RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,277
Posts: 5,350,110
Members: 24,610
Currently online: 685
Newest member: VST

TrekToday headlines

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24


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 November 30 2010, 02:51 AM   #16
Satyrquaze
Vice Admiral
 
Satyrquaze's Avatar
 
Location: Satyrquaze
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^Yeah, if the Feds didn't share the tech (transwarp or QSS) with the Klingons I could see them getting a bit ornery over it.

Course, you don't see the Klingons sharing cloaking tech with the Feds and I believe the Treaty of Algeron only stops the Federation from researching it themselves (which they've blatantly ignored on at least one occasion in-canon).

Yeah yeah, oh mighty, Roddenberry says it would be unFederation-like to use the cloaking device.

On the Soliton Wave, I think it was probably the only time I've ever heard of a guy being happy about possibly put out of a job. Geordi was positively gushing over the concept of being potentially unemployed.
__________________
“If at first you don't succeed, cheat, repeat until caught, then lie.” -Anomymous
Satyrquaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2010, 03:45 AM   #17
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

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
One doesn't necessarily have to follow the Star Trek Encyclopedia's take on transwarp. It is far more likely, IMO, that "transwarp" is a catch-all term for "faster than current warp capability" ("transwarp drive" never functions the same way every time we see it, anyways) and that Excelsior was succesful, necessitating the warp rescaling before TNG...
To be fair, we don't have to follow the Encyclopedia's take that the warp scale was rescaled before TNG either. Onscreen, neither scale has ever been actually mentioned, much less actually followed (i.e., speed of plot being the general rule).
With the exception of that whole warp 10 thing...

I guess the original Enterprise went past infinite speed a few times?

satyrquaze wrote: View Post
basing the next generation of FTL after Warp drive on the Borg's Transwarp Hub is a very flawed idea.
Who's to say that a new type of FTL drive is needed? The Traveller showed us on TNG that a traditional warp drive can do just fine when it's turned up to 11. No need to rebuild the whole fleet from the ground up if traditional warp tech's always improving.

FTL propulsion isn't exactly something you need to totally rework yearly like iPhones or other commercial products...
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2010, 05:49 AM   #18
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

^The Traveller wasn't "turning up" the ship's warp drive. He was propelling the ship himself.
__________________
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 November 30 2010, 06:19 AM   #19
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
One doesn't necessarily have to follow the Star Trek Encyclopedia's take on transwarp. It is far more likely, IMO, that "transwarp" is a catch-all term for "faster than current warp capability" ("transwarp drive" never functions the same way every time we see it, anyways) and that Excelsior was succesful, necessitating the warp rescaling before TNG...
To be fair, we don't have to follow the Encyclopedia's take that the warp scale was rescaled before TNG either. Onscreen, neither scale has ever been actually mentioned, much less actually followed (i.e., speed of plot being the general rule).
With the exception of that whole warp 10 thing...
Which was broken more than a few times in both TOS and TNG.
I guess the original Enterprise went past infinite speed a few times?
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...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2010, 10:41 PM   #20
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Quantum Slipstream always struck me as a probable "re-branding" of Transwarp in light of previous failures associated with the term, just like "transphasic" seemed to replace "interphasic" tech after that unfortunate business with the Pegasus.

It seems transwarp is more deflector than drive on the face of things. That little transwarp coil our Voyager heroes boosted from the Borg didn't seem like an engine or drive core component. Perhaps it helped deflectors punch transwarp conduits open.

Relative to previous ships, the most distinguishing feature of the transwarp prototype USS Excelsior was the increased hull volume around the deflector dish, suggesting some possible new gear associated with the dish. Similarly, the NX-01A Dauntless had a unique grille type deflector in place of the usual dish mechanism.

Incidentally, the "warp 13" references in TNG:AGT could be verbal shorthand for an era where speeds of "warp 9.9995", etc., might be common and a slight nuisance to spit out. Just superimposing the sub-warp 9 scale over the warp 9+ equivalents seems to make sense.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 12:42 AM   #21
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Then too there was the Varduuar "underspace" which looked like they stumbled into Babylon 5's travel method. Quantum slipstream seems very like SW and Stargate hyperspace--all isolated from the rest of the 'verse. Transwarp, like regular warp, still allows for some interaction with a ship that passes by systems and can scan them in transit (unlike JJ's movie, which has a strange quantum distortion/warp hybrid...

Perhaps Transwarp is really a very shallow hyperspace kept at bay with warp fields themselves.

The Voth city ship and AGT ENT-D seemed to master the effect, as did Paris shuttle.

The evolution-defect was a result of a virus we will say, that lived in hyperspace, where Kirk hung out in Tholian webland...
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 03:08 AM   #22
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

Paris's shuttle's transwarp system acted in an extremely different way from any other transwarp propulsion we've seen in all of Trek.

The whole "being all over the universe at one moment" thing seems a wee bit more impractical, exotic and dangerous than Starfleet would be comfortable with. And if you do go with the theory that Paris brought back a crazy virus, think about just what else could a ship bring back from the.... infinite transwarp place.

No way dawg, that's some Event Horizon shit right there.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 12:37 PM   #23
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Why not?
Being everywhere in the universe at the same time opens up pretty big possibilities.
Paris could have brought back a virus he picked up from phenomena that Federation would begin to dream of for the next thousand years.
Or simply could have been in a part of space that affects Human physiology in the way it did with him.
Coupled with effect of infinite velocity, it's possible this interaction and a combination of factors was precipitated in Paris 'evolving'.

TW as the Borg use it is actually quite similar to the QS technology as it was explained on-screen.
I would surmise BOTH are aspect that remove a ship from being able to interact with the known universe as Warp would allow.

TW that was achieved by Paris is a completely different beast apparently that the Borg never achieved.
And it's possible that the Voy and later on SF adopted a different explanation for what TW stands for.
__________________
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 December 4 2010, 01:07 PM   #24
The Inquisitor
Lieutenant Commander
 
The Inquisitor's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Personally I would go with QSS. It seems to fit in well with the Federation look and feel. Transwarp feels a little bit Borg (obviously).

Having dabbled with QSS in the past I should imagine the Federation showing some keen interest in further developing the technology upon the return of Voyager from the Delta Quadrant. I should imagine, like with any new technology, there would be stumbling blocks and the occasional accident but the rewards of succeeding would be well worth the sacrifice of the odd mishap.

Much like Warp Speed it would probably take decades to master, much like the slow but steady improvement in Warp technology from 1 right the way up to 9.975 over the period of a couple of centuries.

As stated in previous posts the main problem appears to be the lack of computing/processing power. The ships themselves seem to be able to cope just fine in the slipstream without disintegrating after a couple of minutes.

This is only my second post. Im like a fat kid in a sweetshop after finding this site :-)
The Inquisitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 08:29 PM   #25
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Deks wrote: View Post
Why not?
Being everywhere in the universe at the same time opens up pretty big possibilities.
And wasn't there a line in STIII where a crewman told Styles "All speeds available through transwarp drive?"

Excelsior at that time was also to be a wonderous ship--what we think of as ENT-J as being, before it was simply dumbed down as a heavy cruiser replacement.


There is also another way to look at this.

Remember what Barclay meant in the Nth Degree in his line "There are no limits" after saying Starfleet always looked at things as a function of warp?

To me this means that Warp 10 really wasn't everywhere at once--that the tables had to be recalculated yet again. Warp 10 in the ST:TMP era was not warp 10 in the TNG ear as we know. Therefore transwarp meant that yet another scale came along by the time of "All Good Things."

There transwarp 25 or whatever is "everywhere at once," somehow unattainable, and that gets broken by Ent-J or whatever, as we broke the wall that was the "sound barrier" the lightspeed barrier, etc.

No limits...


Now as we have this conversation, Stargate ships travel between galaxies with second/third tier hyperspace drives, with the Tardis doing better, and there was the Stargate Universe jump drive that allowed travel between universes like how nuGalactica jumped from point to point, while trek ships were sadly limited to interstellar travel. This was never said to be a limit early on, and shouldn't be, since the ship-as-sculpture seems to indicate a very high level of technology.

Thus I have a little pet theory that once a civilization stumbles into hyperdrive, its innovation stops. A caveman who gets a maglev train ticket stagnates and never invents the muscle car or jeep, which allows more direct access to surroundings. Trek ships are superior in this, in that they can interact at FTL, thus the fact they they haven't slown technological progress down. With treck you are always doing one better, pushing where you wouldn't have to with hyperspace, which seems only tier one in SW.

The Stargate Earth ships, especially the Prommie, is very clunky, but could ford galaxies the way Enterprise couldn't, even with the Kelvin-race additions. But they have to have zats and the overall tech level is all Cheyene Mountain gear. I say the same thing happened in the Star Wars Universe that happened with the Varduaar. Very old, able to skip around enemies and encircle them, colonize a galaxy more quickly, yet remain stagnant--no transporters, replicators, Voyager tech, etc.

In Star Trek, you had to earn every light year, face hostile neighbors head on instead of jumping over them. This forced rapid tech progression. In Star Wars, the scale is more vast, yet everything seems sedate in a sense. The old Republic gets stale, and the first really big conflict and new blood was in the rise of Empire. But focus on militarism and less on exploration still leaves trek ships more advanced overall than a lot of the other ships we have seen, even if they have the hyperspace transrapid ticket that leaves them lazy.

Last edited by publiusr; December 4 2010 at 08:50 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 08:52 PM   #26
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

The whole "Warp 10=Infinite velocity" thing was lifted out of the TNG Tech Manual, IMO, and was meant to be the reason why ships couldn't go to Warp 10. Ever. At least not with the current warp scale.

IIRC, the idea was that warp engine efficiency dropped dramatically as a ship neared Warp 10, ultimately requiring infinite energy to reach it. A correlation was made that an object with infinite energy would be traveling infinitely fast and would then be occupying all points in the Universe simultaneously. I think it was supposed to be an impossibility per the TNG Tech Manual, but easily done in VOY's "Threshold."
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 09:06 PM   #27
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Well there, in the tech manual, they were trying to make Warp 10 impossible to attain as lightspeed is to us. We really would have to have infinite energy to get to light speed, and even then we still can't quite do it (law of diminishing returns, Einstein and all that.)

What Sternbach did was to have a 24th century equivalent of this problem still exist for warp designers. It was all meant to have dramatic effect instead of going "warp 11, warp 12," etc. It's always nice to have that unattainable to shoot for--for it means more when you reach it by the VOY episode, either that or the ultimate form of transwarp, with a lower tier used by Voth and the three nacelle Ent-D we will say...
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 09:17 PM   #28
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Under an ideal situation, Warp 9.9 might have been considered "ludicrious speed," but the temptation for the writers to go even faster than that was impossible to ignore, IMO...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 10:32 PM   #29
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

publiusr wrote: View Post

And wasn't there a line in STIII where a crewman told Styles "All speeds available through transwarp drive?"
That line of dialogue was the first clue that transwarp actually supplemented warp-drive instead of outright replacing it. Traditional warp engines appear to dawdle along reasonably well ( although obviously enduring increased operational stresses) within what may be some sort of deeper penetration into subspace than the nacelle fields can achieve without help (kinda' like jogging along the travellators at the airport). The visual evidence suggested that help might have come (or at least have been intended to, in the case of ol' NX-2000) from the deflector dish, what with the new, chubby mid-section the Excelsior was sporting around it, perhaps crammed with experimental gear (not to mention that matte-black {radiator?} grille on that chubby neck).

It's interesting to note that the subsequent Ambassador class, presumably designed after the transwarp program had been abandoned, returned to the more slender-necked profile of pre-Excelsior ships.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2010, 11:16 PM   #30
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

I always thought warp 9.99 sounded worst than Warp 30(or whatever the TOS scale speed would have been)
Ronald Held 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 09:25 PM.

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