"Faster than light, no left or right"

[Cyke101]

So the line about warp travel comes from Voyager's "Fury," with the more direct definition of "Maintain a linear trajectory wherever possible while at warp speed."

However, I could have sworn that ships since TOS could always maneuver or turn at warp speeds. As such, Memory-Alpha states that Fury is the only episode where the ship couldn't turn at warp.

This topic has been discussed before I couldn't find it through the search function (nor do I want thread necromancy), but I recall some interesting back-and-forth facts and theories about if there were any cases where the stated rule. Essentially, can Tom Paris' nursery rhyme be reconciled with previous showings of warp? Additionally, what ARE some examples of any type of ship maneuvering at warp?

(I believe BOBW has the Cube changing course at warp to intercept the E-D, but I could be wrong, and also, it's a Borg Cube and it can do a heck of a lot more than a Starfleet vessel)

 

[Vance]

(I believe BOBW has the Cube changing course at warp to intercept the E-D, but I could be wrong, and also, it's a Borg Cube and it can do a heck of a lot more than a Starfleet vessel)

"Pivot at Warp 2!" - Elian of Troy

The maneuvers in the "The Ultimate Computer"
The maneuvers in the end of "Enterprise Incident"

Hell, the TOS ship maneuvers at warp routinely just going from 'A' to 'B'.. or back from Wulcan to Wulcan 'cause Spock's gettin' randy.

Honestly, I can't think of a single occurance other than Voyager that makes the claim that you can only go to warp in a straight line.

 

[wildstar]

Hate to say it, but it always seemed like something that a writer or producer thought up and thought it was cool that it rhymed or something - so it got used.

 

[Cyke101]

Honestly, I can't think of a single occurance other than Voyager that makes the claim that you can only go to warp in a straight line.

Aye, and that it's the only occurance within Voyager itself makes the claim suspect.

The closest thing I can think of is in DS9 when Kor's Bird of Prey drops out of warp to do a 180 and warp again, but one could argue that it's simply faster to do that than to make a huge turning arc at warp to turn around anyway. Even then, in that case, it was a matter of a straight line and not truly maneuvering.

Also, thanks for the TOS examples!

 

[Bill Morris]

But does it make any sense that a ship could pivot or traverse a curved path at warp? When I first heard Kirk give the command to pivot at warp 2, I thought it was ridiculous.

 

[sojourner]

^Apparently it does make sense, since it was done numerous times on the show.

 

[Saquist]

The line from Voyager makes sense. The warp field seems like an extremely week envelope as in Voyager and TNG all manner of things can disrupt it. TOS hadn't worked out the mechanics of warp to this degree. And while i'm sure changing course is possible it seems Voyager was making a statement on radical course changes.

 

[Cyke101]

The line from Voyager makes sense. The warp field seems like an extremely week envelope as in Voyager and TNG all manner of things can disrupt it. TOS hadn't worked out the mechanics of warp to this degree. And while i'm sure changing course is possible it seems Voyager was making a statement on radical course changes.

To me, the phrase "wherever possible" makes it seem less like radical and more like, perhaps, smaller scale and less routine. But even if TNG went along with Voyager in the kinds of things that could disrupt the warp field, TNG had the Enterprise and other ships/objects change course at warp as well.

It doesn't seem to make sense if this rule was mentioned in only one episode and discarded later on in the face of all the other episodes, including perhaps later episodes.

 

[danellis]

...And while i'm sure changing course is possible it seems Voyager was making a statement on radical course changes.

That's how I've always taken the line: a ship can change course gradually, in large graceful arcs. A ship can "change course" rather than "maneuver."

This is the way starships are depicted as being akin to sailing ships rather than aeroplanes in their maneuverability.

dJE

 

[Timo]

..can Tom Paris' nursery rhyme be reconciled with previous showings of warp?

Of course it can. And exaclty because it is a nursery rhyme, "the first thing they teach you at the Academy".

It's the same as first teaching fighter jocks that they have to fly straight and avoid high gees; that's how they learn not to destroy their planes without help from the enemy. Maneuvering comes later. But it's good never to forget the basic fact that turning will hurt your F-16, and hurt it a lot. In the situation our VOY heroes were facing, the prospect was that they'd constantly be doing sharp turns, something that had never happened to any starship at warp in the previous Trek episodes or movies; a very good moment to bring up that nursery rhyme, which does not apply in most other situations.

In face of evidence, it's pretty logical to assume that a starship can turn on a dime but will suffer from it, just like a starship can exceed its design speed but will suffer from it. Picard had to pay for flying at high warp on two or three occasions where his ship required a major warp systems overhaul.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cyke101]

..can Tom Paris' nursery rhyme be reconciled with previous showings of warp?

Of course it can. And exaclty because it is a nursery rhyme, "the first thing they teach you at the Academy".

It's the same as first teaching fighter jocks that they have to fly straight and avoid high gees; that's how they learn not to destroy their planes without help from the enemy. Maneuvering comes later. But it's good never to forget the basic fact that turning will hurt your F-16, and hurt it a lot. In the situation our VOY heroes were facing, the prospect was that they'd constantly be doing sharp turns, something that had never happened to any starship at warp in the previous Trek episodes or movies; a very good moment to bring up that nursery rhyme, which does not apply in most other situations.

In face of evidence, it's pretty logical to assume that a starship can turn on a dime but will suffer from it, just like a starship can exceed its design speed but will suffer from it. Picard had to pay for flying at high warp on two or three occasions where his ship required a major warp systems overhaul.

Timo Saloniemi

So then it's "possible just not encouraged" rather than "turning is impossible at all."

 

[Timo]

Nobody said turning would be impossible, or difficult, or anything else; there is no such adjective, and no verb, in Tom Paris' rhyme. Apparently, it's just a gentle suggestion not to turn unless necessary.

That is, it's the first thing one learns. And then one unlearns it, when further lessons are taught.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cyke101]

Nobody said turning would be impossible, or difficult, or anything else; there is no such adjective, and no verb, in Tom Paris' rhyme. Apparently, it's just a gentle suggestion not to turn unless necessary.

That is, it's the first thing one learns. And then one unlearns it, when further lessons are taught.

Timo Saloniemi

Sure, I suppose it's the fan-implication (and, I suppose, Star Trek: Legacy) that turning is impossible that was problematic when I started this thread.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Didn't the Enterprise-D's stardrive section do a hard U-turn at high warp in "Encounter At Farpoint?" I don't recall the ship dropping out of warp after saucer separation...

 

[Cyke101]

Didn't the Enterprise-D's stardrive section do a hard U-turn at high warp in "Encounter At Farpoint?" I don't recall the ship dropping out of warp after saucer separation...

The scene in general seems odd. If I recall correctly, the dialogue says or implies that they maintain warp, but when we get an outside shot, the stars aren't streaking, almost as if they had dropped out of warp to complete the procedure. I could also be misremembering, so maybe a more objective mind can comment on it.

Then again, it's the pilot and pilots tend to differ from the rest of the show.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Didn't the Enterprise-D's stardrive section do a hard U-turn at high warp in "Encounter At Farpoint?" I don't recall the ship dropping out of warp after saucer separation...

The scene in general seems odd. If I recall correctly, the dialogue says or implies that they maintain warp, but when we get an outside shot, the stars aren't streaking, almost as if they had dropped out of warp to complete the procedure. I could also be misremembering, so maybe a more objective mind can comment on it.

Could be looked at as a case of relative motion in regards to the camera perhaps...

 

[John O.]

In Enterprise's "Divergence" I'm pretty sure the Columbia rotates 180 degrees while at warp.

 

[SchwEnt]

I believe we are getting into matters of orientation, rotation, translation and such. Roll / Pitch / Yaw about yer axes versus heading and vector.

I count the VOY line as the fluke, the one that doesn't fit all other cases we've seen it to be true.

But to explan it away, perhaps it does refer to orientation.

There's the left/right of the warp field/bubble around the ship. Maybe *that* can move left and right going thru subspace.

And the "no left or right" refers to the ship's orientation WITHIN the warp field. Or something.

 

[Saquist]

That's how I've always taken the line: a ship can change course gradually, in large graceful arcs. A ship can "change course" rather than "maneuver."

This is the way starships are depicted as being akin to sailing ships rather than aeroplanes in their maneuverability.

dJE

BINGO

The line from Voyager makes sense. The warp field seems like an extremely week envelope as in Voyager and TNG all manner of things can disrupt it. TOS hadn't worked out the mechanics of warp to this degree. And while i'm sure changing course is possible it seems Voyager was making a statement on radical course changes.

To me, the phrase "wherever possible" makes it seem less like radical and more like, perhaps, smaller scale and less routine. But even if TNG went along with Voyager in the kinds of things that could disrupt the warp field, TNG had the Enterprise and other ships/objects change course at warp as well.

It doesn't seem to make sense if this rule was mentioned in only one episode and discarded later on in the face of all the other episodes, including perhaps later episodes.

As fans we consider it a black or white is or it isn't issue.
But the thing is we don't know what they did in those occasions make those course corrections possible.

Were they large arcs spanning several AU?
Did they pull the equivalent of flaps on the warp fields or feather the "blades" so to speak to trim the warp field.

In the Voyager episode the mines or what ever they were may have been placed so close that traveling through them without sublight was impossible. Remember the whole idea was to force them out of warp.

I thinks it's a conceivable reason for this rule.

 

[Cyke101]

It's a conceivable reason for this rule.

I like Timo's reasoning better about stress and speed rather than some implied rules about the warp bubble being super-sensitive that were never discussed in the episode and thus seem extra fanwanky as an afterthought. It seems after 30 years of warp travel onscreen, to come up with a rather specific limitation seems very odd (again, seeing as how later episodes and Enterprise contradict it), and then for fans to come up with a more-convoluted-than-it-needs-to-be explanation rather than the writers seems out of place as well.