RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,677
Posts: 5,429,940
Members: 24,825
Currently online: 548
Newest member: NX3


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 December 10 2010, 07:54 AM   #46
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

The Bumble wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
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...
Actually the warp scale was drastically changed between TOS and the TNG timeline as indicated by this chart

http://www.star-fleet.com/ed/warp-chart.html
Which is actually non-canon. Neither the so-called TOS or the TNG warp scales really are, and onscreen material has debunked those given warp factors time and time again as actually being too slow.

Onscreen, the only real change in the warp scale between TOS and TNG is that Warp 10 became transwarp or a normally unattainable velocity sometime prior to TNG (and then attainable again in a possible future timeline shown in the series finale). In such a case, it might be argued that warp engines have changed since TOS more than the warp scale has.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2010, 08:48 PM   #47
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post

Establishing an upper limit doesn't work in the real world or in serialized storytelling.
Sure, it does. There are definitely limits of how fast things can go in the real world and in serialized storytelling, it's simply a case of creators avoiding the fanboy factor...
yep, cars stopped getting faster in 1937, planes in 1962, and trains in the 1900's. Fictionally, StarTrek starships never got past warp 8 and Lonestar never went plaid.
__________________
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 December 10 2010, 09:12 PM   #48
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Lonestar didn't. Dark Helmet did!
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2010, 10:28 PM   #49
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

sojourner wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post

Establishing an upper limit doesn't work in the real world or in serialized storytelling.
Sure, it does. There are definitely limits of how fast things can go in the real world and in serialized storytelling, it's simply a case of creators avoiding the fanboy factor...
yep, cars stopped getting faster in 1937, planes in 1962, and trains in the 1900's. Fictionally, StarTrek starships never got past warp 8 and Lonestar never went plaid.
If it works for you, go for it.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2010, 12:28 AM   #50
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
The Bumble wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
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...
Actually the warp scale was drastically changed between TOS and the TNG timeline as indicated by this chart

http://www.star-fleet.com/ed/warp-chart.html
Which is actually non-canon. Neither the so-called TOS or the TNG warp scales really are, and onscreen material has debunked those given warp factors time and time again as actually being too slow.

Onscreen, the only real change in the warp scale between TOS and TNG is that Warp 10 became transwarp or a normally unattainable velocity sometime prior to TNG (and then attainable again in a possible future timeline shown in the series finale). In such a case, it might be argued that warp engines have changed since TOS more than the warp scale has.
Why would Starfleet want to make their ships slower? That would put them at a tactical/logistic/spatial disadvantage. If I were Admiral Bossman, I would not approve a new engine type that utterly sucked for my fleet's use, even if it ran on rainbows and vegetable oil.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2010, 11:11 AM   #51
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
The Bumble wrote: View Post

Actually the warp scale was drastically changed between TOS and the TNG timeline as indicated by this chart

http://www.star-fleet.com/ed/warp-chart.html
Which is actually non-canon. Neither the so-called TOS or the TNG warp scales really are, and onscreen material has debunked those given warp factors time and time again as actually being too slow.

Onscreen, the only real change in the warp scale between TOS and TNG is that Warp 10 became transwarp or a normally unattainable velocity sometime prior to TNG (and then attainable again in a possible future timeline shown in the series finale). In such a case, it might be argued that warp engines have changed since TOS more than the warp scale has.
Why would Starfleet want to make their ships slower?
Probably to keep them from blowing up when pushed to the max and enable them to maintain higher cruising speeds (up to Warp 9) for longer periods of time than they could previously.

While the original Enterprise reached Warp 14.1 in "That Which Survives," the ship came seconds away from being ripped apart at that speed. That's no good. The few other times the Enterprise exceeded Warp 10 were either due to severe alien modifications of the ship, malfunctions/sabotage, or a deliberate pushing of the engines beyond their safety limits. That's not good either.

But in comparison, 24th-Century ships could probably maintain Warp 9 longer than their 23rd-Century predecessors and beat them in a long distance race, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2010, 09:00 PM   #52
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
I always thought warp 9.99 sounded worst than Warp 30(or whatever the TOS scale speed would have been)
They had a ship capable of warp 36 in TAS ("Counter Clock" something or other) I guess the tractor beam allows for warp field matching in emergency, like Scotty's transwarp beaming in Abrams'
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2010, 08:50 PM   #53
Gorgon
Ensign
 
Location: Illinois
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Going back to the question of whether to do Transwarp Conduits or QUantum Slipstream Drive as a natural progression of propulsion technologies for the 25th century, I was disappointed that our group could not make a clear decision on which to choose.

It seems that many of our group would prefer to maintain the standard warp limitations and not exceed the limits established by the shows.

I just thought I'd let you know. I am very greatful for the many responses so far on this thread.
Gorgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2010, 10:59 PM   #54
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

The actual progression towards which the Feds would go to would likely be the QS drive.
The Voyager crew constructed a working prototype which cut their journey by 10 000 ly's in just 1 minute.
SF would have to work on the bugs to stabilize the phase variance and for the v1 of the QS which is slower, the quantum stresses would have to be settled (unless the VOY crew did it and what they came up with surpassed TW because it incorporated both original QS and TW technologies from the Borg).
__________________
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 13 2010, 01:01 AM   #55
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

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
If I may be so bold, I would suggest that you not consider any exotic transwarp propulsion systems, since most of them are unstable and poorly understood by Federation science, and instead go the route that I proposed the Excelsior had gone - that is, to turn conventional warp drive up to 11.

Or, perhaps, even introduce a new understanding of warp propulsion to Federation science that allows ships to take advantage of natural phenomenon to achieve transwarp speeds when needed (like the increasingly-popular fan theory of "warp highways"). Such an approach would probably be for the better if the sim is set only a few years after DS9/VOY.
If I can expand on this, maybe make conventional warp drive able to interact with a natural phenomenon like superstrings, subspace warp wedgies or something similar to use them as "rails" for achieving faster speeds throughout the galaxy (could even latch onto existing phenomenon like the Borg transwarp conduits or something).

It doesn't require a brand new engine, it doesn't require two drive types eating up room on a ship, if you technobabble it right it can be as safe or as dangerous as you want, and you're still mostly in real space, like regular warp drive, as opposed to zooming blind through some glowy corridor in subspace.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2010, 08:54 AM   #56
Bonzo the Fifth
Commander
 
Bonzo the Fifth's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Send a message via ICQ to Bonzo the Fifth Send a message via AIM to Bonzo the Fifth Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Bonzo the Fifth Send a message via Yahoo to Bonzo the Fifth
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Well, I'm in agreeance with those earlier who classify QS as a form of Transwarp, with Transwarp being a catch-all term to classify all exotic, faster than Cochrane-esque propulsion technologies. Of the ones seen, Quantum Slipstream seems to be the most viable, as Voyager has, albeit with difficulty, managed to successfully reverse engineer and use the technology without using some alien black box or interference to make it happen. In the EU, Fed RnD has developed it to the point that other starships are rolling out with the system, now, so I'd say it's definitely the way to go.

Keep in mind, if you decide to go strictly with the 'documented' velocities from the Tech manual, you're talking about some very, very slow speeds to get EVERYWHERE (space is big... really big, even when you can go a trillion miles a second), so QS might give you the fudge factor you need to have a plausible speed of plot device in the 24 3/4 century.
Bonzo the Fifth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2011, 04:33 AM   #57
cmtyulty
Cadet
 
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

neither Quantum Slipstream, Transwarp, Enhance warp, or Warp are fast In my book. I use E2 Drive (Eistien 2 Drive) which allows you to travel as far as 8 Gaxalays away in appor. 2 weeks.
cmtyulty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2011, 04:36 AM   #58
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

Well, it sounds at least slightly more revolutionary than the Segway.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2011, 04:56 AM   #59
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

Braaaiinnnss.
__________________
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 May 11 2011, 04:13 PM   #60
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Quantum Slipstream V.S. Transwarp

At the risk of invoking the dreaded Thread Necromancy comments, the relatively-new Vesta-class starship (as depicted in recent Trek lit) utilizes both conventional warp drive as well as a quantum slipstream drive. In the Voyager book "Full Circle", a small fleet of slipstream-equipped ships is preparing to return to the Delta Quadrant to explore where Voyager left off. You may wish to check the Trek Lit forum for additional information on how the authors are handling slipstream questions.
SicOne 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 11:35 PM.

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