Moore's Law and Star Trek propulsion

[NightCastle]

I was recently reading a facinating thread about the Deadalus Class relative to the NX class enterprise when the experimental propulsion system in the NX Class was brought up and I started wondering why there didn't appear to be (maybe I'm missing something) any application of Moore's Law to the design of the propulsion systems.

I know that our current engines for space travel (really space launching) is fledgling at best. But so was our computing and electrical engineering at one point. So, what I guess I'm trying to say is, why, if the propulsion systems of the Rodeberry universe were produced using technologial means, didn't they continue to increase speed output at a rate even somewhat close to Moore's Law. From what I have seen they appear to slow at an exact opposite rate.

(just for comparison) The warp speeds seem to grow relative to a logarithmic rate as opposed to an exponential rate.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Please, if I am missing something, let me know what it might be. Maybe it is in the way that the Warp numbers are calculated.

Thank you,
NightCastle

 

[Xerxes1979]

 

[NightCastle]

Hmm. While I see some small similarities to the exponential growth relative to each subsequent warp factor, it seems that overall it fits the logarithmic curve.

Thank you for the graphical representation.

So the theory is that safety is lost the higher speed you go? Isn't that the same with the speeds we currently see?

I would think that the speed/safety issue might become moot at that high of a speed especially with the definition of warp as it applies to space travel in our universe. Isn't the purpose of "Warp" to literally warp space such that there is nothing between you and your destination? Or am I misunderstanding the definition as it is used in the Roddenberry universe?

I still feel as if I am missing something.

Is the danger relative to the physical stresses on the vehicles that are traversing these distances at the high speeds? warp factors?

Thanks again for the graph.

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

Doesn't Moore's law apply to processor speeds, specifically, and not to technology generally? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Xerxes1979]

Development of warp drive would not resemble Moore's law in any way. Anything beyond 50c really only came through really hard fought efficiency gains in warp coils and hull geometry, probably after the Excelsior program.

Any way, the graph shows the energy requirements at various velocities. You can only pack so much matter and anti-matter in a given hull volume.

Warp drive is a dead end. Higher speeds require slip stream, Cytherian drive or transwarp conduits.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I think this thread will get a better reception over in our Trek Tech forum...

 

[NightCastle]

Thanks Misfit Toy.

The reason I thought it might apply here is because of the immense example of the processor speed increases over the past few decades while still using the same wall outlet electrical source. I thought that the same type of increases in electronic and computer-based efficiencies might be gained via Moore's Law when it came to squeezing out more power from the warp coils. Every 18 months the processors etc. become more efficient while still using the same wall outlet. The components in between the like the PSU get more and more complex and squeeze more and more processing power out from that same source despite using a similar architecture. Why not have the same principle apply to squeezing out more efficiency and juice from the warp coils. It may have to be extrapolated out some for the scale of warp drive technology.

Xerxes1979 what 50c are you referring to? I understand that most technological gains have their limitations. Were these threshold concepts that were created based on other propulsion advances in our universe or completely arbitrary? I understand that this is all based on a fictional universe, but a lot of what Roddenberry created was based on our universe's principles. That is why I ask.

Thanks for your replies. I appreciate the interest and willingness to discuss this with me.

 

[sojourner]

Moore's Law is a projection of the rate of development in the computer industry. Warp speed development would have to double every 18 months to fit Moore's Law. Clearly in the Trek setting it does not.

 

[Ronald Held]

I see no analog what so ever.

 

[Chaos Descending]

You may as well ask why car engines, jet engines, and boat engines don't all seem to follow Moore's Law as well.

For clarification, this is what Moore's Law actually says:
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer"

He was saying basically that every ONE year the number of transistors that can be crammed into a semiconductor device at minimum cost will double. Later on, he altered this to every TWO years.

Someone else said that processor power will double every 18 months.

You seem to be under the misconception that as processor computing speed has improved, it's power consumption has remained constant. This is not true at all. Power consumption by processors has gone up drastically over the years as well. It does not track proportionately with the increase in processing power only because efficiency is modestly improved incrementally as well.

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

If starships developed like computers, in TNG they'd go at Warp 1000, but would crash once an episode.

 

[sojourner]

If starships worked like printers, refueling would cost almost the same as building a new ship.

 

[ngc7293]

If starships developed like computers, in TNG they'd go at Warp 1000, but would crash once an episode.

Yes, but the newer ships are liquid cooled so they don't crash. But they have some other reason to fowl up the episode.

 

[PrimeDirective]

I don't think that there is a significant danger to the integrity of the ship the higher the warp factor, but like it has been mentioned in Star Trek episodes, comics, movies, and books, a ship's engine can't maintain high-warp speeds indefinately; it has to drop to a lower warp factor, or drop out of warp back into normal space until the engine cools down. The amount of time that a starship can stay at high warp depends on one main thing: The condition of the ship's engine and other devices that are needed to make warp possible, which are affected by the distances that the ship has to travel(just like any other mechanical device, the more stress its subjugated to, the more worn out it's going to be).

 

[Mytran]

Really? Tell that to Scotty in "That Which Survives"!!!

 

[PrimeDirective]

They made one huge mistake in that episode, which is that there is no freaking way that a 23rd-century starship can go past the warp-10 barrier without the ship immediately blowing up and/or the crew suffering disastrous consequences, due to space-time being warped too much. Not even a 24th century starship can go past warp 10(the fastest ship, not counting the ones equipped with the experimental quantum slipstream drive, is the U.S.S. Voyager which can go at a max warp speed of 9.995; this speed was before the novel Unworthy, where Voyager was equipped with a quantum slipstream drive).

The only known time that a ship has been known to go past warp 10, is when an away team from Voyager using the Delta Flyer(I think it was a shuttle) tried it, but the endevour wasn't without consequences. The crew of the vessel devolved into some sort of reptilian creatures, but thanks to advanced medical knowledge from the Dr., they were returned to their normal selves. So if you stay within the warp-10 barrier, my logic applies.

 

[Mytran]

Well a couple of things – Firstly, TOS predates TNG and Voyager, so technically those latter series got it wrong!

Secondly; in TOS, Warp 10 wasn't the same insurmountable speed limit that it was in TNG and Voyager. Certainly it was fast, but there was nothing to suggest that with the right equipment you couldn’t go Warp 11, Warp 20 and so on. In “The Changeling”, Nomad's trorpedos travelled at Warp 15 which was seen to be a (very) fast speed, but no more than that. In that same episode the enterprise reached Warp 11, so there's certainly the precedent set.

Actually, it’s a commonly held belief that the warp factor scale was re-drawn some time in the early 24th Century (in-universe), leading to corresponginly higher warp factors of 2-9, and Warp 10 as infinity at the top.

Personally I prefer the original series scale, but then again I’m a TOSser!

 

[sojourner]

Yea, refactoring the warp scale in hindsight was a big mistake. Now each new "teh awesome" ship has a max speed of 9.9999999995 or some such. Which just looks ridiculous.

It's equivalent to the old Spinal Tap argument of "this goes to 11!"

Even the producers of Voyager try to pretend that "Threshold" is not canon. SOOOOOOO bad.

 

[Mytran]

It's equivalent to the old Spinal Tap argument of "this goes to 11!"

I've never heard it put better!

 

[PrimeDirective]

I know that TOS predates Voyager, but that doesn't mean that the original series had it all right. Perhaps the warp scale that was used during the time of the original Enterprise used different numbers that had a different value than what the latter revamped warp scale used. For example, perhaps warp 11 was the latter equivalent of say warp 6, and warp 15=warp 10.