RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,953
Posts: 5,390,964
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 561
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 June 5 2011, 12:14 PM   #76
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Maxillius wrote: View Post
The federation is supposed to something like 8000 light years across, right? If that's true, then at warp 7 (new scale), it would take 8000ly / 656 times light speed = 12.195 years to travel one end of the federation to the other. To put it another way, you could walk around Earth at the equator with stops and scuba gear for the water part in less time. What would be the point in maintaining a unitary government that is so vast that it takes 1/8th of a human lifetime to cross?

Warp speed must be faster.
If I'm not mistaken, there's a section of the Federation "southeast" of the Klingon Empire, where there's just a small part of it and connected to the rest of the UFP by a skinny corridor, almost as if a ship had been catapulted there at some point, explored it on the way back, and claimed it for the Federation. There might be a few more sections like that as well, accounting for the "spread across 8,000 LY" comment by Picard to Lily in "First Contact", but the bulk of the Federation is fairly well-centered around Earth. I'd have to look at Star Charts to be sure, but that's how I recall it at present.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2011, 07:07 PM   #77
Technobuilder
Commodore
 
Technobuilder's Avatar
 
Location: Nashville, TN
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

You also have to take into account that the full breadth of the Federation's borders which are in 3-D space. There's a Z-Axis measurement that people tend to forget about when discussing planetary & star system borders across light-years.

The 8,000 LY measurement figure could be the approximate diagonal from the "lowest" 'corner' of Federation space to the "highest" point 'furthest' away.

*(Kind of like using the diagonal measurement of a TV screen when describing it's overall "size")
__________________
"You fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this - "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"
Technobuilder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2011, 07:50 PM   #78
The Librarian
Commodore
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Voyager seems to have been really slow compared to ships actually inside the Federation. Just look at the maps we see in several episodes of TNG where known space fills a pretty large slice of the galaxy, especially in "The Chase" where the professor expect the Ent-D to travel several thousand light-years in a matter of weeks.
The Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2011, 10:02 PM   #79
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

As is frequently said here, the ships move at the speed the plot requires.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2011, 03:36 AM   #80
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

Jonathan wrote: View Post
I would use the Transwarp drive. Why? Because the Federation now has Seven of Nine...If anybody can make it work, she can...but why stop there...why not do both...?
Because then you have two extra engines on your ship, and drive systems eat up space and power.

Also, "A" transwarp drive, not "the" transwarp drive. There isn't just one way to go supersonic, there isn't just one way to go hypersonic.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2011, 05:47 PM   #81
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Technobuilder wrote: View Post
You also have to take into account that the full breadth of the Federation's borders which are in 3-D space. There's a Z-Axis measurement that people tend to forget about when discussing planetary & star system borders across light-years.

The 8,000 LY measurement figure could be the approximate diagonal from the "lowest" 'corner' of Federation space to the "highest" point 'furthest' away.

*(Kind of like using the diagonal measurement of a TV screen when describing it's overall "size")
Technobuilder, good point!
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2011, 08:55 PM   #82
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

At the beginning of TNG, Warp speed was far faster than where it ended up by the time Voyager aired.
They messed up the speeds consistently (there's no disputing that) but we do know that the speed went progresivelly down as TNG went from one season into the next, until it finally settled with Voyager on 1000 Ly's per 1 year at warp 9.975 (bear in mind that this velocity in TNG season 1 would probably scale with QS v2.0 at 10 000 Ly's in 1 minute).
__________________
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 August 12 2011, 07:10 AM   #83
cwl
Commander
 
Location: Cymru
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Borg transwarp is similar to Quantum slipstream according to seven of nine. I'm pretty sure with all the data Voyager have on transwarp and QS that starfleet R&D could have some sort of working system with a year or so of Voyager's return.
cwl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2011, 08:41 AM   #84
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Deks wrote: View Post
until it finally settled with Voyager on 1000 Ly's per 1 year at warp 9.975
A thounsand lightyears per year partially at 9.975, plus lots of time spent sublight, taking side trip to investigate stuff, forage for food, occasional doubling back, etc.

All of which added together equals a thousand LY per year. Averages out.

Technobuilder wrote: View Post
The 8,000 LY measurement figure could be the approximate diagonal from the "lowest" 'corner' of Federation space to the "highest" point 'furthest' away.
So, maybe Picard meant eight thousand lightyears something like this ...



T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2011, 11:52 PM   #85
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

cwl wrote: View Post
Borg transwarp is similar to Quantum slipstream according to seven of nine. I'm pretty sure with all the data Voyager have on transwarp and QS that starfleet R&D could have some sort of working system with a year or so of Voyager's return.
They already have a fully functional QS drive v2.0 (10 000 Ly's in 1 minute).
SF merely needs to resolve the phase variance and that's it, or for starters, they can use the v1 that Voyager originally procured from Arturis ... 15 Ly's in 15 seconds if real time on the show is to be taken into account).
That's 60 Ly's in 60 seconds, or 3600Ly's in 1 hour (beats the heck out of fastest warp speed.

Of course, the v1 of QS meant that Voyager would need to be in it for 3 months before reaching Earth (60 000 Ly's away at the time).
That's about 714.285 Ly' per day (or 5000 Ly's in 1 week) - significantly slower than 1 Ly per second as was implied before the fake Admiral Hayes messed it all up.
However that STILL beats any fastest Warp speed.


That v1 had problems in terms that the quantum stresses would tear the ship apart after 1 hour.
Still... that's 29.75 Ly's in 1 hour if we stick to the 3 months to Earth in QS (while in the show, the ship got 300 Ly's in 1 hour after already spending how much time chasing Arturis to bring Janeway and 7 back - which was significantly faster - lol - the writers don't know basic math?).

Either way, the v1 of QS wheter it takes you 3 months to cross 60 000 ly's or just over a week is essentially much faster than anything SF was able to achieve with stable warp speeds (strange accidents or alien influenced machines not-withstanding). And seeing how v1 had quantum stresses to deal with, I would imagine that a SF can find a way to lower those stresses so they can either increase the time under QS, or simply negate them all-together.
Either way, they can get v1 operational faster than v2 probably, and v2 wouldn't be far behind (or might be for a few years if their computers are simply too slow to compensate for the phase variance occurring in the Slipstream envelope - though it wouldn't be impossible to fix even with their tech).
__________________
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
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 01:32 AM.

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