FC plothole? Why didn't the Borg create the vortex in the Delta Q?

[Christopher]

I always figured that it was dangerous to go to warp inside a solar system if your engines hadn't been balanced. That's what caused the trouble in STIMP.

That's part of it. But DS9: "By Inferno's Light" has Dax object when Kira orders taking the Defiant to warp inside a solar system, suggesting it's hazardous even for a properly calibrated engine.

I figure going to warp in-system kind of like speeding -- it's something that creates a risk of accidental harm to oneself or others, especially in a region with a lot of traffic, but the risk is justifiable for official vehicles in emergency situations.

 

[Tiberius]

I always figured that it was dangerous to go to warp inside a solar system if your engines hadn't been balanced. That's what caused the trouble in STIMP.

That's part of it. But DS9: "By Inferno's Light" has Dax object when Kira orders taking the Defiant to warp inside a solar system, suggesting it's hazardous even for a properly calibrated engine.

Maybe O'Brien had been tinkering with the engines and they hadn't had time to re-balance them yet.

I figure going to warp in-system kind of like speeding -- it's something that creates a risk of accidental harm to oneself or others, especially in a region with a lot of traffic, but the risk is justifiable for official vehicles in emergency situations.

That may be, but as I've said, we've seen the Enterprise warp out of orbit lots of times. One example that comes to mind is in "The Vengeance Factor," where the Enterprise warps out of orbit with the local dignitary on board. There wasn't really any emergency situation that called for warp speed at the earliest possible time, and acting recklessly without cause is not something I can see Picard doing when he got a local queen aboard.

 

[Christopher]

This is just one of those things that different creators deal with inconsistently, and there's no uniform approach. Going to warp in-system is only a problem when the writer chooses to make it a problem. So there's just no way to come up with a single rule that explains everything. Personally I tend to treat shots of ships going to warp directly out of planetary orbit as a dramatic shorthand, unless it's clear from the dialogue or story situation that that's what's literally happening.

 

[Tiberius]

This is just one of those things that different creators deal with inconsistently, and there's no uniform approach. Going to warp in-system is only a problem when the writer chooses to make it a problem. So there's just no way to come up with a single rule that explains everything.

Maybe, but it sure is fun to extrapolate!

Personally I tend to treat shots of ships going to warp directly out of planetary orbit as a dramatic shorthand, unless it's clear from the dialogue or story situation that that's what's literally happening.

I think that when Sovereign Marouk watches the Enterprise going to warp from the window and says, "A fine ship, Commander!" that's pretty strong evidence that it's what really happens. :P

 

[BillJ]

I always figured that it was dangerous to go to warp inside a solar system if your engines hadn't been balanced. That's what caused the trouble in STIMP.

That's part of it. But DS9: "By Inferno's Light" has Dax object when Kira orders taking the Defiant to warp inside a solar system, suggesting it's hazardous even for a properly calibrated engine.

I figure going to warp in-system kind of like speeding -- it's something that creates a risk of accidental harm to oneself or others, especially in a region with a lot of traffic, but the risk is justifiable for official vehicles in emergency situations.

Since I've seen ships go to warp dozens of times within star systems and have only heard it raised as a problem once, I'll simply go with DS9 getting it wrong.

 

[Christopher]

I think that when Sovereign Marouk watches the Enterprise going to warp from the window and says, "A fine ship, Commander!" that's pretty strong evidence that it's what really happens. :P

Except the only thing that really happened was that some actors delivered scripted dialogue in front of a camera and some special-effects artists created some imagery. And sometimes that dialogue and imagery can't be taken too literally. Roddenberry himself was known to suggest that what we saw onscreen in TOS was not the literal truth of what "really" happened in the Trek universe, but merely an imperfect dramatization thereof. In his preface to the TMP novelization, he adopted the persona of a 23rd-century producer who'd dramatized the "real" experiences of Kirk and crew, and acknowledged that said dramatization had been "inaccurately 'larger than life.'" And when 1979 audiences asked why the Klingons suddenly looked different in TMP, he asked them to accept that the Klingons had "really" looked that way all along, but TOS hadn't had the budget and technology to portray them appropriately.

There are certainly many things that can be rationalized in-universe; I've built a lot of my career as a Trek novelist on doing just that. But there are some things that are better just chalked up to dramatic license or inaccuracies in the shows' interpretation of what, let's face it, is an unreal future that they're making up as they go.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Acamar III could also be on the edge of Acamar solar system where there might not be dense asteroid fields or gravitational forces.

 

[DWF]

I always figured that it was dangerous to go to warp inside a solar system if your engines hadn't been balanced. That's what caused the trouble in STIMP.

That's part of it. But DS9: "By Inferno's Light" has Dax object when Kira orders taking the Defiant to warp inside a solar system, suggesting it's hazardous even for a properly calibrated engine.

I figure going to warp in-system kind of like speeding -- it's something that creates a risk of accidental harm to oneself or others, especially in a region with a lot of traffic, but the risk is justifiable for official vehicles in emergency situations.

And yet the Bounty went to warp in the earth's atmosphere in Star Trek IV.

 

[DonIago]

As I said before, what a ship technically can do, perhaps even with negligible risk, isn't necessarily what's considered "best practice".

Alternately, as Christopher said, perhaps that sequence shouldn't be taken literally.

 

[DWF]

As I said before, what a ship technically can do, perhaps even with negligible risk, isn't necessarily what's considered "best practice".

Alternately, as Christopher said, perhaps that sequence shouldn't be taken literally.

Ultimately television and movies work under the principle of show don't tell. If you can't understand what's going on even without dialogue then in a sense they've failed in that respect to properly convey the storyline.

 

[BillJ]

I don't understand why it's so hard to simply admit DS9 got it wrong. I'm pretty sure we've even seen the Defiant ordered to go to warp within a star system.

 

[DonIago]

Sorry, I thought we were considering different theories, not trying to engage in an "I'm right and you're wrong" discussion.

The latter is of little interest to me, regardless of which side I'm on.

Of course, even if going to warp in a solar system isn't a bad thing in general cases it could be a bad thing specifically in the Bajoran system given that there's at least one unique phenomenon located there.

 

[Pavonis]

Warping out of orbit, away from the system is probably not risky. It's done relatively often enough. It might be rude to do it, much like flooring the accelerator when pulling away from the curb.

Warping towards a star, though, would be a more risky maneuver. You wouldn't want to disengage the warp drive at the wrong moment and hit the star's photosphere without your metaphasic shields up, or to accidentally slingshot into a different timeline, or just generally damage your engines when the warp systems try to deal with the already warped spacetime around a star.

As I recall, Dax was astonished that Kira ordered a warp maneuver in the direction of the Bajoran sun; Kira was willing to take the risk to catch the Bashir-changeling before he/she/it did whatever it planned to do. How quickly can a starship stop when coming out of warp? I'd be worried about stopping in time if I was trying to not burn up in a star when coming out of warp!

 

[Tiberius]

I think that when Sovereign Marouk watches the Enterprise going to warp from the window and says, "A fine ship, Commander!" that's pretty strong evidence that it's what really happens. :P

Except the only thing that really happened was that some actors delivered scripted dialogue in front of a camera and some special-effects artists created some imagery. And sometimes that dialogue and imagery can't be taken too literally. Roddenberry himself was known to suggest that what we saw onscreen in TOS was not the literal truth of what "really" happened in the Trek universe, but merely an imperfect dramatization thereof. In his preface to the TMP novelization, he adopted the persona of a 23rd-century producer who'd dramatized the "real" experiences of Kirk and crew, and acknowledged that said dramatization had been "inaccurately 'larger than life.'" And when 1979 audiences asked why the Klingons suddenly looked different in TMP, he asked them to accept that the Klingons had "really" looked that way all along, but TOS hadn't had the budget and technology to portray them appropriately.

There are certainly many things that can be rationalized in-universe; I've built a lot of my career as a Trek novelist on doing just that. But there are some things that are better just chalked up to dramatic license or inaccuracies in the shows' interpretation of what, let's face it, is an unreal future that they're making up as they go.

Oh, you just love raining on my parade, doncha?

Anyway, if we're saying that things that didn't happen were portrayed as happening simply to make the episodes more dramatic, then I think the sudden danger of going to warp inside a solar system counts! *Grins*

 

[Christopher]

^I never said anything about "making the episodes more dramatic." I was talking about the difference between inconsistencies that can be effectively rationalized in-universe and inconsistencies that are too problematical or too minor to be worth concocting a convoluted explanation for and are easier just to chalk up to dramatic license and lack of consistency between different writers/producers.

Also, what I'm saying is that I prefer to accept that going to warp inside a solar system is generally a bad thing, and that it's the shots where ships warp out directly from orbit that I prefer to perceive as inaccurate, as dramatic shorthand to substitute for a sequence of leaving orbit and impulse and then later engaging warp drive. So you're not actually disagreeing with me here.

 

[BillJ]

Sorry, I thought we were considering different theories, not trying to engage in an "I'm right and you're wrong" discussion.

There are a lot of issues where the debate or theories are a good thing. But in this instance we have dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of ships leaving a planet at warp and one instance of someone saying its dangerous. It's like me trying to rationalize and hanging onto "anti-matter destroys the universe" because of The Alternative Factor yet ignoring that anti-matter is safely used in every other episode. Or trying to rationalize lithium vs. dilithium.

In the real world, the writer simply forgot about all the times a ship left a planet at warp. In universe, the easiest rationalization is that Kira simply doesn't know what she's talking about.

 

[Pavonis]

In universe, the easiest rationalization is that Kira simply doesn't know what she's talking about.

If we assume that, though, then Dax also "doesn't know what she's talking about", and Dax is the science and technology expert!

Besides, Kirk also commented on the dangers of going to warp in the solar system, but judged the risk worth it to intercept V'Ger as early as possible. I also recall the Borg themselves dropped out of warp when they entered the solar system, and so did Enterprise when they were in pursuit. So, there's more than one instance mentioning or suggesting the risk.

Frankly, I like my idea to explain these instances, but that's only natural.

 

[BillJ]

Yet Kirk left pretty much every star system at warp during TOS. So his concerns could simply be chalked up to essentially testing the new engines inside the solar system.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

My apologies if this has been brought up before, but it just occurred to me: why didn't the Borg create the temporal vortex in their own galaxy, thereby precluding any possibility that they would be interfered with?

I'm assuming they traveled from the Delta Quadrant. Couldn't they have just made the same journey...but in 2063? If they had done this, wouldn't this have assured they met no resistance when entering Earth's orbit?

What if the goal of the Borg wasn't actually to assimilate Earth in 2063, but was in fact to insure the success of first contact with the Vulcans, the formation of the Federation, and the creation of a vast technologically advanced society for the Borg to assimilate at some point in the future? 7 of 9 said that first contact was successful precisely because the Borg traveled back in time and the Enterprise intervened in stopping them and in helping Cochrane achieve his warp flight, and that the Federation ironically owed its very existence to the Borg. They purposely lost in the short term to win in the long term.

The same rationale could explain why they only send one cube at a time, why they enter Federation space a long distance from Earth in order to give its forces time to muster a defense even though a transwarp conduit exits right at Earth's front door, why they give their enemies easy opportunities to defeat them (don't attack boarding parties unless they're a threat, don't cut off captured drones from the Collective so they can be used against you, blow up if you're put in a sleep cycle, give Picard a connection to the Collective again so he has early warning of your approach and knows what vulnerabilities to exploit...).

Until humanity posed a threat to the Borg's very existence with Captain Janeway's actions (ironically again caused by the Borg increasing humanity's technological level) the Borg were simply fattening the hog before the slaughter, improving Earth and Federation society through conflict and adversity until they were ready to be assimilated at the biological and technological peak of their existence. By intervening in 2063 they created the Federation. By intervening in 2366 they destroyed a bunch of old ships and spurred the development of newer, more advanced ships and technologies. Unfortunately for them, their human lab experiment developed to the point where they threatened the Borg themselves, which is why you get the effort to destroy humanity completely in the Destiny novels.

This kind of temporal planning would require a technology that would allow them to view probable futures based on simulated changes to the past before actually making the changes, similar to the technology employed by Annorax and the Krenim. This would tell them that if they did action A, they would have a 83.62749% chance of achieving outcome B, but it would also be an inexact science by its very nature that would allow for unforeseen consequences (like the Federation eventually becoming powerful enough to defeat them). That ambiguity would also leave time travel as something that was still a dangerous tactic to employ unless you were reasonably sure of an outcome in your favor, so it wouldn't be used often even by the Borg.

 

[Christopher]

^That's a really cool idea. The only problem I have with it is that I really don't think the Borg are that smart or have that much foresight.