Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds

[Cary L. Brown]

How do you measure that if you don't know its destination?

Distance is a measurement between two different points in space. You're asking how to measure the distance between one point.

Space is a vacuum; it doesn't have "points." It is full of THINGS, though--planets, moons, stars--which are in motion relative to each other but, for the most part, can be used as a measurement of distance and speed, but in deep space, this just isn't possible.

This is why I asked the question. In aircraft, you can determine your speed one of two ways: measuring the speed of the air that's rushing past you, or measuring your speed relative to fixed points along the GROUND. Since space has no air, and since there is no ground on which to determine fixed points, an "Absolute speed" is therefore meaningless: there are no fixed points IN space for you to measure against.

"Space is a vacuum, it doesn't have points?"

All a "point" is, is a definition of location by the use of coordinates. OF COURSE VACUUMS HAVE "POINTS IN THEM." If you can say "in this box, with absolutely no atmosphere inside it, you need to observe a location 3 meters from the floor, 4 meters from the nearest wall, and 5 meters from the wall to your left..." then you've just proven, incontrovertibly, that "there are points in a vacuum." A "point" is not a measure of mass, it's a measure of position (and can include other "dimensions" besides X, Y, and Z... such as "t" for "time")

Here's the thing... and this is really the area of dispute... we do not know if there is any such thing as an "absolute coordinate system" or if there is only a "relative to the fabric of the universe" coordinate system (with that fabric itself twisting and flexing in ways we cannot envision... but which are often referred to as the basis of the "Chi factor" in some fudged warp-drive calculations).

I find it impossible to believe that "all frames of reference are purely relative." For the simple reason that the very math behind the statement can, itself, be used to prove that statement false (though the proofs then raise howls of outrage from certain quarters). Our "math model" is, at best, very rough and incomplete. Can we at least acknowledge THAT?

If you assume that "all motion is relative," and you believe in "time dilation" as it's described within this same math-model... well, "time dilation" cannot exist. Because "time dilation" states that time passes... LITERALLY... at different rates depending on how fast one object is moving relative to another object.

But... if all motion is relative... how do you determine which object is really moving, and which is really stationary? Which one slows down, and which one doesn't?

The math works... IF you assume that all frames of reference must be evaluated with respect to some (up til now undiscovered) "universal frame of reference." Otherwise... it fails, utterly. Any problem which can give multiple contradictory answers is clearly not being solved properly.

So... I believe that there IS some "ultimate frame of reference," and I believe furthermore that eventually... once we start exploring the universe beyond our little pond here... we will gain enough experimental data to determine its nature. So far, we're tadpoles in a pool of stagnant water, pretending we understand the ocean depths, because we know a little bit about our particular puddle of mud.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Can we stick back to the topic please?

 

[Longinus]

Can we stick back to the topic please?

Seems unlikely.

 

[Ronald Held]

Where were we before the digression?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How do you measure that if you don't know its destination?

Officially, the nav systems (which use warp speed) calculate bearing, velocity, and direction, based on the points of Earth and galactic center. That'll pretty much cover everything.

I would be really impressed if the nav system were able to judge the distance to both Earth and the center of the galaxy from a distance of several hundred or even thousands of light years.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, I've always assumed that warp factor was a measure of power, not a measure of speed. It's possible that close to a planet or star a warp factor really is just a multiple of the speed of light ....

Care to take a stab at why Kirk in TMP couldn't go to warp until he was away from the Earth and the sun?

The engines were untested at warp power. Gravity wells can screw with navigation and warp field balance and have to be carefully accounted for. Failure to do so may result in "bad things."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Space is a vacuum, it doesn't have points?"

All a "point" is, is a definition of location by the use of coordinates. OF COURSE VACUUMS HAVE "POINTS IN THEM." If you can say "in this box, with absolutely no atmosphere inside it, you need to observe a location 3 meters from the floor, 4 meters from the nearest wall, and 5 meters from the wall to your left..." then you've just proven, incontrovertibly, that "there are points in a vacuum."

Mathematically. But that's not what I'm talking about.

You measure distance between "point a" and "point b." Those points require the existence of a stationary object which can be used to calibrate a coordinate system. The walls of the box, for example, comprise fixed objects you can use for a coordinate system.

Space lacks such fixed objects, because all objects in space are in motion relative to each other. Even large and relatively stable structures like galaxies and galactic clusters are actually hurtling through space are really alarming velocities, many in orbit around one another and their own barrycenters.

So you can have a fixed coordinate system based on a box. You can have a coordinate system based on the center of the ferris wheel that the box is on. You can have a fixed coordinate system based on the planet that the ferris wheel is on. But in order to meaningfully measure speed and velocity you have to have a FIXED coordinate system based on something.

It doesn't matter if an absolute coordinate system does exist based on some kind of quintessence or luminiferrous aether; unless you are able to take reliable measurements of it, you cannot use that coordinate system for those kinds of judgements. Subspace might work in that regard, but then you have to account for your movement through that movement in your galaxy/planet/moon/cluster/etc, and that can seriously throw off warp factor judgements and other velocity estimates.

So warp factor as power output makes the most sense. You can estimate relative velocity based on "chi factor" and prevailing spatial conditions in the area to get a range of velocities. Warp factor as "absolute velocity" either raises more questions than it answers, or it raises questions better left ignored and explained through "magic."

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Mathematically. But that's not what I'm talking about.

You measure distance between "point a" and "point b." Those points require the existence of a stationary object which can be used to calibrate a coordinate system. The walls of the box, for example, comprise fixed objects you can use for a coordinate system.

Space lacks such fixed objects, because all objects in space are in motion relative to each other. Even large and relatively stable structures like galaxies and galactic clusters are actually hurtling through space are really alarming velocities, many in orbit around one another and their own barrycenters.

So you can have a fixed coordinate system based on a box. You can have a coordinate system based on the center of the ferris wheel that the box is on. You can have a fixed coordinate system based on the planet that the ferris wheel is on. But in order to meaningfully measure speed and velocity you have to have a FIXED coordinate system based on something.

It doesn't matter if an absolute coordinate system does exist based on some kind of quintessence or luminiferrous aether; unless you are able to take reliable measurements of it, you cannot use that coordinate system for those kinds of judgements. Subspace might work in that regard, but then you have to account for your movement through that movement in your galaxy/planet/moon/cluster/etc, and that can seriously throw off warp factor judgements and other velocity estimates.

So warp factor as power output makes the most sense. You can estimate relative velocity based on "chi factor" and prevailing spatial conditions in the area to get a range of velocities. Warp factor as "absolute velocity" either raises more questions than it answers, or it raises questions better left ignored and explained through "magic."

Well, that's where the real question arises.

And the simple truth is that we don't know if there's any sort of "universal coordinate system." I'm not talking math here, I'm talking "fabric of space/time."

There are four major options, and we don't know if the last few work.

1. Coordinate system based entirely up your local frame of reference. This is used in trek, by the way... "bearing 2465 mark 23" for example... for helm operations and sensor operations, but not overall navigation.
2. Coordinate system based upon "landmarks" (lets say, identifiable quasars and pulsars, or upon a network of "navsats" placed throughout Federation territory). I believe that most "civilian" ships will use the latter, while ships operating outside of "civilized" areas will be forced rely on the former.
3. Coordinate systems based upon "the fabric of space-time." I fully expect that any ship capable of interstellar travel in the Trek universe has this capability... sort of like how a naval vessel can measure its own location relative to the water its sitting in, and measures its speed versus that water as well.
4. Coordinate systems based upon some "universal absolute." I, personally, strongly suspect that such a thing actually exists (though we have no means at the moment to quantify it). This would be of minimal use in "real space/time" operations, but might be meaningful in Trekkian terms... especially if the prior option isn't an option (ie, if the "ocean" isn't flowing but is stationary... in which case, perhaps this one and the prior one are the same?)

The real question is whether "space/time" itself can move or shift relative to some higher-order reference scheme.

That's the whole point behind "subspace eddies" and "warp corridors" and so forth, really... that somehow "subspace" flows along different paths than "real space/time" does, so the relative difference between a vector inside subspace and the equivalent vector in real space/time can vary in length depending on what path you follow.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Okay, according to Memory Alpha's entry on "Star Trek Is..." by Gene Roddenberry which was his his first Draft proposal for Star Trek

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_is...

It states that at the maximum speed, the vessel could traverse 0.73 LY in one hour.

According to my computations 1 LY in 1 day is 365.25c. 1 LY an hour would be 24 times faster at 8,766c. Divide that by 0.73 and you reach 12,008.12 c. Truthfully that would be a very official speed-figure, but it was an early draft and I'm not sure how well it compares from data in the show itself.


I think the best figure to go by would be the 2 star systems in 1 day in the episode with The Doomsday Machine. I already computed estimates for such a velocity as being between 3,141.15c to 7,305c (Warp 14.645 to Warp 19.4).

This speed is extremely fast yet considering that the ship rarely seemed to be traveling in a straight line for a long time, as in months or years. The ship often hopped from system to system, sometimes had to head back to a starbase, or make a diversion to a planet to deal with Klingons or something, and such, and with all that back and forth action going, and cruising under impulse while inside a star-system, that really does add a lot of time to what one would consider for travelling in a straight line for a protracted period of time.

Still, that was based on the assumption that most star systems are between 4.3 LY and 10 LY apart. Does anybody know how far most star systems are on average from each other?


Regardless, and this is what I would like to get back to...

I would almost swear I saw a chart which illustrated the Chi factor which showed numerous mentions in which a warp-factor was stated and how much distance was actually traversed in that time. It illustrated an actual speed and such and thus also showed the Chi factor.

Ronald Held said he had the chart and was looking for it... where did it go?


CuttingEdge100

 

[Mytran]

... It states that at the maximum speed, the vessel could traverse 0.73 LY in one hour. According to my computations 1 LY in 1 day is 365.25c. 1 LY an hour would be 24 times faster at 8,766c. Divide that by 0.73 and you reach 12,008.12 c. Truthfully that would be a very official speed-figure, but it was an early draft and I'm not sure how well it compares from data in the show itself...

Interestingly, at that speed a trip to the centre of the galaxy (such as in "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" or "Star Trek V") would take a little over 5 days. Suddenly it's quite feasible!

 

[SonicRanger]

... It states that at the maximum speed, the vessel could traverse 0.73 LY in one hour. According to my computations 1 LY in 1 day is 365.25c. 1 LY an hour would be 24 times faster at 8,766c. Divide that by 0.73 and you reach 12,008.12 c. Truthfully that would be a very official speed-figure, but it was an early draft and I'm not sure how well it compares from data in the show itself...

Interestingly, at that speed a trip to the centre of the galaxy (such as in "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" or "Star Trek V") would take a little over 5 days. Suddenly it's quite feasible!

How in the world do you figure that? Earth is about 35,000 light-years from our galaxy's central bulge. At 12,000 c, it would take three years to go from Earth to the center of the Milky Way.

 

[Shawnster]

... It states that at the maximum speed, the vessel could traverse 0.73 LY in one hour. According to my computations 1 LY in 1 day is 365.25c. 1 LY an hour would be 24 times faster at 8,766c. Divide that by 0.73 and you reach 12,008.12 c. Truthfully that would be a very official speed-figure, but it was an early draft and I'm not sure how well it compares from data in the show itself...

Interestingly, at that speed a trip to the centre of the galaxy (such as in "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" or "Star Trek V") would take a little over 5 days. Suddenly it's quite feasible!

How in the world do you figure that? Earth is about 35,000 light-years from our galaxy's central bulge. At 12,000 c, it would take three years to go from Earth to the center of the Milky Way.

35,000 (LY) divided by 0.73 (LY per hour) = 47945.2 hours travel time at 0.73 LY per hour. This equals 1997.71 LY per day, Looks like it would take 5.4 YEARS to travel 35,000 light years at a constant velocity of 0.73 LY per hour.

 

[Cid Highwind]

Regardless, and this is what I would like to get back to...

I would almost swear I saw a chart which illustrated the Chi factor which showed numerous mentions in which a warp-factor was stated and how much distance was actually traversed in that time. It illustrated an actual speed and such and thus also showed the Chi factor.

Ronald Held said he had the chart and was looking for it... where did it go?

This may be less than what you're looking for, but we've got this on Memory Alpha: List of "confirmed" speed./.wf combinations

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Cid Highwind,

This is pretty good for the time being...


CuttingEdge100

 

[T'Girl]

35,000 light-years is 12,783,750 light-days, at 12,000 times light that's 1,065 days or 2.9 years. how are we getting different numbers?

For story purposes this is too fast, Vulcan in eight hours, Voyager is home in 5.8 years. We need our heros to have to take some time to get where they're going.

I don't know high physics, but space does have a substance or fabric that can be measured.

 

[Hofner]

Actually 0.73 lightyear per hour is about 6400 times c not 12000. 0.73ly/hr times 24 times 365.25 for distance travelled in a year.

Robert

 

[CuttingEdge100]

How far was Vulcan from Sol in Star Trek? I remember in TMP Scotty saying he could get Spock home in 4 days...

 

[Longinus]

How far was Vulcan from Sol in Star Trek? I remember in TMP Scotty saying he could get Spock home in 4 days...

Memory Alpha says a little over 16 LY, but I don't remember when it has been stated on screen.

 

[Cid Highwind]

^ENT:Home, obviously in reference to the "40 Eridani A" star system that has been suggested to contain Vulcan (MA:Vulcan).

 

[T'Girl]

Since various stars have been suggested thru the years I used a general eleven light years to Vulcan.

And I never said eight hours from EARTH !