Star Trek TOS Ship Speeds

[Vance]

Well, like I said, the data points really only support warp 1 and warp 6 as stated above (and for obvious retconning reasons). Most of the other numbers don't make much sense no matter HOW you justify them. You could make a different curve that ramps up earlier, perhaps, but you have too many 'off the curve' data points given.

 

[Wingsley]

To me it seems silly to cook up a complicated theory that totally alters one major aspects from the show from how the the writers intended it to work, but whatever...

As for observing the speeds from the show, I wouldn't get hung up some isolated specific examples. Trying to make them all fit with any theory will just lead to madness. However, there is certainly some merit to the observation that the ships in show routinely move much faster than the non-canonical formulas would suggest, leading me to believe that ditching those formulas might be a good idea.

Meanwhile, over in the "Star Trek Maps inquiry" thread in the TrekBBS Art Forum...

My opinion, FWIW, is that MAPS did an excellent job trying to capture the "feel" of TOS much better than the 1975 Tech Manual. MAPS is closely matched to (TOS-only) canon, so there's a nice continuity feel. The message comes across clearly that MAPS went into pain-staking detail to quote TOS, chapter and verse.

IIRC, TAS was also referenced. At least I seem to recall a large area marked Kzin Space or some such...may have to dig these out of storage to see.

To this day, I still prefer to derive from MAPS and superimpose it over "the rest" on the STAR TREK Universe wherever there isn't too much conflict. I would expect that the single most interesting aspect of MAPS' technical legacy was its discussion of warp drive and warp speed, which still strikes me as superior to anyone else's meditation on the subject (with minor modifications to reflect what we've learned from other series, of course).

I agree. Real navigation with ships and aircraft involve a lot more than pointing the vessel in a certain direction and pushing the GO button. There's fuel and traffic and obstacles to be avoided, not to mention the variables of weather and ocean. ST Maps' take on warp drive captured that sense of complexity and applied it to space navigation, thereby achieving an authenticity that "official" takes on warp drive lacked.

I would say that canon-based worldviews of the TREK Universe are no more or less legitimate than gaming worldviews or strictly-literary-based worldviews. They are different, and at times, incompatible. That incompatibility does not make this thread into a showdown as to who's worldview is legitimate.

The can we're kicking around right now involves different schools of thought on how to approach TREK, not one "bad" way and another "good" way. I don't see this as a competition.

 

[Mytran]

Eh, I don't think it's worth rushing to a point of trying to make any declaritive statement and then defending it as 'absolute'...

You mean such as-

...Even if you throw aside warp speed as 'magic box' (using Chi, or what have you), you still have far too many other technical inconsistancies to make this a worthwhile pursuit.

If I took that too literally, I apologise. But it seems to me that the whole point of this thread is to exlore the various possibilities of a rational interpretation of the speeds as presented - and they are numerous, to be sure!

 

[Vance]

As I said, the point basically is, there aren't rational interpretations. If 'chi' is used, we're essentially using a 'random number' based on technobabble on how space is already shown to NOT exist in order to explain WF inconsistances. That path's already screwed.

So we're 'realistically' left with options. Find a curve that makes sense to most of the datapoints and ignore the outliers.. .IE, take a scientific approach. Unfortunately, we're still pretty vague, as we see that only WF1 and WF6 are used with any consistancy. (See above).

We're basically trying to apply a mathematical formula to 'Hollywood pulled numbers out of its ass'. Good luck with that, it's been attempted for 40 years now. We're not any closer.. because it's a bit of folly to BEGIN with. Strict canon cannot happen because of the difference between reality and Hollywood's dramatic interpretation thereof.

 

[Mytran]

Well as far as that whole "chi" thing is concerned; in my mind it belongs to the "black box" part of TOS, where technology is referred to without being explained. You're right in that it's an easy fix - but then again so much was never revealed during the 79 episodes that there's plenty of room for vague-ness in any solution.

As far as a mathematical formula is concerned I wouldn't touch that with a D&D ten foot pole! I'll setle for a guide to TOS speeds, rather than a strict rule. And that requires some good old fashioned debate

 

[Wingsley]

As I said, the point basically is, there aren't rational interpretations.

That seems to be a smack on the whole point of this thread.

If there are no "rational interpretations", then there's nothing to see here folks... move along...

Vance, it seems to burn you that some folks, myself included, don't see eye-to-eye with you on MAPS. Some of us look at MAPS, we may quibble over it, criticize it, or even base conjecture on it, but in the end we were glad it was published.

As for the "canonista" remark, well, some of those same folks will look upon TOS and enjoy it for what it is: a pioneer hourlong TV drama. It was an experiment from the beginning, and so what if they stumbled along the way? That doesn't make this so-called "canonista" school-of-thought you're disparaging any more or less legitimate.

 

[Vance]

It doesn't burn me that you have a different opinion. It BURNS me that the opinion is presented as fact and as the solution when it really isn't a solution at all, and actually holds LESS of a place in the 'official' heirarchy than what's convention.

The 'canonista' school of thought requires that every last microlight on each frame and cell be real. Dialog errors? VFX issues? Nope, it's all real, so we'll invent thesis papers on explaing while this bullshit really works - even if it's a fairly trivial numbers issue, or an obvious VFX flub, or a deliberate misinterpretation of dialog.

Those of us who have been around the block with Trek know what went into the show. We know the mistakes. So when someone says "This is how it REALLY worked" I have to counter... "Based on WHAT?" The writers never intended it that way. The studio bibles never said that. The script contradicts other datapoints.. ya think they just screwed up? "No! It's on SCREEEEEEEEEN!"

Hollywood screws up a lot, particularly when being consistant. (Ask Frasier about his dad... Where did the eldest Cunningham go?!) When you start going through serious mental contortions (which Chi does) to explain Hollywood's internal consistancy, rather than say 'yeah, it's a show... the tech stuff says X instead', you lose a lot of respect - certainly from outside the community.

From within the community, it hits the point of battlelines and penis-waving, and it gets old quick. Chi is a fun theory, but easily shot down as 'three layers of bullshit', which means that it's pretty useless when explaining things. Remember, if we mock VOY and ENT for their egragious use of technobabble in explaining the stupid, don't you think everyone else will make fun of us for doing the exact same thing?

 

[Timo]

I don't really see the value of a distinction here. All of Star Trek is a massive screw-up, a collection of implausible plots sprayed on screen by implausible effects and cheapo sets, acted to a hammy and sexist hilt and then packaged as art. Why would one single out warp speeds as the one issue where one isn't allowed to pretend that Star Trek makes sense, when on every other issue it apparently is mandatory to pretend that it does?

Believing in a certain logic in warp speeds should be no different in believing that there's some fathomable rationale in dressing our valiant astronauts in velour and miniskirts and handing them rayguns that deal with their enemies in nicely bloodless but ah so colorful ways. Believing is supposed to enhance the enjoyment of the supposed drama. Giving up and saying that it's just one big clusterfuck... Well, it's being honest, so some points for that, but it really doesn't justify a fan movement complete with bulletin boards.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo,

Since Star-Trek obviously has a lot of screw-ups, why not take the parts that are not screwed-up or least screwed up and expand upon that?

 

[Mytran]

I fear those would be few & far between

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Greater variance would help sort out the conflicting evidence. But the variance should be somewhat systematic. If deep space featured regions where travel was significantly faster than elsewhere, all starship navigation scenes in Trek should prominently feature dialogue where our heroes seek out these "warp highways" - when in fact, there never is such dialogue in Trek.

What about "Squire of Gothos?" where Kirk describes exactly such a thing?

And it's at least hinted at in "Broken Bow" where Enterprise needs the Vulcan star charts in order to navigate; since pretty much every star in the galaxy is already visible from Earth, what the hell do they need charts for, except to find the best routes to travel quickly? The Xindi's "subspace corridor" could be interpreted the same way, a region of space where warp drives get a hell of a lot more traction.

And though I hate to use a shameless self plug (wait, no I don't!) in most of my fanfics I usually describe the Romulan Neutral Zone as a stretch of a particular "warp highway" that is inconveniently close to both Federation and Romulan space, something both empires used to fight over and now both have agreed not to use--ever--rather than keep fighting forever over shipping rights through that zone.

You could make it systemic this way: close to a gravitating body--a star or heavy planet--velocity is close to or below C*WF^1.5 (adjust to dramatic taste). In deep interplanetary space still inside the solar system, closer to C*WF^2. Outside a solar system in interstellar space, C*WF^2.5 or ^3.5. When you find one of those neat little subspace corridors, ^5 or ^6.

All in all, you now have a reason why starship navigators have to be very smart people--wiz kids, in fact. It's not just a matter of pointing your ship in the right direction and pressing "engage," you need to know the right route to take to get there in a timely fashion.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

The Xindi's subspace corridor as you describe it seems to be more like a wormhole or transwarp conduit

 

[Ronald Held]

Which is why chi is not just a fudge factor.

 

[Vance]

Not 'fudge'... 'bullshit'.

 

[BK613]

/shrug
I have no problem with subspace exhibiting the same type of non-uniformity as, say, the cosmic background radiation or the "frothy" distribution of galaxies. I would expect it, actually.

 

[T'Girl]

oops

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Xindi's subspace corridor as you describe it seems to be more like a wormhole or transwarp conduit

Except it's a tad too convenient for that, since it's never used again in 200 years of space exploration.

OTOH, the special effects to represent it are remarkably similar to the new warp effects in STXI.

 

[Longinus]

Except it's a tad too convenient for that, since it's never used again in 200 years of space exploration.

I want to believe that the Xindi subspace tunnel was somehow related to the space-time-distorting spheres, and ceased to function as the Expanse ceased to exist.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Except that the Xindi aquatics also used it to deliver Enterprise back to Earth.

Of course, I think this might even give us a plausible explanation for some of the weird timeline discrepancies in TMP, where V'ger is detected "within Klingon boundaries" but is still only a few days away from Earth. Since V'ger isn't moving that fast in the movie, and since the Klingon homeworld probably isn't fifteen light years away from Sol, I would speculate that V'ger is riding what's left of the Xinid's subspace corridor on its way to Earth; Epsilon 9 is parked right in that corridor to monitor commercial/military traffic from various races, and Enterprise used that same corridor to intercept V'ger way out in space before it could get to Earth.

But this, again, is just my unsolicited speculation. Naturally it's all hollywood "speed of plot" fudging, but it gives us a convenient excuse to add a layer of complexity to the trekiverse that might add some coherence to the concept of shipping lanes, space-geography, the notion of some systems/regions being more strategically valuable than others (couldn't be for resources; strategic value has to do with the ability to move manpower and equipment between two points).

 

[Ronald Held]

If we are not talking scientifcally, ships always move at the speed of the plot. That seems more important than keeping to any one formulation of a watp speed equation.