Actually, Voyager's Warp 9.975 was considerably slower that the Classic Enterprise's warp 8.4. The former crosses the galaxy in 75 years, the latter, a month. Relavent clips in the video in my sig....
The Prometheus - rather unnecessary bling
- Thread starter Captain_Nick
- Start date
The TOS conveniently utilized speeds that are WAY beyond late TNG, DS9 and VOY shows - this is because the writers felt the Galaxy is becoming 'too small', hence they lowered the speed.
In the early TNG (seasons 1 and 2 I think) the Enterprise-D for example would need roughly 2 years and 7 months to reach the nearest Starbase at maximum speed (sustainable Warp 9.2 without breaks if I'm not mistaken) which was roughly 7000 ly's away.
At those speeds alone, Voyager would need roughly 30 years to get back to the Alpha Quadrant.
But since Voyager's maximum sustainable cruising speed is 9.975 (and since the speeds experience exponential increase with small factors past 9.9 the closer you reach the threshold), Voyager would probably require anywhere between few to 15 years to get back.
Point being that there was a revision of the Warp scale for TNG.
I don't have anything against ludicrous speeds in TOS and then of course in TNG - it would be in line with Federation capabilities and a notion of humanity being an 'emergent' society where by the 24th century they would be exploring other galaxies (and not just the Milky Way).
As for Prometheus... from a Tactical Point of view it can definitely see certain benefits.
I think that SF merely expanded on the separation capability of Enterprise-D by providing the Prometheus separated sections more firepower and independent Warp capability (whereas the saucer section for all intent and purposes could merely 'sustain' a certain Warp velocity if the separation occurred at Warp speeds in the first place) - it was designed for deep space tactical assignments after all - so if it can separate, it stands to reason that you should beef up the sections.
It was suggested in another forum that Prometheus was actually a test bed for a blue sky research. I imagine that Prometheus was approved during a period of peace and prosperity (early TNG?). When a crisis appeared, construction had already started. Out of desperation, weapons and armor were slapped on the test bed.
An ability to do something is almost always going to be preferable than a lack of said ability. For example, suppose I could forcibly squeeze urine from my eyes at will... I would hope the need for this would never arise and that there would be no negative consequence from never doing so... But if my hands were tied behind my back, I was wearing tight-fitting slacks - and I needed to put out a small fire before it grew... or alleviate the pain of another's jellyfish sting, then I would be grateful for this ability.
The Prometheus can split into three thingies that go pew pew. Maybe it wont come up, but if it does... sweet.
I haven't seen much of TOS or any of TAS, but from all the other series, I have never witnessed multiple ships traveling together as a regular practice.
Chaos theory seems to provide a vote against three ships flying everywhere together because the odds of something going wrong with one of the ships is greater when there is more than one.
Redundancy would be a vote in favor of starship posses, even though we've never seen the Federation utilize this.
These two things cancel each other out.
To argue cost-effectiveness, in my opinion, is to delve into territory unknown. It could be argued either way, but it would be a fiction within a fiction.
The fact is, in official canon, the Federation did build the Prometheus and I see no reason to view it as a sink or swim scenario.
<In Obama voice> If you can do it, uhhhhhhh, then do it.
The Prometheus can split into three thingies that go pew pew. Maybe it wont come up, but if it does... sweet.
I haven't seen much of TOS or any of TAS, but from all the other series, I have never witnessed multiple ships traveling together as a regular practice.
Chaos theory seems to provide a vote against three ships flying everywhere together because the odds of something going wrong with one of the ships is greater when there is more than one.
Redundancy would be a vote in favor of starship posses, even though we've never seen the Federation utilize this.
These two things cancel each other out.
To argue cost-effectiveness, in my opinion, is to delve into territory unknown. It could be argued either way, but it would be a fiction within a fiction.
The fact is, in official canon, the Federation did build the Prometheus and I see no reason to view it as a sink or swim scenario.
<In Obama voice> If you can do it, uhhhhhhh, then do it.
Similar threads
