The Warp Scale: Trek's Biggest Mistake?
- Thread starter Matthew Raymond
- Start date
Respectfully I disagree- the purpose of stating "warp speed" is to confer some kind of an integer of distance traveled per unit of time. Hence the use of the word "speed". Its a short form notation, that is all. Adding power indice co-efficients to a notation of speed, based on a hand drawn scale wasn't all that helpful IMHO, and frankly made what was already a mess a hopelessly complicated affair. The closest analogy I can come up with that makes any sense would be to rescale MPH to include the peak efficiency for shifting up to a different gear for maximum power. Not only do transmissions have different gear differentials, they have varied power ratios- so applying one scale over MPH wouldn't really make any sense. I think the same is true when applied to warp factors. That being said I understand that Gene Roddenberry wished to differentiate TNG from Franz Joseph's ST:TM and by association, TOS, because of their falling out, so those who developed the TNG scale for him did so as directed and dictated. At this point, it is what it is, 30 years on we just have to work within the framework as given.
I have always thought that the Enterprise breaks orbit at Warp 1 because of the crowded nature of the inner solar system, be it due to gravitational field effects, or due to the bodies themselves being a navigational hazard, it's prolly easier to negotiate at lower warp speeds.
Last edited:
That presupposes that every course takes them parallel to the orbital planes of the planets and other debris. And even if that were really the case they'd just fly due south or north out of the solar system plane at whatever high warp speed they fancied and then change course accordingly, wouldn't they? It also doesn't explain the situations where they were not within a solar system at all (Arena, Galileo 7) and still set off at Warp 1
Have they ever really mentioned speed that often in the films/TV shows?
As has been mentioned we know that in TMP that they could reach Vulcan in 4 days and Vulcan has been established as being ~16ly from Earth so thats at least 4ly per day. But we don't know if that was at a crusing speed or maximum speed.
And we are told in VOY Warp 9.9 is about 4 billion miles per second whis is around 21 472 times the speed of light.
Simply put for better or for worse they move at the speed of the plot.
As has been mentioned we know that in TMP that they could reach Vulcan in 4 days and Vulcan has been established as being ~16ly from Earth so thats at least 4ly per day. But we don't know if that was at a crusing speed or maximum speed.
And we are told in VOY Warp 9.9 is about 4 billion miles per second whis is around 21 472 times the speed of light.
Simply put for better or for worse they move at the speed of the plot.
In TOS it was a relative fixture of the series- to the point of Scotty sweating bullets every time Kirk asked for Warp 8 speeds, to his disbelief when Nomad monkeyed with his poor Bairns and propelled the ship up to Warp 11 speed. If you want to get a general idea without going through and watching each epsiode how often warp speeds are cited, go to Google, type in the following search terms: "(name of episode)" transcript Star Trek, and then do a search on that page for "warp" and you will get the idea.
If you go by the TMP Blueprints, the refit Enterprise would have a Max Safe Cruising Speed of 8 or 512c (on the stated cubed scale). To reach Vulcan, if it is 18 ly from Earth would take 12 days. At her Emergency Speed of Warp 12 or 1728c, she gets there in 3.8 days. I somehow doubt Scotty would actually be happy running the engines at her top rated speed for hours on end, let alone days, but that is the stated problem. Kicking it up to a fourth power, then a voyage of Warp 7 or 2401c would take only 2.73 days. Hmmmm.
Exactly.
There are still people who use the words "weight" and "mass" interchangeably. The concepts are related, but the imprecision of language and expression means it keeps on being used even by people who should normally know better.
Yes, that's all perfectly valid observation.
The thing is, in space there is no such thing as "absolute speed." All speeds are relative. There's also the fact that any relative velocity will continue indefinitely whether the engines are active or not, so the entire concept of not being able to maintain a particular speed is just plain silly; if you need to travel at 1000c, just accelerate till you get to 1000c and coast the rest of the way (drag from the ISM shouldn't be so high that you couldn't sustain that speed at low power).
Tying it to acceleration, on the other hand, solves a lot of plot problems, and also nicely explains why we can't ever seem to figure out what "speed" the ship is actually moving: it's because it isn't moving at a constant speed, but on a constant acceleration in an arbitrary direction.
This would also finally explain to us what the hell "all stop" actually means for a starship. Because it's a space ship, turning off the engines wouldn't actually STOP the ship at all, it would just keep moving in whatever direction it was originally going. But stopping your acceleration puts you on the drift, which means you're coasting until you figure out what you need to do next (maybe reverse acceleration and move AWAY from your destination, or change course entirely).
Celestial objects are so incredibly far apart that the odds of ACCIDENTALLY running into a planetary or asteroid body are astronomically small even at high warp. The plane of the solar system where most of those bodies are located is a very thin slice of an otherwise vast spherical region. If anything, you might need to worry about close-calls with other starships since everyone in the system will want to be moving along the planet of the ecliptic (because that's where all the planets and space stations will be anyway) but if you want to LEAVE THE SYSTEM, you can go in any direction you want and the planet of the system is no longer an issue.
But warp factors being a unit of acceleration would mean the ship is simply leaving orbit. Accelerating constantly for about two hours at 1G would put you just outside the orbit of the moon and traveling at about 28% of the speed of light; call this "full impulse power," with the assumption that for anything faster than, say, 2Gs of acceleration, you're going to need to use the warp engines.
There may be a case that isn't how the fictional subspace physics works in Trek. Warp engines may need to continually operate at a certain energy output to maintain a particular warp factor and that a ship may gradually drop back to sublight if the warp engines are turned off. In such a scenario, a ship doesn't travel through space at warp as it pushes through the medium of subspace, which requires continual power to do so.
That assumes that warp fields and the nature of subspace operate in a manner in accordance with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity- which in Star Trek, by inference of the violation of c as the absolute universal speed limit and constant casts this argument as a red herring. The prime issue pertaining to the use of Relativistic style effects and mechanisms is that Roddenberry and co. threw those particular features of realistic space travel out the window on Day 1. TMoST I believe covers that in some detail, but as I recall it was felt that trying to explain Relativistic effects (time dilation being the most obvious issue) would only get in the way of having to tell the story (likewise the invention of the transporter as a time saving, narrative device). As a result, the system you are trying to ascribe these constants and constraints to already hold them in strict abeyance. I could perhaps see that maintaining a warp field at a certain power level to maintain that speed, being below what was required in getting to that speed (effectively accelerating or "charging" the warp field "up" would have a greater requisite power consumption than to simply maintain it), but at no time have we _ever_ seen a starship "coast" after attaining that velocity. Simply put, a starship still has to output power from its M/AM reactor to maintain whatever velocity attained, that is the constant of fictional warp drive we have always seen, and while it may be silly, that is what you have to work with.
You propose an interesting thought - I will think on this further and consider it.
This assumes that the system is generally Sol-like, and while we can assume that the majority of systems are similar, that is not necessarily always the case. Given that, objects in the outer solar system (the Oort cloud) are fairly inconspicuous, and there are alot of them, colliding with one would generally be bad. I would think it might be a good thing to keep Sulu on a tight leash even though he might be hell-bent-for-leather to go to Warp 12 for this very reason.
Likewise, a single particle of gas and dust striking a ship's hull at c will definitely have a detrimental effect on its occupants and systems- hence the use of the Navigation Deflector System, but even given that technology, I think that Standard Operating Procedures for Starfleet Vessels would have something along the lines I have stated, to err on the side of caution. This is my opinion, and it may change, but for now, I see no reason to doubt my position.
Last edited:
One thing about Mr. Scott's statement in TMP is that we don't know exactly what it means. Kirk was suggesting they give the Enterprise a proper shakedown, which Mr. Scott agrees they need one. It could be that it will take a few days to get the shakedown finished and Scott's apologizing to Mr. Spock by saying they can get it done and him home in just four days, rather than Mr. Scott boasting about his engine's speed, which is what we use to think, with the Warp Factor 12 speed giving in a lot of reference material just so Enterprise could reach a planet ~16 light years away within four days using the warp factor cubed system.
If Mr. Scott is apologizing to Mr. Spock, than USS Enterprise can go a lot faster than the old Warp Factor Cubed system in TMP.
If Mr. Scott is apologizing to Mr. Spock, than USS Enterprise can go a lot faster than the old Warp Factor Cubed system in TMP.
Here's a little something I have worked on for a few days. Its a TNG Warp Scale calibrated to V = C * W^4 up to Warp Factor 9, and in which Warp 9.9 is equivalent to 21473c and Warp Factor 10 is infinity.
9 = 6561c
9.1 = 7105.002398771584c
9.2 = 7725.482477363039c
9.3 = 8444.49687978731c
9.4 = 9295.360380768241c
9.5 = 10331.723127446336c
9.6 = 11647.869244249454c
9.65 = 12462.935725731591c
9.7 = 13431.91673832336c
9.8 = 16144.362830154689c
9.9 = 21473.813066394923c
9.925 = 24008.911171124742c
9.95 = 27978.853637798755c
9.975 = 36074.751122697446c
9.99 = 50090.689815142876c
9.999 = 112844.5406589971c
9.9999 = 253265.7906607502c
9.99999 = 568195.1218775817c
9.999999 = 1274675.7831192315c
9 = 6561c
9.1 = 7105.002398771584c
9.2 = 7725.482477363039c
9.3 = 8444.49687978731c
9.4 = 9295.360380768241c
9.5 = 10331.723127446336c
9.6 = 11647.869244249454c
9.65 = 12462.935725731591c
9.7 = 13431.91673832336c
9.8 = 16144.362830154689c
9.9 = 21473.813066394923c
9.925 = 24008.911171124742c
9.95 = 27978.853637798755c
9.975 = 36074.751122697446c
9.99 = 50090.689815142876c
9.999 = 112844.5406589971c
9.9999 = 253265.7906607502c
9.99999 = 568195.1218775817c
9.999999 = 1274675.7831192315c
That scale works well for Tom Paris' boastful comment about the ship's speed (he is the pilot, after all!)
However, it doesn't cover the problems with all the mentions of "parsecs" in the show.
Unless a parsec isn't what we think it is?
However, it doesn't cover the problems with all the mentions of "parsecs" in the show.
Unless a parsec isn't what we think it is?
Parsecs have been touched on only briefly in other threads - even this one veered off into a discussion on Terra-centric weights & measures. What I'd like to try here is something different, to better tie together Warp Speeds in the different incarnations of Trek.
As you probably know, Parsec is an abbreviation for parallax of one arcsecond and is a technique invented in 1913 which allows astronomers to measure the distance of various objects in the night sky, from planets in our own solar system to far off stars. It utilises the basic rules of trigonometry combined with the orbit of the Earth from our Sun and is explained far better on this Wikipedia page than I ever could, although pictures always help:
The practical upshot of this is that 1 Parsec = 3.2615638 light years. The term often got bandied around in science fiction, probably to avoid the characters saying "light years" all the time (and the associated misinterpretation that the latter were a measurement of time, not distance). In Star Trek "light year" (LY) was by far the more common term but it is interesting to see that in virtually all of Parsec's significant appearances it was used to express unusually massive units of distance; enough to skew the Warp Speed charts and make TOS (as it occurred there most often) appear as a continuity orphan in terms of speed and distance that its ships travelled. Speaking of speed and distance, here are the two Warp speed charts I will be consulting during this exercise, the standard TNG chart and the TOS Warp-Factor-to-the-power-of-five chart (it goes without saying that the TOS WF-cubed system is too slow for anyone's purposes and bears no resemblence to Warp speeds on any of the series):
NOTE: I mentioned the "significant" uses of parsec above as there many more uses where the term is just mentioned in passing, or in ways where specific times or distances were not a major problem. I'll deal with those another time, so here are the significant uses and their problems:
ARENA
22.3 Parsecs is 72.732 LYs. Even if Cestus III was right on the edge of their charts and they were travelling Warp 6 most of the way, this would place Warp 6 at 44,276(c) - this meshes well with the WF^5 system but very badly with everything else!
- First captain's log is SD-3045.6, on the planet.
- The Enterprise then pursues the Gorn ship for a while at Warp 5
- Increase speed to Warp 6 some time before SD-3046.2
- This means that 0.6 SD units (maybe half a day) has passed since the first log entry
- Mr DePaul then reports that they have travelled "22.3 parsecs beyond the latest chart limit".
At the end of the episode the Enterprise is flung 500 parsecs (1,631 LYs) away from the Metron system. Even at WF7 using the WF^5 system, this distance would take 35 days to cover. Either they got flung WAY past the Cestus III system (I sure hope they left plenty of supplies for the medical staff there) or the Enterprise covered a hell of a lot more ground than we thought in pursuit of the Gorn ship!
Incidentally, this is also the same episode where, having been stopped at the edge of the Metron solar system, Spock declares that Kirk could be out there anywhere "within a thousand cubic parsecs of space". I suppose Spock could just be using flowery language, but that seems very large for a solar system!
CONCLUSION: I don't thing a Starfleet "parsec" is the same as ours.
BREAD AND CIRCUSES
1/16 parsec = 1,928,548,500,000 kilometres, which the wreckage drifted in only 6 years! By contrast, the Voyager 1 probe has only gone 18,514,066,000 in 37 years. The Beagle's wreckage must have had a hell of a boost at the start, it "drifted" 642 times faster!
- Tracking the wreckage of the SS Beagle, Chekov informs Kirk that the planet is "only 1/16 of a parsec away" and that they should be there in "seconds". Sure enough, after only 30 seconds of continuous dialogue later they are in orbit!
Anyway, how fast does the Enterprise need to be to correspond to the episode:
CONCLUSION: I don't thing a Starfleet "parsec" is the same as ours.
- 1/16 parsec in 30 seconds is 214,329(c) or Warp 11.6 on the TOS-WF^5 scale
- TNG's Warp 9 would take 4243 seconds (71 minutes) to cover 1/16 parsec, hardly the "seconds" that Chekov promised.
WHERE SILENCE HAS LEASE
If we are generous and say that we skipped ahead an hour during that flyby, then the Enterprise-D at Warp 2 is travelling 40,027(c)!!!
- Trying to leave the void, Picard leaves under Impulse power
- One flyby and 25 seconds later, Wesley and Data confirm that they should have travelled 1.4 Parsecs (4.566 LYs)
By contrast, Warp 2 on the TNG scale would take 167 days to travel the same distance - I really don't think Picard waited 5½ months before checking on their progress!
CONCLUSION: I don't thing a Starfleet "parsec" is the same as ours.
CLUES
If we round it up to a full day, that's 643(c) or just under Warp 7 under the TNG scale (full Warp 7 would be 0.55 Parsecs a day).
- After passing through the wormhole, Riker reports that they have moved 0.54 Parsecs (1.761 LYs) which is almost a day's travel.
So, is Warp 7 their standard crusing speed then? Maybe, but Riker doesn't specify was speed a typical "day's travel" would use. He could be using a lower "standard ship" sort of formula that we're not aware of.
CONCLUSION: A Starfleet Parsec may or may not be the same as ours, insufficient information.
CONCERNING FLIGHT
20 Parsecs is 65.2 LYs. At Warp 6 (TNG scale) this would take her 58 days each way. Seems a little distant...
- Janeway is in the marketplace, searching for her stolen computer core: "I have a client who runs a colony about twenty parsecs from here. His computer is outmoded so I'm looking for a replacement."
CONCLUSION: I don't thing a Starfleet "parsec" is the same as ours.
SO, HOW BIG IS A STARFLEET PARSEC?
Since this is entirely speculative, it can be anything we like! With the advent of starships and FTL sensors we can suppose that the term "Parsec" fell into disuse some time prior to the 23rd Century, only to be revived later as meaning something completely different. Light Years on the other hand seem to be fairly ubiquitous and standard throughout the galaxy (understandable, since most naturally occuring Class-M planets would need to be a simliar size and distance from their sun).
So, let's try 1 Parsec = 1% of a Light Year:
ARENA: Enterprise covers 0.73 LYs before Kirk increases speed to Warp 7 and then a sustained Warp 8. It would mean the entire chase lasts a day or two in order to realistically cover the distance to the Metron system (unless it was very close to Cestus) but that's OK.
The distance Enterprise is flung at the end would reduce to a more manageable 442.76 LYs. Unfortunately that is still several months journey at Warp 8. Maybe Sulu knows of a Subspace Highway they can utilise?
BREAD & CIRCUSES: The wreckage of the Beagle is now a mere 5,912,929,701 kilometres from the Roman Planet - still twice as fast as the Voyager probe, but much less ludricously speedy!
WHERE SILENCE HAS LEASE: The Enterprise need travel no more than 0.04566 LY before Picard's enquiry. If he waits an hour, that is 400(c) or approximately Warp 6 (TNG scale). Picard could well have increased speed during the flyby and we only saw the latest of several update reports.
CLUES: If nearly a day's travel is 0.54 Parsecs, that would be 1.97(c). That's a very slow speed for Riker to use for his comparison, but not impossible - the spell of unconsciousness may have made his brain too foggy for more complex maths.
CONCERNING FLIGHT: Janeway's fictitous colony is now 0.652 LY away which places it outside the solar system but not far enough out to be in a neighbouring system. However, the colony could arguably be a mobile one (like the Varro generational ship), would would further their need for a decent computer core.
In all in all, I think a lot of scale problems are solved if the term "parsec" gets a makeover.
Thoughts, anyone?
There is certainly the argument to be made that by the 23rd/24th centuries it's lost its original meaning and is just a generic term for a "largish" distance. In several of the examples I listed above that could fit quite wellParsec is a boasting number you throw around in bars to say your ship is fast. Just ask Han Solo.
Are you sure 12 decimal places is enough accuracy? We want to be precise, after all. Those microseconds are important.
Are you sure 12 decimal places is enough accuracy? We want to be precise, after all. Those microseconds are important.
A microsecond can save your life! You can do loads in a few microseconds- you can smash an atom, start a nuclear chain reaction or even bound quarks into hadrons..
At this speed, Voyager could have covered seventy thousand light-years in twenty days. So why even try for warp ten?
Just have Paris throttle back slightly short of ten.
If we accept that episode at face value (ugh), then I don't think this actually makes any sense. Since Warp 10 is literally infinite velocity, it can't be any form of acceleration that actually achieves it; it would have to be a discontinuous jump that would suddenly place the ship at warp 10 once certain prerequisites were achieved. That is, the fact that the shuttle could travel at warp 9.99 and warp 10 doesn't necessarily mean that it could travel at any given warp velocity between the two. And the fact that they don't do that is at least circumstantial evidence in favor of the idea that they couldn't.
I am not quite familiar with the Star Trek Maps interpretation of warp dynamics and travel, so if you could provide a few pointers I would be greatly appreciative.
Exactly- at very high percentage points of 9, you don't really need to hit 10 to get back to Earth in a jiffy- the further to the right of the decimal place you go from Warp 9 the faster you go. I think it would have been easier just to say, "Tom, take us to Warp 36.." and have the same effect, so to speak, but whatever. I am pretty convinced that the whole reason that the TNG scale exists is a combination of Roddenberry trying to completely render Franz Joseph materials obsolete and inapplicable to what at the time was "new" Trek, and to also add a bit of "realism" to how warp mechanics worked by adding power indice co-efficients to each warp factor and scaling it so that Warp 10 is akin to c- something unattainable.
Similar threads
