RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 149,546
Posts: 5,945,070
Members: 26,482
Currently online: 481
Newest member: angiebangie68

TrekToday headlines

STO Community Supports Chase Masterson Charity
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Greenwood To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Shatner In Hallmark Christmas Movie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek Beyond In IMAX
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Red Shirt Diaries: The Return of The Archons
By: T'Bonz on Nov 23

Abrams Loves His Lens Flares
By: T'Bonz on Nov 23

Elba Star Trek Beyond Character Speculation
By: T'Bonz on Nov 23

Retro Review: Meld
By: Michelle Erica Green on Nov 20

Borg Cube Paper Lantern
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

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 TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Thread Tools
Old July 20 2014, 01:07 PM   #31
King Daniel Beyond
King Daniel Beyond's Avatar
Location: Beyond the Darkness
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

With such a varied pool of examples, any new Trek can pick what they want and it's consistent with something prior. Take the new movies - some fans complain about a super fast trip to Kronos, but to me it's a good fit for "Broken Bow" (four days at something less than warp 5 vs. warp 8 or 9 in a matter of hours) or any of the TOS/TAS/movie examples I cited above.

How's this for odd - according to the Voyager Technical Guide, season 1 edition (unpublished, but available to the writers and online somewhere), at warp 9.975 Voyager would take 33 years to get across the galaxy - yet in "Caretaker" they say it's 75 years. There is even a memo in A Vision of the Future: The Making of Star Trek Voyager where the writers are advised to change the reference to warp 9.975 in the "Caretaker" script because it's too fast. They never did. Why should fans care more than the writers and producers did?
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Beyond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 20 2014, 03:55 PM   #32
Location: Great Britain
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

You would have thought by now they realise the fans pick up on these little details. They want to change something, sure ok but at least do us the service of addressing it rather than ignoring it and hoping your audiance won't notice.
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2014, 02:54 AM   #33
Tim Walker
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

AirCommodore wrote: View Post
Exactly, you would bypass millions and billions of stars as you zip along to the center of the Galaxy. Average distance between stars is 5 LYs IIRC. So it's more a matter of systematically fanning out in a series of small warp sprints along the web of star systems, probably organized by assigned Sectors, and building Starbases, supply depots, manufacturing and fabrication facilities, sub space buoys, arrays, colonies and other outposts along the way.
Yes, though an exception might be unmanned probes. As in the episode "Tin Man," these might be dispatched to destinations that seem the most interesting to science, and end up out running manned exploration.
Tim Walker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2014, 06:31 AM   #34
Fleet Captain
LMFAOschwarz's Avatar
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

It seems to me that Voyager could've solved it's perceived time scale problems by simply making the ship only capable of, say, warp four. Even the sound of that implies that they'd be at a bit of a disadvantage. Dramatically useful, I'd say.

I'm not a race car driver, but even I know that forty miles per hour is slower than seventy.
LMFAOschwarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2014, 06:45 AM   #35
Ithekro's Avatar
Location: Republic of California
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

Or just not claim it was the fastest ship at the time.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2014, 06:55 AM   #36
Fleet Captain
LMFAOschwarz's Avatar
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

Ithekro wrote: View Post
Or just not claim it was the fastest ship at the time.
Exactly, Ithekro. Fastest computer ever, that's fine. It's been kind of a real-world standard that "new and improved" products and technologies usually come with an accompanying disadvantage. Faster, but wears out quicker. More nutritious, but expires more quickly. Gets stains out better, but is hard on colors. That sort of thing. Slower engines could have been Voyager's compromise.
LMFAOschwarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2014, 12:07 PM   #37
Re: Star Trek Space Travel

Then again, it helps that the stranded ship is the fastest there is, and still has her work cut out for her coming home from Delta in anything shorter than a century. Otherwise, other ships would already have been exploring these depths, taking away from the excitement...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote



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 05:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.