Whoops! Got my light days and light years mixed up. That'll teach me to do calculations on the hoof!
Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
Cid Highwind,
If Vulcan is a little over 16 light years from Earth, and in TMP if the Enterprise could get Spock there in 4 days, that would be approximately 4 LY every day.
That is an approximate velocity of 1,461c
CuttingEdge100
If Vulcan is a little over 16 light years from Earth, and in TMP if the Enterprise could get Spock there in 4 days, that would be approximately 4 LY every day.
That is an approximate velocity of 1,461c
CuttingEdge100
There was a memo from GR years ago that cited 40 Eridani A as the star that Vulcan orbited. ENT:Home basically "canonized" that system.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Kirk ordered the Enterprise to proceed "thataway", he only called for Warp factor 1. A consistent occurance throughout all the TREK series, is that starships tend to spend the vast majority of their star-hours either at sublight or at low-warp. Seldom do we see starship captains call for high warp. I'm not saying it never happens, only that high-warp is a special occasion.
Saquist
Commodore
Very slow.
If warp two is half -speed and warp four is full-speed. Then six could be "flank" speed, or maybe what the air force call super-cruise. We know that warp eight is emergency speed and somewhat dangerous.
Based on what we know so far, we could certainly argue that warp 4 is a good interstellar speed for military ships, or ships carrying priority cargo (ENT, TOS) - whereas warp 3 is a practicable interstellar speed for leisure cruises or non-time-critical cargo (say, TNG "The Most Toys"), and warp 2 is still viable interstellar but not preferable if you can do better because it means travel times of months or years instead of days or weeks. Warp six is a military speed good for strategic maneuvers, that is, deploying forces to a desired general area, and anything beyond that is "dash" or "flank" or "max", good for pursuit but not sustainable. That seems to hold for TOS and TNG alike, and ENT uses lower speeds only because Earth technology there is primitive.
That doesn't tell us yet what sort of speed we're talking about, because we extremely seldom have data on which two stars are being used as the start and end points. It's generally unlikely that these would be two neighboring stars - except perhaps in "Doomsday Machine" or the like.
When we do know the two points, we don't know the speed. Scotty promised four lightyears per day in ST:TMP, that much we can deduce - but at what speed? The warp seven that the untested ship attained in an emergency earlier on in the movie? Or perhaps warp eight which the engines could do after proper testing? Or perhaps she could now do warp 12? Or warp 5 only, because the emergency had tasked and damaged the engines?
"Broken Bow" isn't any better. The test run to Neptune and back is missing key figures, such as the length of the route taken (at such short distances, this is very significant), or the maximum speed attained (the difference between warp four and warp five could be crucial here), or the speed profile (the accelerations and decelerations). And that doesn't yet take into account the possible warp anomalies experienced in the Sol system (say, the need to slow down to impulse seemed extremely pressing in "BoBW", since not even impending armageddon could prompt Riker to stay at warp).
The overall ambiguity leaves us in a fairly good position IMHO. We know to a good approximation what the various warp factors mean, in terms of plot. This data is more or less consistent, with just a few cases of journeys that began at a low warp factor but still spanned considerable plot distances (and these we can explain away by saying that they accelerated later on). We don't know equally well what the warp factors mean, in terms of speed. This data is either vague or consists mostly of outliers, with a few cases of superfast warp in TOS, one in TAS, one in STV, a single instance of superfast warp in STXI, and so forth. But we can ignore the actual speed figures as long as we are free to adjust the other half of the equation: the distances spanned, or the travel times "cut off from the final edit".
Although, one final nitpick:
But perhaps Kirk meant actual speed and not warp factors? In that case, warp factor two could yield half the speed of warp factor 2.7 or something like that.
Timo Saloniemi
That doesn't tell us yet what sort of speed we're talking about, because we extremely seldom have data on which two stars are being used as the start and end points. It's generally unlikely that these would be two neighboring stars - except perhaps in "Doomsday Machine" or the like.
When we do know the two points, we don't know the speed. Scotty promised four lightyears per day in ST:TMP, that much we can deduce - but at what speed? The warp seven that the untested ship attained in an emergency earlier on in the movie? Or perhaps warp eight which the engines could do after proper testing? Or perhaps she could now do warp 12? Or warp 5 only, because the emergency had tasked and damaged the engines?
"Broken Bow" isn't any better. The test run to Neptune and back is missing key figures, such as the length of the route taken (at such short distances, this is very significant), or the maximum speed attained (the difference between warp four and warp five could be crucial here), or the speed profile (the accelerations and decelerations). And that doesn't yet take into account the possible warp anomalies experienced in the Sol system (say, the need to slow down to impulse seemed extremely pressing in "BoBW", since not even impending armageddon could prompt Riker to stay at warp).
The overall ambiguity leaves us in a fairly good position IMHO. We know to a good approximation what the various warp factors mean, in terms of plot. This data is more or less consistent, with just a few cases of journeys that began at a low warp factor but still spanned considerable plot distances (and these we can explain away by saying that they accelerated later on). We don't know equally well what the warp factors mean, in terms of speed. This data is either vague or consists mostly of outliers, with a few cases of superfast warp in TOS, one in TAS, one in STV, a single instance of superfast warp in STXI, and so forth. But we can ignore the actual speed figures as long as we are free to adjust the other half of the equation: the distances spanned, or the travel times "cut off from the final edit".
Although, one final nitpick:
But perhaps Kirk meant actual speed and not warp factors? In that case, warp factor two could yield half the speed of warp factor 2.7 or something like that.
Timo Saloniemi
Hofner,
Uh, no. 24/0.73 = 32.876712
32.876712 * 365.25 = 12,008.219
Saquist,
Actually if you look at the listed warp factors that's extremely fast. The Enterprise from TOS was listed with a maximum warp of 8, but did 9 in at least one or two more episodes, and has a cruise speed of Warp Factor 6.
Warp 6 = 216 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
Warp 9 = 729 c
1,461 c is a little under Warp 11.35 and this seems to be talking about a cruise speed.
As for the velocities shown by the Enterprise in the TV series, such as "The Doomsday Machine" when they covered two star systems in one day, or when they covered 990 light years in a couple of hours in "That Which Survives", yes 1,461 is a bit slow.
T'Girl,
Unlikely. While the number 4 is halfway between the number 8, and number 4.5 is halfway between number 9, and number 6 is closer to numbers 8 or 9 than to numbers 0 or 1, one would expect the cruise and maximum speeds to actually be much closer together when you consider that these factors are all exponents.
Warp 4 = 64 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
So warp 4 is actually only 1/8th as fast as Warp 8
Warp 4.5 = 91.125 c
Warp 9.9 = 729 c
Warp 4.5 is also 1/8th as fast as Warp 9
Warp 6 = 216 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
Warp 9 = 729 c
Warp 6 is less than half of Warp 8 and less than a third of Warp 9.
The only other reason a person might find it logical that the cruise and dash speeds are so far apart might be based on the performance of a some then contemporary (1964 -- When Star Trek was conceived) fighter planes
Many fighter planes have cruise speeds in the Mach 0.90 to Mach 0.95 range, and dash speeds in the Mach 2.0 to Mach 3.0 range. However, the reason for this has to do with the fact that drag increases dramatically as you near the speed of sound requiring dramatically increased amounts of power to get through it. Once through, though, the amount of thrust to go from Mach 1.0 to Mach 2.0 is less than to go from Mach 0.0 to Mach 1.0.
Granted, a lot of energy (even by Trek standards which is a lot lower than in real life which might not be possible) is required to bend space to a sufficient degree to produce an equivalent velocity faster than light. However if you can travel several hundred times that speed while cruising (Warp 6 = 216c) you're so far past that point.
I should also note that airplanes that are designed for protracted supersonic flight such as supersonic-bomber designs (B-58, XB-70, B-1A), supersonic reconnaisance planes (A-12/SR-71), and the Concorde, generally do fly pretty close to their maximum speeds...
As for the definition of flank-speed. It basically means maximum speed, or emergency speed.
As for supercruise, it's the ability to accelerate to, and maintain a given supersonic velocity without the use of afterburners at all.
Actually the Enterprise did Warp 9 in a few episodes, and in one case for several hours, though the engines did burn out.
CuttingEdge100
Uh, no. 24/0.73 = 32.876712
32.876712 * 365.25 = 12,008.219
Saquist,
Actually if you look at the listed warp factors that's extremely fast. The Enterprise from TOS was listed with a maximum warp of 8, but did 9 in at least one or two more episodes, and has a cruise speed of Warp Factor 6.
Warp 6 = 216 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
Warp 9 = 729 c
1,461 c is a little under Warp 11.35 and this seems to be talking about a cruise speed.
As for the velocities shown by the Enterprise in the TV series, such as "The Doomsday Machine" when they covered two star systems in one day, or when they covered 990 light years in a couple of hours in "That Which Survives", yes 1,461 is a bit slow.
T'Girl,
Unlikely. While the number 4 is halfway between the number 8, and number 4.5 is halfway between number 9, and number 6 is closer to numbers 8 or 9 than to numbers 0 or 1, one would expect the cruise and maximum speeds to actually be much closer together when you consider that these factors are all exponents.
Warp 4 = 64 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
So warp 4 is actually only 1/8th as fast as Warp 8
Warp 4.5 = 91.125 c
Warp 9.9 = 729 c
Warp 4.5 is also 1/8th as fast as Warp 9
Warp 6 = 216 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
Warp 9 = 729 c
Warp 6 is less than half of Warp 8 and less than a third of Warp 9.
The only other reason a person might find it logical that the cruise and dash speeds are so far apart might be based on the performance of a some then contemporary (1964 -- When Star Trek was conceived) fighter planes
Many fighter planes have cruise speeds in the Mach 0.90 to Mach 0.95 range, and dash speeds in the Mach 2.0 to Mach 3.0 range. However, the reason for this has to do with the fact that drag increases dramatically as you near the speed of sound requiring dramatically increased amounts of power to get through it. Once through, though, the amount of thrust to go from Mach 1.0 to Mach 2.0 is less than to go from Mach 0.0 to Mach 1.0.
Granted, a lot of energy (even by Trek standards which is a lot lower than in real life which might not be possible) is required to bend space to a sufficient degree to produce an equivalent velocity faster than light. However if you can travel several hundred times that speed while cruising (Warp 6 = 216c) you're so far past that point.
I should also note that airplanes that are designed for protracted supersonic flight such as supersonic-bomber designs (B-58, XB-70, B-1A), supersonic reconnaisance planes (A-12/SR-71), and the Concorde, generally do fly pretty close to their maximum speeds...
As for the definition of flank-speed. It basically means maximum speed, or emergency speed.
As for supercruise, it's the ability to accelerate to, and maintain a given supersonic velocity without the use of afterburners at all.
Actually the Enterprise did Warp 9 in a few episodes, and in one case for several hours, though the engines did burn out.
CuttingEdge100
I'm sorry if I seem to be muddying up the waters with this, but I'm simply using the contents of the TREK franchise ("canon", if you will) as a guide. Here's another example:
"We're leaving the Galaxy, Mister Mitchell. Ahead, Warp factor one."
--Where No Man Has Gone Before
"Take us back to where we're supposed to be, Mister Sulu. Ahead Warp factor one."
--Arena, after being told that the Enterprise has been displaced 500 parsecs (over 1,500 light-years) from its pursuit of the Gorn
"We're leaving the Galaxy, Mister Mitchell. Ahead, Warp factor one."
--Where No Man Has Gone Before
"Take us back to where we're supposed to be, Mister Sulu. Ahead Warp factor one."
--Arena, after being told that the Enterprise has been displaced 500 parsecs (over 1,500 light-years) from its pursuit of the Gorn
That's largely irrelevant, though... there is no reason to assume that because you START at a particular speed, you'll STAY at a particular speed.
Maybe they start off at WF1, til the engines are running nice and smooth, then "ramp up" to higher speeds. Yeah, we don't normally see that on-screen, but that doesn't really mean anything... there are lots of other things we never see either, after all. The "story-telling interest" part is when they START whatever trip they're on, when they END whatever trip they're on, and anything INTERESTING that happens in between.
Standard-operating-procedure "ramped acceleration" doesn't strike me as being one of those "interesting" things. But hey, that's just me!
I'm not sure where you're getting your logic but it's wrong.
If you can travel 0.73ly in one hour how far do you travel in two hours? Two times 0.73ly or 1.46ly. Going at 0.73ly per hour, how far can you travel in 24 hours? 24 times 0.73ly which equals 17.52 lightyears.
Dividing 24 hours by 0.73ly per hour does not equal distance travelled in 24 hours.
Robert
I keep coming back to a cruising speed of 216 times the speed of light isn't fast enough. Not for what we're seeing on screen, which is a new adventure "every week." Whether you call it 'chi', or space density, or slow inside a system - fast in interstellar space. Most of us agree that there's variable involved that isn't being mention in the 'canon'.
Warp factor six isn't just 216.
Super-cruise refers to the max speed you ( a fighter plane) can travel, without using unusual amounts of fuel or straining the structure. Afterburners "strain" the structure.
If you want to be techinical about it "half speed" refers to the speed of the propulsion plant, not the speed of a ship thru water.
Specifically it an expression of shaft RPM's.
Warp factor six isn't just 216.
Super-cruise refers to the max speed you ( a fighter plane) can travel, without using unusual amounts of fuel or straining the structure. Afterburners "strain" the structure.
If you want to be techinical about it "half speed" refers to the speed of the propulsion plant, not the speed of a ship thru water.
Specifically it an expression of shaft RPM's.
You also could say you cannot maintain a constant speed in a straight line(GR) trajectory due to matter or subspace irregularities?
Super Cruise is supersonic flight without afterburners. Afterburners don't strain the structure at all. They just burn fuel at a stupid fast rate.
I tend to agree that about 200c just won't cut it.
Maybe the missing factor is that the non-canonical formula people keep using to calculate these things is wrong. There is however no reason to assume that in universe the warp factors in themselves would not reliably portray constant speeds, we just do not know what those speeds are.
Not being able to fly a perfectly straight course is a given. The main deflector can handle the little stuff, house size. In FJ's technical manual he made the phasers an auxiliary part of the defection system. We saw in "The Paradise Sydrome" the main deflector just can't handle the really big stuff. Small course changes would be common.
Super cruise is a simple contraction of "supersonic cruise".
Afterburner use causes above average vibration to the airframe. This adds hours to the airframe, The vibration effects all onboard systems, result in high maintenance. There is also a specific problem with damage to the rear most compressor blades.
Article in: "Aviation Week And Space Technology" --June 3, 2002
Super cruise is a simple contraction of "supersonic cruise".
Afterburner use causes above average vibration to the airframe. This adds hours to the airframe, The vibration effects all onboard systems, result in high maintenance. There is also a specific problem with damage to the rear most compressor blades.
Article in: "Aviation Week And Space Technology" --June 3, 2002
By that same token, there is no reason to assume that a warp-driven starship would need to "ramp up" after starting at a low speed. If Kirk wanted the Enterprise to return to Cestus III at Warp 6, that's what he would order right from the get-go.
Also, Kirk could've ordered high-warp speed to deliver the needed supplies to New Paris after rescuing "The Galileo Seven" but he instead called for Warp 1.
I dont' think any of the formulas we are given are correct. The ships go much faster then the formulas would allow. If the Federation is 8000 ly across, and if Earth is somewhere in the middle, it would be almost impossible to control far flung regions that are 4000 ly away. Even in Roman Empire, you could go anywhere in the Empire in less than a year thanks to roads. Unless the Feds have some kind of "subspace highways", there is no way they can effectivelly controll the Federation.
Besides, we see Ent D, go around entire Federation pretty much in 7 years, from Klingon homeworld, to Romulan Neutral Zone multiple times, to Klingon/Romulan border, to Bajor sector multiple times, to Earth multiple times, to Farpoint Station, to the areas "out on the rim", Tallarians, all while visiting Federation members and non members in between these trips.
Besides, we see Ent D, go around entire Federation pretty much in 7 years, from Klingon homeworld, to Romulan Neutral Zone multiple times, to Klingon/Romulan border, to Bajor sector multiple times, to Earth multiple times, to Farpoint Station, to the areas "out on the rim", Tallarians, all while visiting Federation members and non members in between these trips.
Similar threads
