Starship Size Argument™ thread

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.

  1. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Not even in conjunction with Scotty's beaming formula? True, I certainly never heard it conjunction with propulsion.
     
  2. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Of course it is. :techman:

    I wonder if the transwarp beaming formula could have something to do with the Vengeance leap in propulsion technology?
     
  3. AJA

    AJA Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado
    My mistake. But as far as propulsion, the Vengeance isn't described as "transwarp" capable.
     
  4. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    For whatever it's worth, Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and FASA's old gaming manuals technobabbled that the STIII transwarp drive somehow combined the transporter and warp drive systems.
     
  5. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    It also claimed the 1701-A had transwarp.
     
  6. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    That explains how it got to the center of the galaxy so quickly. :techman:
     
  7. Maxillius

    Maxillius Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    I call bullshit on 1701-A having transwarp.
     
  8. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    So do I. It was an unofficial book.
     
  9. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    It also explains how Enterprise and Excelsior were both able to cover the distances that they did in such a short amount of time. Both are shown warping to Khitomer from totally different locations -- arguably, totally different sectors of space -- in less than a day. Still earlier, Enterprise manages to warp across space from a position within Federation space to a location "deep within the Klingon frontier" in a matter of hours. It suffices to say that the Enterprise-A was considerably faster than the original Enterprise.

    Seems perfectly plausible to me, especially since it's not entirely clear what "transwarp" even means other than "really really fast warp."
     
  10. JoeP

    JoeP Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Location:
    The Mighty Dominion of Canada
    Looking at this screengrab from the 2009 teaser where you can see a worker kneeling over to weld, it's EASILY five decks...

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    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.
     
  12. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    ^You mean like the TNG Technical Manual that claimed phasers couldn't be fired at warp:wtf:
     
  13. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    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.
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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?
     
  15. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Or just regular advancements in warp drive and the guys at Paramount didn't want to have ships going at warp 31.
     
  16. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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.
     
  17. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Possible. I was never clear on why it failed.
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Is there anything in canon (live-action episodes/movies) that says transwarp drive was a failure?
     
  19. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    No mention of it after ST III I think, until Voyager.
     
  20. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    And there they turned it into a spectacular failure - on so many levels.