It's two separate ideas both named after Zefram Cochrane:
cochrane: basic unit of warp (or subspace) field power.
Cochrane's factor: the variable that allows warp factor velocities to vary considerably based on local stellar conditions.
The Warp Scale: Trek's Biggest Mistake?
- Thread starter Matthew Raymond
- Start date
cochrane: basic unit of warp (or subspace) field power.
Cochrane's factor: the variable that allows warp factor velocities to vary considerably based on local stellar conditions.
The usual fandom theory that was from the aforementioned Star Trek Maps (which I like and go by myself since it's more interesting a view of subspace to me) is that the warp factor formula is the speed ignoring outside conditions; that differences in subspace structure or topology or something (I forget the details) can provide a multiplicative effect that alters your speed by that formula by a strict multiplicative factor. Kind of like currents, only they don't carry in a specific direction, they're just a continuous 3D function over space and the value of that function is what your speed gets multiplied by; some parts of space go down to 1 if space is pretty normal there, others go up much higher.
So for example, warp 2 is normally 10-some times c (in the TNG formula). But this part of space has a Cochrane factor of 40, say, so it's 400-some times c. If you were going warp 3, it'd still be 40 times faster, so 1500-ish times c. Warp 4, 4000-ish times c. And so on. Same basic formula everywhere, just with a multiplicative constant that changes as you move but that provides the same multiplicative factor irrespective of engine.
It helps to explain the weird speeds you see in Trek, but also why plotting a course is important at all when 99.999999% of the time the course should normally be "point this way". As well as other less common things, like why having charts of space is so important in order to plot the most efficient course, or why the Astrometrics lab was able to cut down Voyager's travel time home so significantly. It's a rationalization to preserve both the formula and the in-universe cited speeds.
Last edited:
Thanks, I just remember checking out the warp table converter on some website a while back. I am rather new to contemplating warp theory and so... Cochrane's factor makes sense now. Cochrane just clicked a second ago. Not really 100% though.
And, since we know nothing about this '3D cochrane function' it essentially just again allows 'speed of plot'.
I have a strong suspicion the function is not only over space-, but over time as well , so that warp 8 from say, Earth to Vulcan can result in two different travel times on different dates. Helps to resolve possible remaining inconsistencies spotted over routes traveled more than once
When it comes to warp scale, Trek's biggest mistake was to have a plot where it takes five minutes to get to Vulcan (ST09) ok lets say it takes Nero 3 hours to destroy Vulcan space central and Starfleet ships then you can still travel 16 ly in half a day...As for transwap beaming, the less said about that the better
The Cochrane factor could be time dependent if you use the exact same route between two locations enough times. Speed of plot is the worst offender, not the warp scale.
In fairness, Vulcan and Earth were once depicted as being close enough together that a Klingon bird of prey could cover that distance on impulse power.
Indeed.That was Trek's biggest mistake when it came to warp scale?
Not Threshold?
you know what I think, I think you should change your avatar. because none of us want to see that. I also would like the character settings to allow special characters, such as ☠ becuase thats about me looking at that right now.
I just looked at @Crazy Eddie 's avatar more closely - I can't believe I never saw that before! 
Classic
Classic
In fairness, Vulcan and Earth were once depicted as being close enough together that a Klingon bird of prey could cover that distance on impulse power.
Just out of curiosity, because I honestly can't recall, do you happen to remember which episode/film that was in? It's going to bother me all day now
Just out of curiosity, because I honestly can't recall, do you happen to remember which episode/film that was in? It's going to bother me all day now
"The Voyage Home," which continued the proud TOS tradition of not being very clear about when the ship was at warp speed or how much time passed between scenes. The shots of the Bird of Prey in-transit have the stars streaming by, but when they accelerate for the slingshots, it has the TOS-movie light-trails, suggesting it was cruising at impulse when we checked in on it during the trip.
ST3 was equally vague about travel times. What was a mutliple-day journing in ST2 to Regulus (and the later location of Planet Genesis) was presented as an overnight jaunt by the time of the next film.
There's a similar lack of information about the journey time from Genesis to Vulcan as well.
ST1 and ST2 are the only ones who really made an effort there
There's a similar lack of information about the journey time from Genesis to Vulcan as well.
ST1 and ST2 are the only ones who really made an effort there
Star Trek has always had ONE defining 'Warp Speed Scale': The Speed Needed for the Given Plot/Story. 
Exactly. The Warp Scale exists in the service of one thing: Speed of Plot™. If your get rid of it, the entire purpose of the Warp Scale disappears, and you're free to use an actual unit of velocity. The trouble is getting rid of Speed of Plot™ in the first place, and that requires diligent, painstaking attention to detail. I feel that sci-fi fans appreciate the effort, though, even if some inconsistencies eventually due creep in.Star Trek has always had ONE defining 'Warp Speed Scale': The Speed Needed for the Given Plot/Story.
As a sci-fi fan, it would be nice, but not so nice that I honestly think it's that big a deal.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sIjk8m9-0GH-OlgXImLTiPJTf23LJ6al
Here's my Warp Scale based on the TNG Warp scale, but removed the hand drawn curve after Warp 9.
It should be good enough for most people and I've put in comments on how fast certain propulsion / communications tech are based on my personal research & math on said subject.
Tell me what you think?
Here's my Warp Scale based on the TNG Warp scale, but removed the hand drawn curve after Warp 9.
It should be good enough for most people and I've put in comments on how fast certain propulsion / communications tech are based on my personal research & math on said subject.
Tell me what you think?
Where did you come up with the assumption or idea that warp travel is in any way non-inertial? How would you explain away the many canon references to the contrary? In the TOS episode "Arena" the Enterprise bridge crew is practically "thrown over the rails" when the Metrons force them to decelerate, hard, from Warp Factor Eight. And again, the inertial effects shown while Kirk and co. execute warp speed evasive maneuvers when Trelane chases after them with the planet Gothos. And more specifically the inertia damper failure cited by Decker while the Enteprise is dodging V'Ger's plasma bolts at Warp Factor Seven.
There's this thing called drag.. when you get to "Starship Bumpers" later on in my response, I think you will have a better idea about what I am referring to.
You make a lot of assumptions that writers failed to do their research, or didn't care one way or the other. Perhaps they were under the gun, writing a show for a network that expected results and ratings, with other deadlines looming, all the while trying to entertain the likes of you and me by telling a story. BTW I hate unnecessary retcons that IMHO upend the whole of any narrative world simply because it would make more sense to any one person, be it you, a director, producer, or another writer. To me, it's more than a little arrogant to assume you know all the reasons why something was written in a particular way, and then condemn the work/folks who didn't do it the way you would have.
I'm going to give you some reading material to consider. First off is Rick Robinson's First Law of Space Combat
which gives some idea of the kinetic damage imparted by particles impacting an object while moving at only minute fractions of c. Logically given the information presented, the energy required by the navigational deflectors to protect the ship while traveling at sublight speeds would be equivalent to that utilized during combat operations, and would explain the Enterprise's power expenditure shown protecting the transport at the beginning of "Mudd's Women". Now let's take it to a whole new level: we're not only going to have the vessel moving close to c, we're going to take that value of distance traveled and multiply it by the appropriate integer value, and the problem becomes apparent, yes? If not, consider this associated article, Starship Bumpers, which not only discusses the problem of the ISM in regard to relativistic velocities, it explains why the starship isn't just "shrugging that off without a problem." as you put it. Moving the ship into superluminal velocities would require the M/AM power output to be appreciably greater, as it's not just adding energy as you stated, it's in effect compounding per unit of time the amount of energy introduced into the system to be handled, and at some point, per what was shown in TOS, there is a mechanical limit to how much the system (M/AM reactor, navigational deflectors, bussard collectors, and the vessel itself) can handle before failure. Hence my observation about Scotty sweating bullets.
Yes, space is big, but regardless, I would be curious if any of these sims take into account the effect that relativistic speeds have on the vessel's increase in mass. While chance encounters with massive objects may be a negligible concern, a vessel at moving at speed still has mass, and a vessel moving at relativistic speeds even more so. At warp the vessel has an indeterminate mass aspect (meaning we don't know how superluminal warp speeds effect the vessel's mass as it was never a relevant point of discussion in a story). It would be unfortunate if a vessel leaving orbit affected the orbital dynamics of things like the Earth-moon system or caused small asteroids to be yanked into new and unpredictable orbits. As such, it would probably still be a BAD IDEA to travel at high sublight speeds in system, not to even mention travel at warp. Just a point to consider.
Last edited:
Because of the lack of time dilation effects on the crew, plus the fact that the kind of accelerations they would have to endure to achieve those kinds of velocities would literally destroy the entire ship. An inertial dampener field would have to have a tolerance of something like 99.9999999999% just to avoid killing very living thing on the ship every time they accelerated. So it's just more likely that the engines propel the entire ship by a fictitious force, rather than a newtonian force transmitted through the frame.
There are no references to the contrary. NO ONE ever describes warp drive as imparting "thrust" or momentum. Moreover, a deceleration or acceleration caused by relativistic movement would liquefy the entire crew in less than a nanosecond.
On the other hand, the use of warp drive clearly doesn't negate the usual effects of newtonian motion within the warp field. An object in motion still remains in motion. Enterprise demonstrates this pretty clearly during the intercept of V'ger in TMP; both vessels are actually still traveling at high warp through space, but the Enterprise is maneuvering around V'ger using a combination of impulse engines and thrusters while also precisely matching V'ger's velocity and warp factor. NX-01 and NX-02 probably do something similar in "Divergence" when they have to merge their warp fields; they are propelled by warp drive, but their pinpoint maneuvering relative to one another is done by thrusters, and THAT has an inertial effect within the field.
So the ship still has inertia, and physical forces will still impinge on the hull when it hits something (like the Metron's weird tractor beam). Those forces won't get it to (or stop it from) FTL velocity, though.
Aether it is.
Thank you, grand master, for educating this poor ignorant peasant.
Mass increase is not a real thing that actually occurs at relavistic velocities. This is a common mistake.
Anyway, the overall point is that the distribution of objects in space is thin enough that your chance of accidentally colliding with another object of any appreciable mass is astronomically small.
Similar threads
