Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds

[Vance]

Cary, no.

Sorry, but no.

I've discussed this very issue with the powers that be more than once. WF^5 was purely a FASA invention and actually not in keeping with what was shown in The Search for Spock. WF^5 was never 'widely accepted' outside of FASA fans... most people just upped the high end speeds on the regular warp scale, as per the displays in the movie.

The original intent of Transwarp was just to unlock higher warp speeds, something made quite obvious with the Excelsior's screens. "Warp 15" was one of those statements which Gene Roddenberry most wanted to undo when he made TNG, and declared Transwarp a failure.

Sources: Rick Sternbach, Andrew Probert, Dana Knutson, many many others. Many post here. Feel free to ask.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary, no.

Sorry, but no.

I've discussed this very issue with the powers that be more than once. WF^5 was purely a FASA invention and actually not in keeping with what was shown in The Search for Spock. WF^5 was never 'widely accepted' outside of FASA fans... most people just upped the high end speeds on the regular warp scale, as per the displays in the movie.

The original intent of Transwarp was just to unlock higher warp speeds, something made quite obvious with the Excelsior's screens. "Warp 15" was one of those statements which Gene Roddenberry most wanted to undo when he made TNG, and declared Transwarp a failure.

Sources: Rick Sternbach, Andrew Probert, Dana Knutson, many many others. Many post here. Feel free to ask.

Andrew didn't work on ST-III. Neither did Rick. Did they?

You can claim to be a "PhD in Trekology" if you like, but I don't give a damn.

I knew about the "transwarp" definition that before FASA published any of that stuff.

I, not you, was asked where I got it from. You answered "for me." And you answered incorrectly.

I know what I know, because I was there. Your claims to the contrary, about what I know and how I know it, are, frankly, meaningless.

 

[Longinus]

OK. It seems for a time to once again state my belief that Excelsior Transwarp = TNG Warp. Thus the new scale.

 

[Vance]

Okay, Cary, I'm calling you on it. Cite a single source for this other than FASA, or one that doesn't directly relate to FASA (like Mr. Scott's Guide).

(The PHD is also a joke... jeeze...)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Okay, Cary, I'm calling you on it. Cite a single source for this other than FASA, or one that doesn't directly relate to FASA (like Mr. Scott's Guide).

(The PHD is also a joke... jeeze...)

I don't care if you "call me on it." I remember it. Whether you "agree" or not is irrelevant.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

I've got news for both of you. FASA never used the Transwarp is WF^5 idea. It was discussed and rejected. FASA's version of Transwarp simply increased the ships speed to Cruise WF 12, and Maximum WF 14/15. I just checked my FASA books. That's all that's there, no mention WF^5 at all. I remember arguing with them about.

 

[SonicRanger]

WF^5 was actually considered early on for TNG -- for example, you'll find it on the papers that came with ERTL Ent-D model and in early interviews -- but that was changed after a while because they soon realized that the TNG crew could zip across the galaxy in a year if that were true.

 

[Vance]

WF^5 appears in the Star Trek III sourcebook for FASA, as well as the original TNG guide from FASA. The STSTCS does not include it, however, in one of FASA's many oddities.

Sonic, can you link me to any of that? FASA, to my knowledge, was the only place that used that (though many other companies cited FASA regularly, which is one reason why Roddenberry personally pulled the license).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I've got news for both of you. FASA never used the Transwarp is WF^5 idea. It was discussed and rejected. FASA's version of Transwarp simply increased the ships speed to Cruise WF 12, and Maximum WF 14/15. I just checked my FASA books. That's all that's there, no mention WF^5 at all. I remember arguing with them about.

Thanks for checking, Duncan... mine are all stored away in boxes and I didn't feel like pulling them out over this.

WF^5 was actually considered early on for TNG -- for example, you'll find it on the papers that came with ERTL Ent-D model and in early interviews -- but that was changed after a while because they soon realized that the TNG crew could zip across the galaxy in a year if that were true.

I definitely remember reading about this... I seem to recall that there was something between Gerrold and Roddenberry where the "10 is max" thing got converted into "10 is infinity." Which Okuda, Sternbach, and crew then had to try (with partial success) to turn into somethign semi-logical.

The thing is, we regularly see the 1701-D "zipping across the galaxy in a year" during the run of the series. The ships did, ultimately, fly at "speed of plot" rather than at any well-defined speeds.

That said... I have Celestia installed on my system at home, and I've "test driven" various "real" speeds in there, to get a sense of how fast something really is. At "TWF 15"... that is (according to this approach) 15^5*c... you still take pretty long to get from one place to another. I'm not sure that a year to cross the galaxy should have been an issue. I mean, we can fly from NYC to LA in a few hours, but we don't actually experience any of the stuff along the way when we do so, do we? If you really want to experience the great plains, or the Rocky mountains, or the Grand Canyon, you really need to go there, and then look around a lot more slowly.

If they'd stuck with the TWF^5 scale, it would have opened up the scriptwriting and, I really believe, wouldn't have "ruined" any of the storytelling opportunities. After all, the REAL distance between two systems is normally "a commercial break."

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Regardless, I don't understand why you'd use the higher exponents. I always thought it was to the third power because of the fact that we have 3 dimensions (length width and height) and there would be a cubic relationship or something.

I don't know why you'd create a new transwarp factor system, I'd just use a higher set of warp-factors. 100,000 times the speed of light for example is around Warp 46 or Warp 47.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Regardless, I don't understand why you'd use the higher exponents. I always thought it was to the third power because of the fact that we have 3 dimensions (length width and height) and there would be a cubic relationship or something.

I don't know why you'd create a new transwarp factor system, I'd just use a higher set of warp-factors. 100,000 times the speed of light for example is around Warp 46 or Warp 47.

Well, in all the "hubbub" about what the "FASA" explanation "really" is, you may have missed what I said in my (actual) explanation.

I see "transwarp" as being different than "warp" drive insofar as it's not "creating a warp within normal space/time".

See, "normal" warp drive creates a "warp field" (a distortional subspace field) inside of normal space.

Normal space operates on the "first power" level, of course. So create a "warp drive" field in normal space, and it takes it to the next higher power... not the "even" power, but the next ODD power. So, a warped subspace field in normal space gives you ^3 distortion levels, while you're a "single layer of reality" apart from "real" space/time.

In "Transwarp," as I see it, you transition yourself into a "subspace bubble" to begin with, and create a "warp drive field" INSIDE that "bubble." So you're already a "layer" separated from real space/time... and you proceed another layer away from it.

You might think of this along the same lines as the "deeper layers of subspace" conversation we've had a few times around here... but think of "real space" as one, distinct region... "subspace" as the next, "deeper" region... and "transwarp space" as the next region below that.

Look... it's all make-believe, we know that. So there doesn't have to be a "real physics" explanation. However, the whole "vectors require odd-powers" thing is real-physics, and that, at least, I'm inclined to stick with.

So, velocities should be measures in n^1, n^3, n^5, n^7, etc, powers. And perhaps each "step" represents a further separation from "real" space/time.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

WF^5 appears in the Star Trek III sourcebook for FASA, as well as the original TNG guide from FASA. The STSTCS does not include it, however, in one of FASA's many oddities.

Sonic, can you link me to any of that? FASA, to my knowledge, was the only place that used that (though many other companies cited FASA regularly, which is one reason why Roddenberry personally pulled the license).

Vance, I have the Star Trek III sourcebook right in front of me. WF^5 isn't there. It reads, and I quote:

The USS Excelsior is the first vessel equipped with the new Trans-warp engines. These engines deliver much more power and speed than any engine previously operational on such a large ship, and are controlled by an all-new, computerized, warp-envelope balancing system.The system grants a safety level far better than other warp engine systems, automatically adjusting warp power to transient demands smoothy and efficiently.

 

[Vance]

Duncan, the Trek III STSTCS.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

I'm afraid I don't have that one, Vance. Wasn't it one the mini games like Struggle for the Throne?

I do have the full sized Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator but I can't find any mention of it. Which of the two books is it in, and on what page?

 

[Vance]

I do have the full sized Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator but I can't find any mention of it. Which of the two books is it in, and on what page?

It's in the Star Trek III version of the STSTCS (as opposed to the final STSTCS, which ditched the specific movie number), for sure, though I'll have to dig up the reference again. (I only have it as a scanned PDF these days, and it's not searchable). I think it was also mentioned in the larger TNG FASA manual, but I don't have that book at all now, to look.

I still would like to see anywhere else that WF^5 is cited, though. (I say that seriously, my Internet-Fu actually only turns up this very thread!)

 

[SonicRanger]

I do have the full sized Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator but I can't find any mention of it. Which of the two books is it in, and on what page?

It's in the Star Trek III version of the STSTCS (as opposed to the final STSTCS, which ditched the specific movie number), for sure, though I'll have to dig up the reference again. (I only have it as a scanned PDF these days, and it's not searchable). I think it was also mentioned in the larger TNG FASA manual, but I don't have that book at all now, to look.

I still would like to see anywhere else that WF^5 is cited, though. (I say that seriously, my Internet-Fu actually only turns up this very thread!)

I might still I have that Ent-D ERTL model info sheet -- it is probably packed away at my parents' house, though, since that was 22 years ago.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

We're totally drifting off topic...

The topic was basically about how much distance the Enterprise actually covered on average in TOS for given warp-factors listed.

IIRC Ronald Held said he had a chart at work which shows how much distance was covered vs what warp factor was said. Or at least how much distance was covered.


CuttingEdge100
BTW: To Ronald Held -- Can you get your hands on that chart anytime soon?

 

[T'Girl]

Since "Star Trek Maps" was published by Bantam in 1980, I always subscribed to their literature on warp velocity. (That's the Cochrane's Formula equation, with the almost-legendary, and controversial Cochrane's Variable, or "chi" factor, used to vary FTL velocities relative to the local environment.).

The classic warp speed scale was always too slow, with warp six being 216 times light, that's seven point two days just to get to alpha centuria. the E would visit multiple systems in a single show. The chi or cochrane factor in star trek maps was up to 1292 times 216 at warp six, meaning you could cross the galaxy in 130 days! A bit to fast (would of ended Voyager in one season). Something inbetween is needed, something consistant. I was given star trek maps when I was seven, loved it, especially the small booklet on navigation. The courses in my fan fiction used to be figured out to thirty decimal points.

 

[Vance]

Actually, T'Gil, pay attention, the Enterprise explicitly does not visit multiple star systems within a show. In fact, explicitly, more than once, several weeks (and even months) go by between ports of call.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, T'Gil, pay attention, the Enterprise explicitly does not visit multiple star systems within a show. In fact, explicitly, more than once, several weeks (and even months) go by between ports of call.

You're forgetting "Obsession" and "The Doomsday Machine" where the Enterprise explicitly visits two different star systems in the same episode. Those are just off the top of my head (where "Arena" doesn't count since Enterprise didn't make it all the way to the Metron system and instead stopped short). There's also Enterprise traveling from Starbase 11 to the Talos Star Group, though this may not count since this occurred in a two-parter.

And though it isn't travel between two star systems, the incident in "That Which Survives" with Enterprise traveling a thousand light years in a matter of hours certainly applies.