And yet seemingly you are
What is your
actual evidence against the specific point I made?
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor
The listed Warp factor vs. average speed table that you use has tons of inherent contradictions in itself.
Wf 9.975 is listed 5x with WIDELY varying Average Speeds.
Alot of Wf 9.975 average extrapolated speeds makes no sense when you compare it to the TNG era Warp Factor formula that lists Wf 9.0 = 1516.381107c; and remember, the hand drawn curve past Warp 9 to Warp 10 scales to "Infinity".
Using the TNG Era Warp Factor formula:
Wf 9.0 = 1516.381107c
Your examples of Wf 9.975:
9.975 = 1,000c = 75,000 light years in 75 years ->
VOY: "
Caretaker" <- Makes no sense given the Actual TNG era Wf scale
9.975 = 33c = 10 million kilometers in ~1 second
-> VOY: "
Parallax" <- WTF?
9.975 = 1,554 - 1,721c = 132 light years in 1
month -> VOY: "
Relativity" "
Friendship One" <- Wf 9.0 = 1516.381107c,
how does "Wf 9.975 = 1,554 - 1,721c" when 10 is supposed to be infinity and 9.0 = 1516.381107c?
9.975 = 2,922c = 40 light years in 5
days ->
VOY: "
Relativity", "
Scorpion, Part II"
9.975 = 2,739c = 15 light years in 2 days ->
VOY: "
Hope and Fear"
None of the Wf 9.975 examples makes sense when Wf 10 = Infinity and the hand drawn curve needs to scale up to that speed.
Wf 9.9 being 21,473c makes FAR more sense when 10.0 = Infinity on the hand drawn compressed curve between 9.0 and 10.0.
Now you know why I hate the fact that the TNG era used that stupid hand drawn curve between 9.0 and 10.0
I already have a Warp Factor Scale 3.0 that takes the TNG era and deletes the stupid hand drawn curve to infinity and lets the scale naturally expand out in a Excel Spread Sheet towards Wf 65,535, anything past that, you can chuck it into excel and have it spit it out.
The Enterprise-B was at its commissioning ceremony. Voyager was commissioned on stardate 48038.5, and "Caretaker" takes place on stardate 48315.6, approximately three months later. Starfleet would be lax indeed if they hadn't completed the ship's standard equipment, weaponry, and fuel complement by the time they sent it on an actual mission, especially a dangerous and specialised one.
StarFleet was in a lax period during the TNG era, remember it just got it's butts handed to them @ Wolf 359; they're still ramping things up and First Contact hasn't happened yet, so the preperations for another big Borg encounter didn't happen till First Contact where they needed a large fleet to hold back the Borg invasion. And the Maqui Mission wasn't evaluated to be that dangerous, that's why they thought to send Janeway, a brand new Fresh Captain and former Science Officer to deal with it in a brand new ship.
Says who? I must have missed the episode where Paris stated this on-screen, sorry. The fact that they never used it is not evidence it was never there, especially as you can clearly see it on the underside of Voyager's saucer. It would be an unusually detailed blank plate if not.
The fact that it was never used, mentioned, or even referenced other than BtS (Behind the Scenes) speaks volumes.
Yes, detailed blank plates can easily exist in the 24th century, hell modern 3D printing would allow cheapo replica's in plastic, imagine what they can do with Industrial Replicators in the future.
Space isn't that harsh, certainly compared to the wear and tear machines would encounter in an atmosphere. Given that Voyager is mostly in interstellar space, too, there'd be remarkably little for it to interact with for the vast majority of the time.
Except all the times it gets battered by strange anomaly's, gets shot at, goes within the atmosphere, enters unusually dense nebulas. Enter the atmosphere of a planet, etc.
Where does it state dilithium crystals eventually get used up even with recrystallisation?
Dilithium Crystals were always a resource that gets depleted, since the TOS era. The only difference is the speed / rate of depletion.
The baryon sweep is a problematic and poorly described concept, since the ship's hull is mostly baryons anyway, and the only time we see phaser array power cells degrade and need replacing is on the Defiant, which is stated several times to be overpowered and prone to damaging itself.
Yet the Baryon Sweep is still an issue that happens if you travel at High Warp for long enough.
Just because the Defiant consumes Phaser Array power cells at an accelerated rate doesn't mean regular Phaser Arrays don't consume it a slower rate.
Just like modern day battery's degrade with use and age, it's only a matter of time and usage before it needs to be replaced.
We saw how many ship battles Voyager got into, doesn't mean they couldn't have replaced the Phaser Array Power Cells off screen.
Yes, it got downgraded to warp 5 in season seven, not upgraded.
Yes, by artificial regulation to protect the spacial environment because of the Eco Messaging allegory that the story wanted to portray. It's limitation by regulation only, not a technical limit.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Speed_limit
In all the Background Info:
- In Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, page 294, Brannon Braga noted that in his opinion "when you limit warp drive, the rug is being pulled out from under Star Trek." And, according to Star Trek Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 187), since starships used speeds above warp 5 after 2370, a solution was presumably found to the problem, even though it was not mentioned on-screen.
- According to the Star Trek: Voyager series bible, Voyager could exceed the warp speed limit without polluting the space continuum due to its improved warp drive system.
- According to the unpublished VOY Season 1 edition of the Star Trek: Voyager Technical Guide, by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda, it is suggested that because of the variable geometry pylons used on Voyager, the generated warp fields might no longer have a negative impact on habitable worlds as established in "Force of Nature".
So nobody really worries about that issue anymore since they found a way to implement Warp Drive without damaging Space.
My car, plane, home etc are mass-produced and have moving mechanical parts. Molecular replication and extensive use of force fields, repulsors, linear induction motors etc should make things last significantly longer.
And that just makes the end users push the equipment to a higher limit, and shortening the life span of those parts. Why else do you have such a large engineering staff on board most StarFleet ships to repair and replace parts? It's because they get pushed FAR harder than the "High Longevity" level usage would allow region over to "Short Longevity / High Performance" levels. I'm not surprised that StarFleet would do such things, when you can just replicate and have staff replace parts, it's not that big of a deal.
"When in warp flight, no left or right" – you tell me
How often do you make sudden Left Turns at high speeds? IRL, the faster you fly, the wider the turning radius you have to perform. Imagine how wide your turning radius would be at Warp Speeds, it would be relatively minor in end user perception and only allow super wide turns vs trying to turn at super low sub light speeds.
So I can't use the production documentation as a source but you can use the TNG Technical Manual, which is derived from that production documentation, and is itself contradicted by dialogue on screen? Interesting.
You can use it, but how often does your production documentation line up with what's shown or spoken on screen?
How often does it contradict with other more concrete stuff like the TNG era Warp Factor formula?
"The maximum efficiency at warp 7" line doesn't indicate it's a standard cruise speed for the Enterprise-D at all. the maximum efficiency for a modern car in terms of fuel economy is around 60mph but most cars spend most of their time travelling more slowly than that. It's simply a measure of expected engine performance.
Why would you have your, "Maximum Efficiency" point of your engines be at Warp 7.0 if that wasn't the design intention in the TNG technical manual? Why else would you label "Initial Cruise Velocity" if you weren't going to certify it for something else later? Why not "Standard Cruise Velocity"?
As far as cars, the efficiency point at around 60 mph is a design choice based on the roads we have and the amount of FWY we expect people to use when traveling vast distances between cities and towns.
The reason we spend more time below 60 mph is because of the Urban Sprawl we live in limits us to speeds below 60 mph with all the Signals slowing us down and putting speed limits below 60 due to short intervals between Signal Lights.
That's just a reality of how our modern society is designed.
There's no evidence assuming a straight-line trip. In fact Janeway would probably want to avoid the galactic core rather than cutting straight across it.
Regardless of it being a true "Straight-Line" or relatively straight while making slight detours around certain things like the large black hole in the center of our galaxy, the shortest route possible back to Earth was calculated at 75,000 ly distance covered in 75 years for a average travel speed/trip speed of ~1,000 c which is closer to Wf 8.0 which is 1024c
