because of the many situations where the Core went offline and they never even once suggested switching to a backup core. Also they ejected the core 3 times so far, and were left without a core until they retrieved the original.71.241.193.136 03:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be that Intrepid's do have a small backup core to get them back to a starbase for example, but Voyager didn't have one since her first assignment was only supposed to last two weeks. --Nero210 20:37, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Voyager's weight
According to The Doctor in an 2nd? season episode, Voyager weighs 80 000 metric tons. He makes a remarkk about Tom Paris flying "an 80 000 ton starship" in the german version. --80.121.7.127 21:48, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * It was 700,000 metric tons. --Nero210 22:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
With the article in a state of flux recently, I thought it would be prudent to post a link to a comparison of the changes, seen here (Hope that works). Most of the information was reworded and reorganized, but some of the interesting tidbits seem to have been lost in the shuffle. I'll give it a few days before adding any back in to see if they are still in flux somewhere. - Archduk3:talk 23:05, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * These edits were by me. I didn't think that this article was up to the same standard as for example the Deep Space 9 article or the Enterprise-D, so I did reword, reorganize, and add to in a lot of places. If I accidentally deleted something relevant it wasn't intentional. I'm done with the major revisions to this article. --Nero210 22:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Added the information I thought was "worthy" to the article, since it should have been there in the first place. - Archduk3:talk 05:54, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Removed
A fifth torpedo tube is seen firing in, however this is most likely a VFX error as the torpedo tube is in the same position as the aft tractor beam emitter.
 * The second part was removed recently, just leaving a log. - Archduk3:talk 05:22, November 18, 2009 (UTC)