Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds

[Crazy Eddie]

A spatially varying Cochrane factor might be as viable as varying the exponent, with the data we have.
BTW, are we talking the speed the crew thinks the ship is moving at or the speed a distant observer thinks the speed is?

That's what I usually do. Made up a spreadsheet once where WF is basically C^(WF*ch) where Ch depends on the proximity to massive gravitating bodies (so warp 2 would be 1.3C in CIS-Lunar space, but goes up to around 20C in interstellar regions).

And specifically, for these purposes we'd be talking about the velocity of the ship relative to either its point of origin or its destination, either of which may also be in motion. For this reason, "warp factor" is really the only meaningful speed measurement since even traveling to a fixed point, actual velocity as a multiple of C can vary dramatically hour by hour, sometimes minute by minute.

 

[Timo]

...Probably not by a full c either way, though, if we're considering just starting point or endpoint movement. So even at moderate warp factors and using the cubic formula, the variance would be negligible: typically, less than a percent.

Greater variance would help sort out the conflicting evidence. But the variance should be somewhat systematic. If deep space featured regions where travel was significantly faster than elsewhere, all starship navigation scenes in Trek should prominently feature dialogue where our heroes seek out these "warp highways" - when in fact, there never is such dialogue in Trek. Wormholes or Borg conduits are very special cases of high speed travel, and subspace sandbars appear to be even less common.

The dialogue could be left out if the heroes and villains all knew beforehand that certain locations allow for faster travel and certain others slow down the ships - for example, if large masses slowed down warp travel. But if an unexplored swath of deep space featured significant differences, then there would have to be dialogue on finding and exploiting these differences; it would be massively more relevant than engine settings or headings or bearings or the like, then.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Wingsley]

The way I considered modifying Cochrane's Formula from MAPS was to forget about Cochrane's Variable having anything to do with ordinary gravitational phenomena. Instead, it would involve the interaction of warp drive with dark matter and/or dark energy. This would make sense if you consider that the Enterprise's warp drive suddenly went kaput upon hitting the Negative Energy Barrier without preparation in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", and also went down after a slingshot effect with a black hole in "Tomorrow is Yesterday".

 

[Longinus]

I just hate this whole locally variable warp nonsense. In forty years of Star Trek such is never even implied.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Longinus, I'd have to agree.

 

[Ronald Held]

If there is no spatial variations, why can the same distance(in magnitude) traveled at a fixed warp factor take different amounts of time?
Without a physical understanding of warp drive mechanics, you could make changes in chi of the exponent to get the same results.

 

[Vance]

If there is no spatial variations, why can the same distance(in magnitude) traveled at a fixed warp factor take different amounts of time?
Without a physical understanding of warp drive mechanics, you could make changes in chi of the exponent to get the same results.

It's called "Speed of plot".

It's one of those things where, at some point, you have to ditch the 'canonista' mindset and say "Yeah, Hollywood just fucked up here, we're moving on now"

Seriously, you want to know what the warp speeds REALLY mean? Here you go...

Warp 1: Light Speed
Warp 2: Slow. Thematic equivalent to a WWII-era freighter at sea
Warp 6: Cruising speed. Enough speed to get from star system A to B each week.
Warp 8: Emergency speed. Roughly translates to "Serious shit happening over there, let's get there NOW!"
Warp 9 (and beyond): [Bugs Bunny]Is this trip really necessary?[/Bugs Bunny]

That's it, people. That's the depth of the thinking. The WF^3 came along a little later to explain the Warp 1 and Warp 6 points (which give us decent enough numbers for government purposes) but that's it. It was also used in the technical manuals and RPGs for the franchise, where the data was more important than the 'plot of the week'.

Any numbers which don't neatly fit into this scheme really just amounts to the writers and producers (including Gene) not giving nearly as much of a shit about this stuff as everyone here does - including myself.

 

[Mytran]

Right, that's the basic tenet. What's wrong with investigating (numerous) theories that delve a little deeper?

 

[Longinus]

It's called "Speed of plot".

It's one of those things where, at some point, you have to ditch the 'canonista' mindset and say "Yeah, Hollywood just fucked up here, we're moving on now"

This. Thousand times this.

 

[Longinus]

Right, that's the basic tenet. What's wrong with investigating (numerous) theories that delve a little deeper?

Because it is like building a convoluted theory about time travelling Romans to explain a wristwatch in Spartacus.

 

[Wingsley]

^ You've just stumbled on the perfect definition for pulp sci fi. Welcome to a STAR TREK forum!

 

[CuttingEdge100]

At least for RPG purposes computing up a Warp Scale that is more in line with Gene Roddenberry's original intentions of being able to cover up to 0.73 LY an hour at maximum speed would be a good idea.

Considering Roddenberry probably didn't do much of the math or anything, assuming the cruise speed to be 6/8 or 3/4 of the ship's maximum velocity (which equals 0.5475 LY/hr, 4,799.385c, or Warp Factor ~16.8679).

I computed up the warp-scale for these kinds of speeds on Post #177, Page 9

This opens up a whole lot of interesting possibilities.


CuttingEdge100

 

[Vance]

Right, that's the basic tenet. What's wrong with investigating (numerous) theories that delve a little deeper?

It's the 'layers of bullshit' issue. That is to say that no matter how many layers of bullshit you pile on to explain things, you'll never find the diamond. You just have a bigger mess that usually stinks worse than when before you started.

Eventually you'll notice too that you do have to keep piling on the bullshit to explain the previous layers of bullshit. We've gone over a lot of these issues in this thread - the result is simply more bullshit and the original problem still isn't addressed.

In short, you generally have to accept that some of the specific numbers mentioned in the show were off (for dramatic purposes) in the same way that the Enterprise really doesn't dramatically change its shape every two sequences an episode.

 

[Vance]

This opens up a whole lot of interesting possibilities.

Well, keep in mind that the idea of WF6 as a cruising speed that allowed a ship to get from star to star within a few days or a couple of weeks. WF^3 being applied retroactively accomplishes this pretty well.

Keep in mind, though, that this was done AFTER the first season was canned and was NEVER in the the writer's bible, so it wasn't exactly strictly adhered to (ref: Photon Torpedoes).

 

[Wingsley]

^ This is exactly the kind of perspective I was talking about a few posts back.

If something the blends well with canon-content of TOS appeals to you, something that fits the stories was saw in TOS and TAS, then STAR TREK MAPS and its Cochrane's Formula is the ticket for you.

If your point of view has more to do with post-TOS gaming or other non-TOS literature such as novels or the Franz Joseph genre, or some other "worldview" of the TREK Universe that is less about TOS, then MAPS is probably not your cup of tea.

It depends on what you're looking for.

 

[Vance]

"This way lies madness"

The problem with trying to assign a 'real world' schema to canon is that you're attempting to quantify, in analytical terms, "Hollywood Whim". That's why I consider it pretty much folly, particularly when you throw in more and more datapoints (Klingon homeworld at four days at warp three, and so on).

Even if you throw aside warp speed as 'magic box' (using Chi, or what have you), you still have far too many other technical inconsistancies to make this a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[Mytran]

^So what you're saying is ... you don't think it's worth discussing - at all?
That's fine of course, but the sheer number of posts in this thread shows that for those interested in it there are many interpretations of the on-screen evidence. Naturally different conclusions will be reached to satisfy different personal cannons, including the "this is indecipherable" approach but by no means limited to it.

 

[Vance]

^So what you're saying is ... you don't think it's worth discussing - at all?

Eh, I don't think it's worth rushing to a point of trying to make any declaritive statement, and then defending it as 'absolute' to the point of treating other posters like crap - which has been done.

Also, you MUST accept that your starting point is "Hollywood", and that any 'scientific approach' has to deal with one of the most unscientific communities the world has ever seen.

It can be a fun exercize, certainly, but you'll NEVER get a definitive and functional answer, and certainly not one which can or should be treated as the 'final say' - if you're going the canonista route.

 

[Wingsley]

Since when is it news that STAR TREK is a product of Hollywood?

For all of its cheesiness and flaws, I've enjoyed reruns of TOS for many years. And the title of this thread is "Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds". So, like I said, if TOS is your thing, MAPS is going to be high on the list of candidates for your answer. If TOS and Hollywood productions are not your thing, you probably aren't going to do anything with this thread except run around in circles arguing over the follies of Hollywood.

 

[Longinus]

To me it seems silly to cook up a complicated theory that totally alters one major aspects from the show from how the the writers intended it to work, but whatever...

As for observing the speeds from the show, I wouldn't get hung up some isolated specific examples. Trying to make them all fit with any theory will just lead to madness. However, there is certainly some merit to the observation that the ships in show routinely move much faster than the non-canonical formulas would suggest, leading me to believe that ditching those formulas might be a good idea.