• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds

CuttingEdge100

Commodore
Commodore
I am aware of what the listed warp-factor capability for the Enterprise, the Klingon D-7, and such, I'm wondering how fast would the Enterprise be traveling on average considering the distances covered in the show.

For example Warp 7 would actually cover a little bit less than a light year every day. Yet in ST they do way more than that...


CuttingEdge100
 
I remember this person had a list which showed all sorts of mentions made in Star Trek mentioning what warp factor was stated, and/or how much distance was covered in a given period of time.

Once or twice the figures were W^3 spot on, but most of the time they were grossly off.
 
Since "Star Trek Maps" was published by Bantam in 1980, I always subscribed to their literature on warp velocity. (That's the Cochrane's Formula equation, with the almost-legendary, and controversial Cochrane's Variable, or "chi" factor, used to vary FTL velocities relative to the local environment.)

The unfolding cosmic discoveries of the last 30 years have made it clear that what "Maps" proposed could fit the drama of TOS, and maybe even all of the TREK franchise, but the specifics of the theory would have to be better explained. I started a thread called "WDE" in June of 2007 on this very subject. Here's a narrative I prepared as part of that thread.

I may alter the starship classes legacy, since I've gone back and rethought that.
 
Well, then there's also Elaan of Troyus where a Klingon battlecruiser traveling at "better than warp seven" covers a distance of about 500,000km in a little over 30 seconds. :vulcan:
 
Maybe the Klingon was on an evasive course, maybe parabolic, and it travelled alot further than 500,000 kilometers.
 
The purpose of the 'chi' variable is to translate the Hollywood BS into the WF^3 formula. Its use, though, makes the whole concept of WF absurd and useless, since it's akin to saying "Well, we're doing 50mph, depending on road conditions, we really could be going anywhere from 20mph to 200mph. But we're SET at 50mph!" All around useless.

In truth, WF^3 was made so that the Enterprise could reasonably get from one star system to the next in time for the next week's episode. 216C fit that pretty nicely. But, really, that was it. We have GOT to accept that what's on screen is HOLLYWOOD, and is very prone to 'stupid writer mistakes', particularly in technology and speculative technology. Trek is more consistant than other works, sure, due to its early track record of having hard sci-fi authors involved... but let's not forget what Trek really -is- when approaching the technology mentioned.

In short, you will not, ever, be able to reconsile 100 percent of the Hollywood BS, and just adding more BS to try to do so will only succeed in making your effort worthless.
 
The purpose of the 'chi' variable is to translate the Hollywood BS into the WF^3 formula. Its use, though, makes the whole concept of WF absurd and useless, since it's akin to saying "Well, we're doing 50mph, depending on road conditions, we really could be going anywhere from 20mph to 200mph. But we're SET at 50mph!" All around useless.

Many cars have tachometers in addition to speedometers, and the "energy thresholds" in the TNG Tech Manual help make warp factors a bit analogous to how hard the engine works in different gears.
 
"I'm sorry officer, I couldn't have been going 60mph! My tachometer didn't go over 2000rpm!"... we'll see how far THAT gets you.

Difference is, tachometers are NOT used to measure velocity, ever. WF are used for final velocity, since it doesn't translate to 'how much warping is going on'... just the end result of velocity. Chi is a failed half-assed attempt to explain Hollywood BS, and makes no sense as a practical measure since it reduces WF to a random number based on chaos theory.

It makes some Trekkies feel better about the 'consistancy of their shared universe', but it's still a BS band-aid over a BS problem brought about by Hollywood BS. At some point, you have to say 'It's Hollywood, we understand contrivance'.
 
I am aware of what the listed warp-factor capability for the Enterprise, the Klingon D-7, and such, I'm wondering how fast would the Enterprise be traveling on average considering the distances covered in the show.

For example Warp 7 would actually cover a little bit less than a light year every day. Yet in ST they do way more than that...


CuttingEdge100
There is remarkably little "logical" consistency with real astronomy and "Trek travel times." Hence the "subspace rivers" ideas and the "cochrane factor" and all that stuff... which I tend to disregard.

I stick with the WF^3, TWF^5 rule... and I also assume that the "Roddenberrian, WF10=infinity" thing was the "bad" system that was damaging space/time in TNG which has since been abandoned. ;)

FYI, here's a little chart I made up some time back, to help visualize the difference between the various "warp scales"... and to visualize just how fast each is.
warpscaleskd7.jpg
 
^

If by "Used Consistently" you mean "Used completely inconsistently from episode to episode and movie to movie," then yes.
 
^

If by "Used Consistently" you mean "Used completely inconsistently from episode to episode and movie to movie," then yes.
No, "Used consistently" as in "this is how it was explained, even if the real cosmological distances between real objects were seldom really understood."

That is... the intention was WF^3*c. The "production" use was that the ship moved at the "speed of script," of course.
 
How did you arrive at "transwarp factors" as being TWF^5?

That was FASA's numbering from Transwarp in their last few supplements.
That is not my answer. The question was "how did you arrive at TWF^5?" The answer you gave has NOTHING to do with the answer to the question.

CuttingEdge...

Think basic mathematics. In order to do any velocity calculations, or any other "physics-type" calculations for that matter, you need to have both positive and negative numbers.

Now... take any number to a POSITIVE power (^2, ^4, ^6, etc) and you only get positive numbers. So it's impossible to do the math. And as a result, the use of these power to calculate higher-order warp speeds is impossible.

"Transwarp" is established on-screen only as being a generation ahead of "warp drive." It's got to be dramatically better.

Someone, very early on (it may have been someone in the ST-III Production team, but I can't be sure) decided that, with WF^3 being "warp drive," going to the fifth power was the obvious next step.

FASA, later on, PICKED UP on that, but they did NOT originate the concept. They adopted it. I knew of this long before FASA published any of their materials on the topic.

Mathematically, it sort of makes sense, as well. Imagine that you have a propulsion system that sort of "layers" your "warp drive" concepts... a "warp field" inside of a "warp field"... You'd expect that incremental jump, wouldn't you?

The way I envision it (and how I understood, at the time, it was supposed to work) is that you create a subspace field (maybe that's what the big "hump" on the Excelsior was for?) and then, within that "hump," you create a warp drive field, warping subspace instead of warping real space.

It was WIDELY accepted that "Transwarp" was simply "TWF^5." That gives you some pretty great speeds, without that pesky mathematical problems that Roddenberry's "WF10=infinity" thing (which came along later, of course) gives you.

Of course, then came a bad episode of TNG which simultaneously destroyed the Borg as a credible threat, AND altered the definition of "transwarp" entirely. And then, Voyager put even more nails in the coffin, effectively transforming "transwarp" into Babylon 5's "jumpgates."

But for a while, TWF^5 was the accepted "rule of thumb" and I still stick to that. FASA simply followed along with the crowd. ;)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top