RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,700
Posts: 5,213,774
Members: 24,208
Currently online: 712
Newest member: meshman63


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 7 2013, 10:23 AM   #511
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Seems perfectly plausible to me
I don't think so. Mr Scott's Guide... is unofficial. All 'more-or-less official' books after TNG said that transwarp was a failure.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 11:51 AM   #512
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^You mean like the TNG Technical Manual that claimed phasers couldn't be fired at warp
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 12:45 PM   #513
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

If you want to play that game, Kira said that warping within a system was very risky. It's not like actual Trek canon doesn't contradict itself.

I don't think whether or not there's a contradiction should be used to determine canon. But the TNG guide was written by the guys doing the show, so it's more reliable, in my view, than Scott's guide.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 05:41 PM   #514
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Seems perfectly plausible to me
I don't think so. Mr Scott's Guide... is unofficial. All 'more-or-less official' books after TNG said that transwarp was a failure.
Something had to have changed because TNG warp was much faster than TOS warp. Warp 10 is infinite velocity in TNG, we saw the TOS ship move beyond warp 10 multiple times.

Perhaps transwarp was a success and the books simply got it wrong?
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 07:33 PM   #515
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Something had to have changed because TNG warp was much faster than TOS warp. Warp 10 is infinite velocity in TNG, we saw the TOS ship move beyond warp 10 multiple times.

Perhaps transwarp was a success and the books simply got it wrong?
Or just regular advancements in warp drive and the guys at Paramount didn't want to have ships going at warp 31.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 08:20 PM   #516
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

At the time of early TNG, my personal fanwank was that transwarp drive failed because Federation theories were wrong, and that the subsequent attempts to correct the theories brought about the revision in the regular warp scale.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 09:05 PM   #517
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Possible. I was never clear on why it failed.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 09:33 PM   #518
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Is there anything in canon (live-action episodes/movies) that says transwarp drive was a failure?
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 09:52 PM   #519
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

No mention of it after ST III I think, until Voyager.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 10:34 PM   #520
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
No mention of it after ST III I think, until Voyager.
And there they turned it into a spectacular failure - on so many levels.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 10:35 PM   #521
Locutus of Bored
No Solicitors!
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Is there anything in canon (live-action episodes/movies) that says transwarp drive was a failure?
VOY - Threshold says that the Warp 10 "infinite velocity" transwarp barrier had never been broken by the Federation until Tom Paris did it in 2372 and turned into a salamander.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that transwarp drive like on the Excelsior was a failure, since the Borg and the Voth use transwarp and it simply operates like a much faster warp drive, and not like the Warp 10 transwarp barrier where you supposedly occupy all points in the universe simultaneously (and can also travel backwards in time according to TNG Time Squared) and can drop out anywhere in the universe instantly.

I've just always figured that the adjusted warp scale between TOS and TNG was because transwarp was successful. All those times that the Enterprise in TOS went to ludicrous speed like warp 10, 11, 14, 22, and 36 are equivalent to the multiples of warp 9 used in TNG, like warp 9.6, 9.9, and 9.99999999, etc.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 10:51 PM   #522
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
I've just always figured that the adjusted warp scale between TOS and TNG was because transwarp was successful. All those times that the Enterprise in TOS went to ludicrous speed like warp 10, 11, 14, 22, and 36 are equivalent to the multiples of warp 9 used in TNG, like warp 9.6, 9.9, and 9.99999999, etc.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 11:18 PM   #523
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^ That would make sense, too, I suppose; I was motivated mainly by the the complete absence of any mention of the term (until Descent, IIRC), coupled by Scotty's implicit assessment that the technology—as implemented on the Excelsior—was bunk.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 11:41 PM   #524
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
^ That would make sense, too, I suppose; I was motivated mainly by the the complete absence of any mention of the term (until Descent, IIRC), coupled by Scotty's implicit assessment that the technology—as implemented on the Excelsior—was bunk.
I never really got that vibe from Scott. I think it was more a "resistant to change" mentality coupled with Styles being a complete asshole as far as the Enterprise speed records were concerned.

Scott would've had to have had a hand in the development/implementation of transwarp at some point or else he would have been totally unqualified to be chief engineer. In my opinion.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 12:41 AM   #525
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

When it came to engineering, Scotty was always a straight shooter. He never would have implied that the Excelsior had transwarp drive only to the degree that his grandmother with wheels would have been a wagon, if it weren't his professional opinion that the Excelsior's transwarp drive couldn't work.

Scotty could have been wrong, of course, but it would have been one of the rare occasions. Plus, maybe his contributions, including those he made while captain of Engineering aboard Excelsior, ultimately ironed things out or led to the solution.

There's just nothing on screen to say one way or the other.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

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 08:54 AM.

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