RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,878
Posts: 5,329,231
Members: 24,556
Currently online: 647
Newest member: EvyR55

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 December 5 2010, 01:45 AM   #31
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^yep, Gene and the gang wrote themselves into a corner when they decided warp 10 was the cap.
__________________
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 December 5 2010, 04:36 PM   #32
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

In a way, it was a result of "Eugene's Limit" not being strictly enforced, especially after Roddenberry stepped back from being a showrunner during the first season. From that point forward, Roddenberry became less involved in the show's onscreen technical details due to his failing health, IMO.

But had Eugene's Limit been actually enforced, I could see most ships playing in the Warp 1 to Warp 9 range, with speeds above Warp 9.1 being very rare occasions, and Warp 9.8 being even more so...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2010, 09:59 PM   #33
SWHouston
Commander
 
SWHouston's Avatar
 
Location: Houston, Tx. U.S.A.
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Speaking of "writing themselves into a corner"...
I think it was a mistake to state Dates/Year so frequently. It would have been a lot better, and easier to connect things if they just wouldn't have done that.
__________________
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 December 6 2010, 02:58 AM   #34
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Maybe it would have been easier to use a more simplistic route like Star Wars or B5 do, with ships within a certain range having FTL capacity and smaller ships usually not having it. That solves the problem of the speed factor increasing exponentially to Ludicrous Speed.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2010, 05:42 PM   #35
Lorna
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: The Perseus Galactic Arm
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

sojourner wrote: View Post
^yep, Gene and the gang wrote themselves into a corner when they decided warp 10 was the cap.
I always looked at it like Warp 10 entered the ship into time-space as opposed to space-time.

In space-time (where we live) time is linear and space is not, in time-space it's space that's linear and time is not which means that in time-space you are stuck in the exact moment you hit warp 10 but every point in the universe is accessible.

The episode in question made it clear that the affects of time space (as I call it) causes an evolutionary mess which makes warp 10 completely unappealing. .

All it takes for the writers to brush past the warp 10 problem is do the same as what they did with the transporters. The transporters use a Heisenberg compensator, Starfleet just needs to invent a warp 10 compensator to prevent entry into time-space and to remain in space-time.

Anyway, on another note. I'd be interested in learning if it's possible to activate the Slipstream drive whilst travelling through a Transwarp conduit. That must be an incredible speed.
Lorna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2010, 11:50 PM   #36
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^The issue is not how fast warp 10 is, it's that they set an upper limit on the number. So we ended up with each new ship going 9.995, 9.9997, 9.999999999999999, etc. which is confusing for the viewer.
__________________
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 December 7 2010, 08:16 AM   #37
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^^^
And likely not what Roddenberry wanted. In addition from keeping ships from being able to cross the Galaxy too quickly, the redefined warp scale was probably supposed to keep warp factors from getting too cumbersome and out of control (i.e., Warp 47, Warp 106, Warp 5783, and so on).

Ironically, writers found another way to do that instead with fractional warp factors. But I believe that the Voyager's declared Warp 9.975 was the highest spoken onscreen (not including transwarp and slipstream), and was more often than not simply called "maximum warp"...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 06:16 PM   #38
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^exactly, but it would have been easier on the viewers to just use warp 19, warp 43, warp 305, etc. Hence my "wrote themselves into a corner" statement.

And I think the Prometheus topped Voyager's top speed. not sure though.
__________________
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 December 8 2010, 06:16 PM   #39
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^exactly, but it would have been easier on the viewers to just use warp 19, warp 43, warp 305, etc. Hence my "wrote themselves into a corner" statement.

And I think the Prometheus topped Voyager's top speed. not sure though.
__________________
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 December 8 2010, 09:11 PM   #40
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

The Prometheus was said to be the fastest ship in the fleet, but it actually "only" went to Warp 9.9 onscreen (it's actual top speed is the stuff of non-canon material, I suppose).

But I actually agree with Roddenberry's original idea to simplify the warp scale for TNG. I do think after a certain point--like Warp 21 or Warp 101--they get really silly. I believe the problem with Roddenberry's revised scale was simply in its execution. I think that some writers just couldn't accept the idea of "keep it simple, stupid" and that Warp 9 was really more than fast enough for dramatic storytelling, IMO...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 09:47 PM   #41
Lorna
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: The Perseus Galactic Arm
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

The Prometheus top speed is warp 9.976
Lorna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2010, 10:02 PM   #42
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

"Bridge to engineroom Warp factor Ludicrous!"
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9 2010, 02:41 AM   #43
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But I actually agree with Roddenberry's original idea to simplify the warp scale for TNG. I do think after a certain point--like Warp 21 or Warp 101--they get really silly. I believe the problem with Roddenberry's revised scale was simply in its execution. I think that some writers just couldn't accept the idea of "keep it simple, stupid" and that Warp 9 was really more than fast enough for dramatic storytelling, IMO...
Establishing an upper limit doesn't work in the real world or in serialized storytelling. It's like telling people PI is 3.14. While true, someone is always going to compute it out a few more decimal places over time.
__________________
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 December 9 2010, 09:35 AM   #44
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

sojourner wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But I actually agree with Roddenberry's original idea to simplify the warp scale for TNG. I do think after a certain point--like Warp 21 or Warp 101--they get really silly. I believe the problem with Roddenberry's revised scale was simply in its execution. I think that some writers just couldn't accept the idea of "keep it simple, stupid" and that Warp 9 was really more than fast enough for dramatic storytelling, IMO...
Establishing an upper limit doesn't work in the real world or in serialized storytelling.
Sure, it does. There are definitely limits of how fast things can go in the real world and in serialized storytelling, it's simply a case of creators avoiding the fanboy factor...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2010, 12:23 AM   #45
the skullcowboy
Fleet Captain
 
the skullcowboy's Avatar
 
Location: Queens, New York
View the skullcowboy's Twitter Profile Send a message via Yahoo to the skullcowboy
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Nope. But from onscreen material alone, 24th-Century warp engines weren't any faster than those of the 23rd-Century (they were possibly even slower), but could enter transwarp at Warp 10. Otherwise, the warp scale appears to be unchanged between TOS and TNG...
Actually the warp scale was drastically changed between TOS and the TNG timeline as indicated by this chart

http://www.star-fleet.com/ed/warp-chart.html
__________________
Then choose....choose and be DAMNED!
the skullcowboy 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 07:34 PM.

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