RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,845
Posts: 5,220,679
Members: 24,231
Currently online: 705
Newest member: pheniks

TrekToday headlines

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Miles Away Glyph Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 28 2010, 04:54 PM   #1
Gorgon
Ensign
 
Location: Illinois
Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

My Star Trek sim group has been playing with the idea of pushing the warp technology forward and grappling with one of the other established ideas for higher speed travel.

The question that's come up, time and again, is whether to go with a Quantum Slipstream approach or one more based on the concept of Transwarp (as seen in Star Trek III).

I'm looking for guides and/ or good arguments for one mode of higher speed travel over the other.

My thinking is to go with Transwarp and explain that the Warp 10 Barrier stiil exists but we manage to reach higher speeds prior to hitting it in the following manner. Warp 9.999 becomes Warp 10 (Transwarp 1) and Warp 9.9999 becomes Warp 11 (Transwarp 2) etc.

Thoughts on any of this?
Gorgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 07:48 PM   #2
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

The federation never successfully developed transwarp. Go with QSS.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 08:32 PM   #3
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

One doesn't necessarily have to follow the Star Trek Encyclopedia's take on transwarp. It is far more likely, IMO, that "transwarp" is a catch-all term for "faster than current warp capability" ("transwarp drive" never functions the same way every time we see it, anyways) and that Excelsior was succesful, necessitating the warp rescaling before TNG (and explaining the shift in starship design from Excelsior onwards).

As for transwarp/slipstream scaling, the idea for "Transwarp 1, Transwarp 2, etc." works much much better than "Warp 9.991918212891" or whatever.

Anywho, judging from VOY, slipstream seems to be a pretty decent transwarp option, seeing as Voyager already did a fair amount of R & D on it. The main downside is that it seems unpredictible, unrefined, and difficult to control. I wouldn't reccomend casual use, unless it's seen decades of development into something I would feel safe using.

Just my two quatloos.
__________________
"I've eaten breakfast cereals tougher than you! For reference, they were the ones with little marshmellows in them."
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 11:09 PM   #4
Lorna
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: The Perseus Galactic Arm
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Coaxial Warp beats both hands down.
Lorna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 11:35 PM   #5
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

To maintain some connect to Treklit and STO, I would suggest QSS drive.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2010, 11:48 PM   #6
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Coaxial warp of course, shares numerous stability problems with slipstream as a form of transwarp travel, with the notable exception that Coaxial Warp would be a thousand times worse than any subspace weapon if it went unstable. In Vis a' Vis, Steth's ship would have collapsed space within a radius of about a billion or so kilometers if it's coax engines had gone kaboom.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that you not consider any exotic transwarp propulsion systems, since most of them are unstable and poorly understood by Federation science, and instead go the route that I proposed the Excelsior had gone - that is, to turn conventional warp drive up to 11.

Or, perhaps, even introduce a new understanding of warp propulsion to Federation science that allows ships to take advantage of natural phenomenon to achieve transwarp speeds when needed (like the increasingly-popular fan theory of "warp highways"). Such an approach would probably be for the better if the sim is set only a few years after DS9/VOY.
__________________
"I've eaten breakfast cereals tougher than you! For reference, they were the ones with little marshmellows in them."
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 12:24 AM   #7
Gorgon
Ensign
 
Location: Illinois
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Well it appears that the prevailing decision by our group is to use the Transwarp Hub concept that the Borg seemed to use. This keeps the ships from having to have a new propulsion system in and of themselves. It also limits the use of exotic speeds in game.
Gorgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 08:46 AM   #8
SWHouston
Commander
 
SWHouston's Avatar
 
Location: Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Seems like most of the Federation Technology has produced "questionable results', but, the Borg Hub/Conduit works, and it's not too large of a step, to think it (Coil/Assy) could be applied to Fed or Private Vessels.

But, where would you go ? The Conduits don't always exit where it's convenient for Fed Commerce. It certainly was convenient that VOY exited in Leonis.

How does one control where a Conduit goes ?
Who came up with that Technology ?
Probably not the Borg, but it's possible that information may be archived in a Borg Computer somewhere.

But, going fast like that, regardless of where it took you, is certainly something that one would not ignore.
__________________
Author & CEO of Chiron Intergalaxy Corp.
Good Golf, good Trekking and anything else that makes you Happy !
If you’re not watching FREE TV, you should !
SWHouston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 01:19 PM   #9
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Most of the time, the Federation hadn't really dabbled in faster than Warp propulsion development in TNG era.
Individual ships encountered it and their crews then dabbled with it to create their own version.

The Coaxial drive was actually fixed at the end of that particular episode, but neatly forgotten.

Quantum Slipstream was effectively the only technology used by the crew on 2 separate occasions.
It's no wonder their second attempt would produce questionable results, but that was more due to the inefficiency of their computers that were too slow at the time to properly calculate the phase variance as it was forming.

However, if the Federation was to create the Quantum drive and pick up from where Voyager left off... well, one can easily claim that several years after the ship made it back to Federation territory, they'd have a functioning QS drive (but still limited by the Benemyte crystals).
Or they can use the slower version of the drive that would have initially took them about 3 months to traverse 60 000 ly's (that one Voyager hadn't had a problem with when it came to the phase variance, but rather with the hull being unable to take quantum stresses).

QS as such is viable for Feds to acomplish.

Transwarp ... seeing how it's similar to QS in the first place, development of the latter should provide insight into reaching it (though, on their v2 of QS, we were led to think it was on par, if not better than TW).

Higher Warp velocities are more or less a given.
SF is bound to increase the efficiency of regular Warp engines as well, which would probably bring everything to early TNG standards and reduce travel significantly.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 01:27 PM   #10
Python Trek
Commodore
 
Location: West Consin, People's Republic of America
View Python Trek's Twitter Profile
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

I kinda liked the Soliton Wave, invented by I Fell Asleep on a Waffle Iron Guy on TNG. Remember when Geordi said, "Warp without Warp Drive!"? And the special effect looked like the ship was riding on a piece of X-Mas ribbon candy, so it's got that going for it.
__________________
Insert Siggie Here..........
Python Trek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 01:55 PM   #11
Gorgon
Ensign
 
Location: Illinois
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Well, THERE is another technology that we hadn't considered. Thanks Python.
Gorgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 09:02 PM   #12
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
One doesn't necessarily have to follow the Star Trek Encyclopedia's take on transwarp. It is far more likely, IMO, that "transwarp" is a catch-all term for "faster than current warp capability" ("transwarp drive" never functions the same way every time we see it, anyways) and that Excelsior was succesful, necessitating the warp rescaling before TNG...
To be fair, we don't have to follow the Encyclopedia's take that the warp scale was rescaled before TNG either. Onscreen, neither scale has ever been actually mentioned, much less actually followed (i.e., speed of plot being the general rule).

IMO, quantum slipstream is a form of transwarp drive, but a more specific one in the same sense warp drive is a specific type of FTL drive...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 10:03 PM   #13
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Hmmmmm maybe an amped up soliton wave would do?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2010, 11:36 PM   #14
Satyrquaze
Vice Admiral
 
Satyrquaze's Avatar
 
Location: Satyrquaze
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

basing the next generation of FTL after Warp drive on the Borg's Transwarp Hub is a very flawed idea.

First of all, you have no network of transwarp apertures/conduits in Federation control in Federation space. Any pre-existing ones would be of Borg design.

Unless you have eradicated the Borg in your timeline, then good on you. If you haven't... then you will need to deal with the obvious repurcussions of Starfleet using Borg Transwarp corridors. We're talking a Starfleet vessel uses a conduit to get from the Alpha to the Beta quadrant, within minutes theres a Cube on an intercept course and within sensor range.

If Starfleet in your unverse wants to begin construction of their own Transwarp Network, then you're looking at decades of construction time.

Yes, Voyager returned to Federation space with specs on a Transwarp coil, but they also returned with specs on a QSS. And for all it's faults, the QSS is much safer in the long run.
__________________
“If at first you don't succeed, cheat, repeat until caught, then lie.” -Anomymous
Satyrquaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2010, 12:10 AM   #15
Lorna
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: The Perseus Galactic Arm
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

satyrquaze wrote: View Post
basing the next generation of FTL after Warp drive on the Borg's Transwarp Hub is a very flawed idea.

First of all, you have no network of transwarp apertures/conduits in Federation control in Federation space. Any pre-existing ones would be of Borg design.

Unless you have eradicated the Borg in your timeline, then good on you. If you haven't... then you will need to deal with the obvious repurcussions of Starfleet using Borg Transwarp corridors. We're talking a Starfleet vessel uses a conduit to get from the Alpha to the Beta quadrant, within minutes theres a Cube on an intercept course and within sensor range.

If Starfleet in your unverse wants to begin construction of their own Transwarp Network, then you're looking at decades of construction time.

Yes, Voyager returned to Federation space with specs on a Transwarp coil, but they also returned with specs on a QSS. And for all it's faults, the QSS is much safer in the long run.
I recently came up with a future of trek idea where the Federation by 2440 has connected all major planets within Federation space with Transwarp conduits. Due to the tactical advantage the Transwarp conduits give the Federation it brought about tensions with the other powers even the Klingon Empire. To ease fears and tensions and prevent war the Federation agreed to sign a treaty preventing the use of Transwarp conduits outside of Federation territory.
Lorna is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
propulsion, slipstream, tech, transwarp

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.