RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,559
Posts: 5,513,910
Members: 25,146
Currently online: 630
Newest member: TM2-Megatron

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 March 13 2013, 02:18 PM   #106
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Earth ship Valiant

I do have some question about the magnetic storm. The galaxy edge is 20,000 light years away (the rim) or about 3000 l.y. (the upper or lower surface) and that's an awful long way to be tossed.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 02:24 PM   #107
Metryq
Captain
 
Metryq's Avatar
 
Re: Earth ship Valiant

I haven't read many TREK novels. If I'm remembering correctly, one novel explained warp drive as hyperspatial jumps. A ship would jump, take location readings, then jump again. One risked getting lost by jumping too far, so long voyages could be tedious. Along came Daystrom's new computers, which could take readings and plot a new course in the blink of an eye. Thus, the jump-jump-jump discontinuity of a starship seems fluid. The pseudo-movement bothers some people new to starflight the way the flicker of fluorescent lighting annoys some people today. At least, that's the way one novel explained it.

Maybe the Valiant jumped too far and ended up near the Barrier—maybe even bouncing off of it. Or perhaps the Valiant used a pre-warp FTL engine and traveled backward in time. To the people back home, the Valiant "disappeared" and covered an impossible distance in "no time," pseudo-instantaneously. Maybe the Valiant achieved the first engine "implosion," a la "The Naked Time." (Scotty's line in that episode about "regenerating the engines" suggests that they are not physical, but a projected field of some sort.)

"The impossible has happened."
__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo
Metryq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 02:33 PM   #108
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Earth ship Valiant

I think the one thing that is bit stale with the standardization of technology in Trek is that warp drive is the de facto FTL drive post-TOS.

If they didn't have FTL impulse engines, how would the Enterprise successfully evade the Doomsday Machine in "The Doomsday Machine" or only be years away from Earth bases (but not decades) in "WNMHGB" with her impulse engines? Or how about the impulse powered Romulan ship from "Balance of Terror"?

Do FTL drives from alien races like the "Total Conversion Drive" and "Ion Drive" now be classified as slower-than-light only because they don't have warp in the name?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 02:39 PM   #109
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Metryq wrote: View Post
I haven't read many TREK novels. If I'm remembering correctly, one novel explained warp drive as hyperspatial jumps. A ship would jump, take location readings, then jump again. One risked getting lost by jumping too far, so long voyages could be tedious. Along came Daystrom's new computers, which could take readings and plot a new course in the blink of an eye. Thus, the jump-jump-jump discontinuity of a starship seems fluid. The pseudo-movement bothers some people new to starflight the way the flicker of fluorescent lighting annoys some people today. At least, that's the way one novel explained it.
I think you're thinking of Diane Carey's Final Frontier which featured Captain Robert April. I can't reconcile the events in it with what we got onscreen, but it was a fun read.


blssdwlf wrote: View Post
I think the one thing that is bit stale with the standardization of technology in Trek is that warp drive is the de facto FTL drive post-TOS.

If they didn't have FTL impulse engines, how would the Enterprise successfully evade the Doomsday Machine in "The Doomsday Machine" or only be years away from Earth bases (but not decades) in "WNMHGB" with her impulse engines? Or how about the impulse powered Romulan ship from "Balance of Terror"?

Do FTL drives from alien races like the "Total Conversion Drive" and "Ion Drive" now be classified as slower-than-light only because they don't have warp in the name?
Agreed. Once again it's too cute, neat and tidy.

BTW in WNMHGB Kirk says the bases were "days away but now years in the distance" because the warp drive is inoperative and they were now crawling at impulse.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 02:46 PM   #110
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I do have some question about the magnetic storm. The galaxy edge is 20,000 light years away (the rim) or about 3000 l.y. (the upper or lower surface) and that's an awful long way to be tossed.
The Wikipedia article for the Milky Way galaxy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way, but I'll directly cite its sources which appear authoritative.

The thickness of the galaxy's disk is only 1000 light years [NASA source at http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980317b.html].

The wiki claims that the Sun is between 16 and 98 light years from the central plane of the Galactic disk [academic article whose abstract, which contains the relevant information, is at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..263M]. I referred to that upthread, but I didn't dig deeper like I should have. Looking at that abstract, I see a much narrower range of values of less than 20 light years, from 23-29 parsecs, or about 75 to 94.5 light years.
article's abstract wrote:
The distance of the Sun from the Galactic plane inferred from classical Cepheid variables is Z_solar = 26 +/- 3pc
It's possible that whomever wrote the wiki article made a mistake there.

In any case, http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...entists-determ points out that:

Scientific American wrote:
Finding one's location in a cloud of a hundred billion stars--when one can't travel beyond one's own planet--is like trying to map out the shape of a forest while tied to one of the trees. One gets a rough idea of the shape of the Milky Way galaxy by just looking around--a ragged, hazy band of light circles the sky. It is about 15 degrees wide, and stars are concentrated fairly evenly along the strip. That observation indicates that our Milky Way Galaxy is a flattened disk of stars, with us located somewhere near the plane of the disk. Were it not a flattened disk, it would look different.
So, the sun might be a little off-center out of the plane of the disk, but it can't be much, relatively speaking. Therefore, from this information, it's only 400-500 light years to the galaxy's edge.

So, my question back to you is, where is your 3000 light year figure coming from?
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 04:02 PM   #111
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Earth ship Valiant

^^ I'll have to look it up. I recall reading it in one of my astronomy books. And Wikipedia isn't a source I consider ironclad. That's why I look in other places.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 04:09 PM   #112
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Warped9 wrote: View Post
^^ I'll have to look it up. I recall reading it in one of my astronomy books. And Wikipedia isn't a source I consider ironclad. That's why I look in other places.
Well, that's why I drilled through to the authoritative sources, such as the NASA source.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 04:33 PM   #113
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Currently the accepted thought is about 1000 ly., but new findings are challenging that figure on two fronts. The measuring of pulsars located above and below the galaxy indicate a thickness at least twice than what was previously believed, something on the order of 6000 ly or more.

Here is one source, but there are others: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/m...er-we-thought/

Also, it's being discussed that the Milky Way might not be the thin disk with a bulge in the middle as previously thought, but more uniform in thickness throughout (in light of that my 3000 ly. approximation might not be off much).


Our understanding of the Milky Way is constantly evolving. Indeed what we know of the Milky Way is barely a hundred years old. Over the years ever new information has changed our ideas of its shape and size and composition. We once thought the galaxy was pinwheel spiral, but now it appears it might be more of a barred spiral. It was once believed to be only about 10,000 ly. across, but that estimate has long since been revised to about 100,000 ly. It was earlier believed we were a bit closer to the edge but now we're thought to be a bit more centred between the rim and the centre.

Also it would be interesting to know what Sam Peeples (who wrote WNMHGB) and the TOS writers thought in terms of the galaxy's shape and size. Certainly at best they only had a 1960's understanding of the Milky Way and not our current understanding from more than forty years of research since.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 04:34 PM   #114
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Errata:

" on the Canopius planet"
...Perhaps meaning "on the subject of the Canopus planet"? While sitting on the lawn of a suburb abode in Las Vegas?

It's kinda obvious at this point but still worth stating, Niven's premise there in TAS could begin to explain how Star Trek's future history has humanity being so much more advanced in terms of spaceflight than we are, just across the board. Once studied and replicated, one piece of magical technology is going to have ramifications on all sorts of fields, that I'd expect to be compounded to cause great leaps in development.
Then again, even more rapid progress could be expected if mankind's early discovery of antigravity were because antigravity is easy to discover in the Trek universe. Applications, variations and improvements would flow more steadily than from reverse-engineering something humans just plain can't understand.

Gravity control seems to be dirt cheap and incredibly reliable and durable throughout the Trek universe. Many a species has failed to discover teleportation, and some struggle with warp drive, but spaceflight in general would become much simpler and its ubiquitous nature perhaps more understandable if "gravity drives" were as simple as lightbulbs, once one discovers the underlying principle.

Accepting the year as 2269, this places his birth about 2019, and the Eugenics War as having taken place in the mid-21st century.
...But adding the "Khan factor" that somehow makes almost 300 years be "two centuries" in both "Space Seed" and ST2 brings the wars back to the 1990s. Or one of those wars, at any rate - the plural there is intriguing enough.

It's interesting to note that Dr. Keniclius was on Earth when the first Human-Kzinti war occurred.
On the other hand, evidently the first Doctor left Earth around the same time as Khan, since both were quoted as having been out of the loop for 200 years.

We're clearly talking about a leeway of a couple of decades either way whenever we talk "200 years ago", and a leeway of at least one decade with "250 years", or "150 years" as with Cochrane. What we want to do with that slack is up to us...

For example,

In WNMHGB Kirk first says in his log the Valiant went missing over two centuries ago and then later in another log entry he says nearly two centuries ago.
The second entry actually states that the recorder marker was ejected 200 centuries ago, thus not contradicting the date when the ship disappeared from Earth's radar screens or whatnot. We might choose to think that the ship was launched and immediately lost 202 years prior to the episode - Kirk would add the "over" to make the "impossible" thing sound even more impressive. In comparison, the recorder marker might have been deployed just 171 years prior, as "200" is even less specific than "over 200".

That way, the propulsion technology of the Valiant would not be all that radical, as it would have three decades to compensate for the vast distance in addition to the help from the magnetic storm. Instead, the communications technology would be primitive, resulting in "disappearance" at an early stage, perhaps long before anything actually went wrong with the ship.

If they didn't have FTL impulse engines, how would the Enterprise successfully evade the Doomsday Machine in "The Doomsday Machine"
This isn't due to the hero ship being fast, but to the monster being slow. Major emphasis is placed on Kirk's current vessel being reduced to limping at a fraction of the normal speed of a starship, but this is sort of irrelevant because we can't make actual speed comparisons anyway. The monster has supposedly destroyed several star systems in a row within less than a year, making it FTL in roughly the same category as starships - but there is no actual sign of the monster going FTL during its fight with the starships, e.g. when it supposedly heads for the next system.

Nothing wrong with being slow at sublight even though fast at warp. This was explicitly true of Picard's starship in "Relics": the old Jenolan had better impulse, but clearly not better warp.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 07:24 PM   #115
Metryq
Captain
 
Metryq's Avatar
 
Re: Earth ship Valiant

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
or only be years away from Earth bases (but not decades) in "WNMHGB" with her impulse engines?
Is that stardate time, or shipboard time? Maybe the impulse engines can work up to relativistic sub-light speeds, but that is obviously the penalty. The Enterprise might make it to somewhere suitable for repair, but at the cost of decades in the universe outside the ship.
__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo
Metryq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 08:26 PM   #116
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Also, it does take "days" to go from star to nearby star at warp elsewhere in Trek. Go from FTL to STL, and this distance in lightyears will translate to a trip duration in years - and the distance from a star to its not-quite-closest-neighbor does tend to be less than ten lightyears.

Also, "years" is a valid expression for "decades"... Although there would be some poetic harmony in the "days"/"decades" pairing, too.

Basically, the only reason to consider this phrase "proof" for FTL impulse is if one wants to believe in FTL impulse for other reasons in any case. But there just aren't all that many good reasons to do that.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 08:42 PM   #117
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Earth ship Valiant

In Trek the phrase "full impulse" might really mean no more than about twenty percent of light because with warp drive you don't need to deal with relativistic complications. It doesn't mean the ship can't get to ninety percent of light, but that there's no point to it. And at twenty percent light the time dilation effect is minimal.

So the Enterprise probably could use her impulse engines to get up to ninety or ninety-five percent light to get to a near base, but the penalty in time dilation makes it costly. Now if the ship hadn't been able to re-energize the warp engines then they might have gone for it, but until they knew for sure the engines couldn't be repaired then they wouldn't bother trying.

They still might have experienced some measure of relativistic effect if they'd pushed the impulse engines to get to Delta Vega. I don't have the hard math with me, but at ninety percent light Delta Vega may indeed be only a few days away for them while still distinctly longer in the objective sense.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 08:59 PM   #118
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Earth ship Valiant

There could have been a wormhole, which was not avoided due to primitive sensors. They ended up near the barrier and the same sensors(damaged) did not have them avoid the magnetic storm?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2013, 09:23 PM   #119
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
There could have been a wormhole, which was not avoided due to primitive sensors. They ended up near the barrier and the same sensors(damaged) did not have them avoid the magnetic storm?
See I've long thought something similar. A magnetic storm didn't throw the Valiant to the galaxy's edge, something else did (like maybe a wormhole). But perhaps to their less advanced instruments they thought the energy barrier was a magnetic storm.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2013, 12:02 AM   #120
Rķu rķu, chķu
Fleet Admiral
 
Rķu rķu, chķu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Rķu rķu, chķu's Twitter Profile
Re: Earth ship Valiant

Warped9 wrote: View Post
I do have some question about the magnetic storm. The galaxy edge is 20,000 light years away (the rim) or about 3000 l.y. (the upper or lower surface) and that's an awful long way to be tossed.
Like I said: Wormhole. The storm probably was a wormhole of some kind.

Or perhaps it was the same effect that would later sweep Voyager all the way into the Delta Quadrant. The space service of Kirk's era might not have understood exactly what that was, so they just called it a "magnetic space storm" because that's the best phrase they could come up with.
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart
Rķu rķu, chķu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 02:25 AM.

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