It hasn't been contradicted on screen, and I've had the same explanation in my head, so you'll get nothing but support from me
Do the number of nacelles make any difference in ship speed?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
It hasn't been contradicted on screen, and I've had the same explanation in my head, so you'll get nothing but support from me
'Faster than light, no left or right' is probably applicable in only the most basic sense.
Namely, Tom Paris also immediately mentioned: 'course corrections COULD fracture the hull'... but we've never actually seen this happen with starships (which frequently made course corrections at Warp).
In this instance, we have no canonical data to support the idea that more nacelles allow for greater maneuvering at Warp speed (although I suppose its a possible added function).
Warp nacelles from what we do know contain Warp coils which are responsible for generating the Warp bubble around the ship.
Ergo, having more nacelles probably gives you a more stable/powerful Warp field which you can control more easily.
In that sense, I suppose there is nothing to suggest that you can't use more nacelles for better maneuvers, however, it also seems just as likely that more nacelles allow them to generate a stronger warp field which allows for greater speeds too... and possibly lower power/resource expenditure.
So, multi-purpose benefits.
FWIW, the TOS Enterprise maneuvered at warp speed all the time.
One time that springs to mind when Kirk gave an order to do so explicitly was in "Elaan of Troyius": "We'll pivot at warp two...."
One time that springs to mind when Kirk gave an order to do so explicitly was in "Elaan of Troyius": "We'll pivot at warp two...."
Indeed, episodes such as that one told us that warp provided agility, and losing warp meant losing not just FTL but also maneuverability, i.e. the ability to point one's nose at the enemy flying past.
This makes plenty of sense when we enter the later technobabble about subspace fields (incl. the warp field) lowering the inertia of the object. It's possible to warp without impulse ("Obsession", say), but not to impulse without warp, not nimbly anyway.
Perhaps more nacelles means the ability to dedicate the output of more of 'em to facilitating inertia-free turns?
Timo Saloniemi
This makes plenty of sense when we enter the later technobabble about subspace fields (incl. the warp field) lowering the inertia of the object. It's possible to warp without impulse ("Obsession", say), but not to impulse without warp, not nimbly anyway.
Perhaps more nacelles means the ability to dedicate the output of more of 'em to facilitating inertia-free turns?
Timo Saloniemi
The subspace field lowers the inertial mass of the starship that's generating it.
DS9 was able to traverse 160 million km by the following day... but we don't know exactly how much time has passed.
We know that without the use of a subspace field (and with only 6 thrusters), the trip would have taken 2 months (or roughly 60 days) - which translates to 2.666 million km per day... 111,111 km per hour, and 30.8 km per second.
If we're being conservative and estimate that with the subspace field in use it would take about 24 hours for DS9 to traverse 160 million km, that gives us a speed of about 1852 km per second using 6 thrusters (or about 40 times lower than 1 quarter light speed [74 000 km/s]- which should/would be considered 'average maximum impulse speed' - but as we noted, ships travelled at impulse using twice as much speed... even higher - surpassing light speed too - but technically not exceeding Warp 1 since I would imagine that Warp 1 would be classified as several times faster than Light Speed at least - FTL by classification means 'faster than light', not 'exactly as fast as light', so Warp 1 would have to be faster than Light Speed).
At sublight (impulse) velocities, ships frequently turned like nimble fighters (but this would make little difference when you are up against FTL based weapons and transluminal computers - in which case, Warp maneuverability matters more) - unless of course the automated targeting systems are damaged and you rely on manual targeting (which does provide you with better odds, because in such a situation, its down to the tactical officer skill).
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor
Either Warp Factor formulas from TOS or TNG have Warp 1 = Speed of Light EXACTLY!
On what are those formulas based though?
As far as I know there is no canon basis for the claim that warp 1 = light speed... And if it was... Why call it warp when it's not faster than light?
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor
Look at this picture from ST:ENT
Those warp speed curves in Yellow are literally taken from the TOS formula.
The X-Axis is Wf = Warp Factor
The Y-Axis is Multiples of the "Speed of Light" in sections of 1c, 10c, 100c, etc.
Red Line is Power Consumption
It's the same Formula they've used in past official Technical Manuals which includes power consumption to pass certain Warp Factors that drops once you get right past the Whole # portion on the Wf scale.
Look at this picture from ST:ENT
Those warp speed curves in Yellow are literally taken from the TOS formula.
The X-Axis is Wf = Warp Factor
The Y-Axis is Multiples of the "Speed of Light" in sections of 1c, 10c, 100c, etc.
Red Line is Power Consumption
It's the same Formula they've used in past official Technical Manuals which includes power consumption to pass certain Warp Factors that drops once you get right past the Whole # portion on the Wf scale.
Last edited:
"Warp" is a reference to the method of propulsion, which warps the surrounding spacetime through subspace field distortion. The actual speed being above or below c is irrelevant to the fact that it is "warp."
--Alex
My headcannon, You can have as many warp engines as you want, but to me it doesn't improve anything except maybe effencency, if you have 4, you can have all 4 going, or just 2 going and you alternate during a long voyage? In my head thats why Constlation had 4 because it went a long way out, and had 4 just incase something happened.
Please don't directly link images from Memory-Alpha (or any wikia site), it won't work for other people. They'll just get a grey square when clicking on it.
Just find it (or upload it) somewhere else.
Ok, I fixed it.
R
RichT
Guest
Warp 9.975 on the TNG scale is ~5126c. Sustaining that speed and travelling as the crow warps, it would have taken Voyager about 13 years 8 months to get back to Federation space.
Another production mistake. The established speed for warp 9.9 on the TNG scale and included in the Star Trek: Voyager production bible is closer to 560 million miles per second.
Ths issue is that the "Production Bible" isn't on screen canon, and most folks go by on screen canon.
So I'm more inclined to believe Tom Paris statement.
R
RichT
Guest
Given some of the nonsense that Tom Paris has spouted on screen regarding warp travel (e.g. "when in warp flight, no left or right", despite the many times we've SEEN ships banking at warp), this should be considered suspect. If you're going to take this as accurate then you need to explain why the extrapolated speed for warp 9.9 based on this line is significantly higher than the extrapolated speeds for higher warp factors (9.975, 9.99), and that if Voyager really could reach "4 billion miles a second" she could have got back to Federation territory in just a few years under her own power. Ignoring this one figure as the anomaly is the more logical approach, and can be explained away as Paris either exaggerating to show off and not caring about accuracy since in context it doesn't really matter as long as it's a very big number, or simply not knowing how long a mile is and making a mistake.
I wouldn't put any stock on extrapolating a curve we have never seen on screen. That is, the warp 9 region has never been featured. And if anything, the quoted figure is too low to explain the dashes we experience at the command of "Maximum warp!". Importantly, though, the putative curve absolutely should skyrocket - it's gonna hit infinity at ten, after all...
OTOH, there's no problem with assuming that warp 9 is thrice as fast as quoted. After all, the ship can't sustain that for any length of time, and gets damaged in the attempt, as in "Threshold", heavily suggesting that a series of dashes will always be slower than a sustained lower warp factor that doesn't result in pit stops of increasing severity. Top speeds are irrelevant when one ponders how many lightyears one can cover in a week or a month, let alone in a few years. They only apply when one assesses distance traveled in hours.
Timo Saloniemi
OTOH, there's no problem with assuming that warp 9 is thrice as fast as quoted. After all, the ship can't sustain that for any length of time, and gets damaged in the attempt, as in "Threshold", heavily suggesting that a series of dashes will always be slower than a sustained lower warp factor that doesn't result in pit stops of increasing severity. Top speeds are irrelevant when one ponders how many lightyears one can cover in a week or a month, let alone in a few years. They only apply when one assesses distance traveled in hours.
Timo Saloniemi
The original TNG Writers Technical Bible had the Warp Factor over Warp 9 to be a hand drawn curve to infinity.
That utter BS is why I give more creedance to a in character assessment.
As far as making it back on her own power, Voyager could easily not have enough Dilithium Crystals and Deuterium / Anti-Deuterium to make it back at those speeds given the power consumption it would take to run at Warp 9.9 continuously.
Don't forget a bunch of parts on Voyager could only be designed for so many thousands to millions of ly's before replacement.
- Voyager's Unscheduled 70,000 ly journey from the Delta Quadrant to home -
- Based on the on-screen estimates of 75 year journey has a average cruise speed of Warp 8 assuming unlimited fuel
- Warp 8 would take 68.36 years if non-stop with unlimited fuel, but given stops, repairs, exploration, etc. They probably rounded up to 75 years
- That means I can guess that Warp 8 was their cruise speed assuming unlimited fuel (A VERY Unrealistic Scenario)
- Galaxy Class initial Average Cruise speed was Warp 6, but later on became Warp 7
- It's relatively safe to say that Warp 8 was the optimal cruise speed to travel the maximum distance like a modern day Aircraft has a "Cruise Speed" to get maximum distance as well.
I have a somewhat related question, how much evidence is there to indicate the TOS warp nacelles each house their own warp core? It's a concept I've grown more fond of over the past few years.
Sub-warp though, maybe more engines does equal more turn rate, since the hull stress limit is not as relevant.
I take Paris' statement more as a rule or thumb, or reminder of a more complex reality. The turn rate of a spaceship is fixed but the turn radius is variable: at a crawl a 180 degree per second turn rate means a turn radius smaller than a ship's length, but at 10,000 times the speed of light that 180 degrees per second turn rate means a turn radius measured in astronomical units. Then we also have hull stress limits, which explains why we only see gradual turns at warp, and not 1 second turns.
Sub-warp though, maybe more engines does equal more turn rate, since the hull stress limit is not as relevant.
I always took that as meaning the ship is a sitting duck without warp power, rather than warp drive. I think they note how the shields are good for only one or two passes without warp power. Though with TNG stuff we can definitely imagine the warp engines doing work at sublight too, even if it is to only to cancel their own no doubt considerable mass.
R
RichT
Guest
I don't quite know what point you're making here. The extrapolated speeds I quote are based on dialogue and events in episodes as listed on Memory Alpha.
Based on what?
Why?
So if it's the production team's own technical bible it's BS but this is fine? When did the Galaxy class cruise speed become warp 7? Why is it safe to say that about warp 8? Do you have any evidence for this beyond personal incredulity?
Memory Alpha isn't perfect.
Remember when Enterprise B didn't have it's "Tractor Beam" installed when it went in to rescue Guinan and her fellow travelers who were about to get her ship ripped apart by the Nexus. The Tractor Beam was supposed to be installed by next Tuesday.
I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have their full complement of Dilithium Crystals or Deuterium either since their initial missions of chasing the Maqui into the Badlands didn't require everything to be loaded at that time.
Remember the Aero Shuttle wasn't even installed at the time of launch.
All parts in real life on vehicles & vessels have a limited life span, nothing lasts forever, especially in the harshness of space.
Just like Dilithium Crystals eventually do get used up even with ReCrystallization going on or the Enterprise D needing a Baryon Sweep every so often, or Phaser Array Power Cells.
In real life, many parts in your Car, Plane, Home, etc all have a finite life cycle before it needs to be replaced.
Star Trek should be no different.
It's a matter of following the technical bible vs on-screen canon, in the end, the writers choose to have Tom Paris state that line and given that Tom Paris is a damn good pilot who went through proper training initially, I'm sure his #'s are fairly accurate for the Warp Factor he's stating, otherwise, why would he lie?
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Galaxy_class
It states on the side bar that the "initial average cruise velocity" was Warp 6.
The ST:TNG Technical Manual: Section 1.1, Page 1
Warp driver coils efficiency to meet or exceed 88% at speeds up to Warp 7.0. Minimum efficiency of 52% to be maintained through Warp 9.1. Life cycle of all primary coil elements to meet or exceed 1,200,000 cochrane-hours between neutron purge refurbishment. Secondary coil elements to meet or exceed 2,000,000 cochrane-hours between neutron purge refurbishment.
The "Initial average cruise velocity" being Warp 6 and the TNG Tech manual being Warp 7 at Maximum efficiency of 88% at speeds UP TO 7.0. That means they planned to Up-Rate the Average Cruise Velocity as it get certified through testing and in practical usage to validate planned design features. You wouldn't design that kind of specs for 88% efficiency UP TO Warp 7 if you didn't want to Up Rate your Average Cruise Velocity as the engines gets fully validated with in field use.
Even in IRL flight testing, Performance envelopes gets slowly expanded as they test and gather data through IRL usage and slowly push the engines of real life Aircraft and Vessels until they feel comfortable.
Then once it's fully certified, they continue observing data as FRP (Full Rate Production) units use it as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if StarFleet follows similar rigorous test procedures and slowly opens up the envelope for certification.
It's not like there were many Galaxy Classes initially since there was only a initial plan of 12 Galaxy Classes, so certification would take time as they expand the envelope, even through live in field usage.
Because I made logical analysis on the initial statement made by Kathryn Janeway for the 75,000 ly trip home in 75 years to the Alpha Quadrant.
Warp 8 is 1024c which would take 73.2421875 years to get home assuming a straight line trip.
You have to account for random stops, refueling, etc, so rounding up to 75 makes sense.
Warp 9 is 1,516.38110700484c which would take ~49.4599 years to get home assuming a straight line trip.
So logically they aren't planning on going at a overall average trip speed of Warp 9
That's how I came to the conclusion of Warp 8.
