The Prometheus - rather unnecessary bling

[T'Girl]

The same was also true of the Prometheus. It was surrounded by three Romulan warbirds and needed backup from other Starfleet vessels in order to escape. It could only handle one ship at a time in MVAM.

But in that case, the ship (ships) was under the command of two inexperienced medical holograms, employing a automated system they obviously didn't completely understand.

A qualified and experienced Starfleet Captain in command, backed by a full command crew, or better still a full ship's compliment, could only have done better than the two EMHs.

 

[exodus]

I have yet to see any ship on Trek that can fire on multiple targets at once.

Then that must include the Prometheus. It works by concentrating fire on one target (vessel) at a time.

The point was it's firing on all 3 vital systems of one vessel simultaneously. So it's firing on one object but not one target but rather 3.

Of course, we've also seen the Enterprise do that too, but without having to split into three parts.

the drive section, the saucer section and the shuttle counts as 3 vessels tactically coordinated. So it did actually require the Enterprise to use 3 vessels to achieve their goal.



What's the ships were sent out to do doesn't negate the fact it still took 3 ships to successfully achieve their goal.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The same was also true of the Prometheus. It was surrounded by three Romulan warbirds and needed backup from other Starfleet vessels in order to escape. It could only handle one ship at a time in MVAM.

But in that case, the ship (ships) was under the command of two inexperienced medical holograms, employing a automated system they obviously didn't completely understand.

That's really irrelevant because the MVAM is an automated system to begin with as you said. It's completely computer controlled.

A qualified and experienced Starfleet Captain in command, backed by a full command crew, or better still a full ship's compliment, could only have done better than the two EMHs.

Actually, only four people were trained to operate the Prometheus, that's how fully automated the ship is. As a result, it really doesn't matter who gives the order for MVAM once the system is engaged as the episode actually showed.

The point was it's firing on all 3 vital systems of one vessel simultaneously. So it's firing on one object but not one target but rather 3.

No, it's still firing on one vessel multiple times. We've seen single ships do that too.

Of course, we've also seen the Enterprise do that too, but without having to split into three parts.

the drive section, the saucer section and the shuttle counts as 3 vessels tactically coordinated. So it did actually require the Enterprise to use 3 vessels to achieve their goal.

That's like saying the Enterprise (or any vessel) splits in two or more sections whenever it launches shuttlecraft. That's semantics (or wordplay at best) because by your definition, then every starship and starbase is capable of MVAM.

And I said earlier, the the saucer section was used merely as a visual diversion in a one-off tactic that was specifically tailored against one person.

 

[N1N]

The same was also true of the Prometheus. It was surrounded by three Romulan warbirds and needed backup from other Starfleet vessels in order to escape. It could only handle one ship at a time in MVAM.

But in that case, the ship (ships) was under the command of two inexperienced medical holograms, employing a automated system they obviously didn't completely understand.

That's really irrelevant because the MVAM is an automated system to begin with as you said. It's completely computer controlled.

Actually, only four people were trained to operate the Prometheus, that's how fully automated the ship is. As a result, it really doesn't matter who gives the order for MVAM once the system is engaged as the episode actually showed.

No, it's still firing on one vessel multiple times. We've seen single ships do that too.

Of course, we've also seen the Enterprise do that too, but without having to split into three parts.

the drive section, the saucer section and the shuttle counts as 3 vessels tactically coordinated. So it did actually require the Enterprise to use 3 vessels to achieve their goal.

That's like saying the Enterprise (or any vessel) splits in two or more sections whenever it launches shuttlecraft. That's semantics (or wordplay at best) because by your definition, then every starship and starbase is capable of MVAM.

And I said earlier, the the saucer section was used merely as a visual diversion in a one-off tactic that was specifically tailored against one person.

1. Your wrong. The MVAM is not completely automated. If it was, there would be no need for command input from the crew which clearly there is, as shown by the Romulans, and the two EMH's. That is not to say that there is not a high level of automation, it is just that the system is not fully automated.

2. The reason only four people in all of starfleet were trained to operate the prometheus, is because the ship was a experimental prototype which was classified top secret by starfleet command. It was not because of high level automation. The Prometheus is still a starship, and will need crew to maintain it's systems.

3. Unless starfleet has figured out a way to curve a phaser beam, there is no way a single ship can fire on multiple systems at the same time. The only way that would happen, is if these systems are in close proximity to each other, which they generally are not.
If you the weapon systems on top of a ship, and the deflector below. How do you attack both at the same time with a single ship?

4. Riker was never fighting Picard, he was fighting the Borg! The Borg used Picard's memories & knowledge to prepare against the enterprise's attack. Riker knew that the Borg don't attack anything they do not perceive to be a threat i.e. the enterprise saucer section.

The use of the shuttle was only to retrieve Picard/Locutus. No one is saying that means that any ship or starbase can do MVAM. The plan would not have worked with any other ship, not even the prometheus. But that does not change the fact that there was a plan, and that it included coordination between the drive, saucer sections, and one shuttle. That does not make it MVAM.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But in that case, the ship (ships) was under the command of two inexperienced medical holograms, employing a automated system they obviously didn't completely understand.

That's really irrelevant because the MVAM is an automated system to begin with as you said. It's completely computer controlled.

Actually, only four people were trained to operate the Prometheus, that's how fully automated the ship is. As a result, it really doesn't matter who gives the order for MVAM once the system is engaged as the episode actually showed.

No, it's still firing on one vessel multiple times. We've seen single ships do that too.

the drive section, the saucer section and the shuttle counts as 3 vessels tactically coordinated. So it did actually require the Enterprise to use 3 vessels to achieve their goal.

That's like saying the Enterprise (or any vessel) splits in two or more sections whenever it launches shuttlecraft. That's semantics (or wordplay at best) because by your definition, then every starship and starbase is capable of MVAM.

And I said earlier, the the saucer section was used merely as a visual diversion in a one-off tactic that was specifically tailored against one person.

1. Your wrong. The MVAM is not completely automated. If it was, there would be no need for command input from the crew which clearly there is, as shown by the Romulans, and the two EMH's. That is not to say that there is not a high level of automation, it is just that the system is not fully automated.

Nope. Look at the episode again. The MVAM was completely automated from start to finish. The only thing a captain has to do is tell the computer what to target.

2. The reason only four people in all of starfleet were trained to operate the prometheus, is because the ship was a experimental prototype which was classified top secret by starfleet command. It was not because of high level automation. The Prometheus is still a starship, and will need crew to maintain it's systems.

Which says nothing about the MVAM except that it doesn't require more than four people (if not really just two or even one) to operate.

3. Unless starfleet has figured out a way to curve a phaser beam, there is no way a single ship can fire on multiple systems at the same time. The only way that would happen, is if these systems are in close proximity to each other, which they generally are not.
If you the weapon systems on top of a ship, and the deflector below. How do you attack both at the same time with a single ship?

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

4. Riker was never fighting Picard, he was fighting the Borg! The Borg used Picard's memories & knowledge to prepare against the enterprise's attack. Riker knew that the Borg don't attack anything they do not perceive to be a threat i.e. the enterprise saucer section.

The use of the shuttle was only to retrieve Picard/Locutus. No one is saying that means that any ship or starbase can do MVAM. The plan would not have worked with any other ship, not even the prometheus. But that does not change the fact that there was a plan, and that it included coordination between the drive, saucer sections, and one shuttle. That does not make it MVAM.

Which exactly proves my point. It wasn't MVAM, but merely a special unorthodox tactic.

 

[T'Girl]

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

And that same other ship could fire upon a enemy vessel from multiple angles at the same time?

Nope. Look at the episode again. The MVAM was completely automated from start to finish. The only thing a captain has to do is tell the computer what to target.

Not really, while it's possible to to conduct a battle in that fashion, it would a fall back option of last resort. Again neither EMH understood the ship or tactics, they had to use the automated system.

It's like the Enterprise's sickbay, there was a actual doctor (Beverly Crusher), so they didn't use the ship's EMH. But if there were no doctor in sickbay (like no Captain on the bridge) then you would employ the fall back option. But that wouldn't be your first choice.

Which exactly proves my point. It wasn't MVAM, but merely a special unorthodox tactic.

No, even through the saucer did not fire on the Borg cube, it was part of the attack. Both a feint and a demonstration, even if the enemy isn't directly engaged, would be a aspect of attack. The events of BOBW part two, was an example of a multi vector attack. Although we could likely drop the word "mode."

Which says nothing about the MVAM except that it doesn't require more than four people (if not really just two or even one) to operate.

The Prometheus bridge has six wall stations (four with chairs), and a dual console in front of the command chair, plus the Captain's chair itself. It was designed for a normal sized bridge compliment.

The Sovereign Class was contemporary to the Prometheus class, it's design would have had access to the same generation of automation technology, the Enterprise E carried a full crew.

it doesn't require more than four people

In one of the TNG episodes (I want to say "Haven"), Data was prepared to take the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone, with himself the only effective crewmember. It's possible that any competent officer could have done the same. In fact supposedly the entire Enterprise can be run literally from a single handheld PADD. So the Prometheus ability to be run with automatics isn't unique among Starfleet vessels.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

And that same other ship could fire upon a enemy vessel from multiple angles at the same time?

Doesn't matter if the ship is hit the same number of times. What's the difference between a ship being hit three times by a split-up vessel and a ship being hit three times by an intact vessel?

Nope. Look at the episode again. The MVAM was completely automated from start to finish. The only thing a captain has to do is tell the computer what to target.

Not really, while it's possible to to conduct a battle in that fashion, it would a fall back option of last resort. Again neither EMH understood the ship or tactics, they had to use the automated system.

Nope, the system was already automated. There was nothing to suggest it was meant to be otherwise.

It's like the Enterprise's sickbay, there was a actual doctor (Beverly Crusher), so they didn't use the ship's EMH. But if there were no doctor in sickbay (like no Captain on the bridge) then you would employ the fall back option. But that wouldn't be your first choice.

No, even through the saucer did not fire on the Borg cube, it was part of the attack. Both a feint and a demonstration, even if the enemy isn't directly engaged, would be a aspect of attack. The events of BOBW part two, was an example of a multi vector attack. Although we could likely drop the word "mode."

It's a moot point because it isn't MVAM to begin with.

Which says nothing about the MVAM except that it doesn't require more than four people (if not really just two or even one) to operate.

The Prometheus bridge has six wall stations (four with chairs), and a dual console in front of the command chair, plus the Captain's chair itself. It was designed for a normal sized bridge compliment.

There's nothing to suggest those consoles are dedicated to MVAM.

The Sovereign Class was contemporary to the Prometheus class, it's design would have had access to the same generation of automation technology, the Enterprise E carried a full crew.

How does a comparision to the Sovereign-class equate to the MVAM system on the Prometheus-class?

it doesn't require more than four people

In one of the TNG episodes (I want to say "Haven"), Data was prepared to take the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone, with himself the only effective crewmember. It's possible that any competent officer could have done the same. In fact supposedly the entire Enterprise can be run literally from a single handheld PADD. So the Prometheus ability to be run with automatics isn't unique among Starfleet vessels.

Exactly, all it takes is the press of a few buttons or a voice-command to run an automated system. The computer handles the rest unless there's a major problem or system failure requiring manual override.

 

[exodus]

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

And that same other ship could fire upon a enemy vessel from multiple angles at the same time?

Nope. Look at the episode again. The MVAM was completely automated from start to finish. The only thing a captain has to do is tell the computer what to target.

Not really, while it's possible to to conduct a battle in that fashion, it would a fall back option of last resort. Again neither EMH understood the ship or tactics, they had to use the automated system.

It's like the Enterprise's sickbay, there was a actual doctor (Beverly Crusher), so they didn't use the ship's EMH. But if there were no doctor in sickbay (like no Captain on the bridge) then you would employ the fall back option. But that wouldn't be your first choice.

No, even through the saucer did not fire on the Borg cube, it was part of the attack. Both a feint and a demonstration, even if the enemy isn't directly engaged, would be a aspect of attack. The events of BOBW part two, was an example of a multi vector attack. Although we could likely drop the word "mode."

Which says nothing about the MVAM except that it doesn't require more than four people (if not really just two or even one) to operate.

The Prometheus bridge has six wall stations (four with chairs), and a dual console in front of the command chair, plus the Captain's chair itself. It was designed for a normal sized bridge compliment.

The Sovereign Class was contemporary to the Prometheus class, it's design would have had access to the same generation of automation technology, the Enterprise E carried a full crew.

it doesn't require more than four people

In one of the TNG episodes (I want to say "Haven"), Data was prepared to take the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone, with himself the only effective crewmember. It's possible that any competent officer could have done the same. In fact supposedly the entire Enterprise can be run literally from a single handheld PADD. So the Prometheus ability to be run with automatics isn't unique among Starfleet vessels.

Agreed on all counts.

No, it's still firing on one vessel multiple times. We've seen single ships do that too.

It's still 3 to 1 odds in favor of Starfleet.

That's like saying the Enterprise (or any vessel) splits in two or more sections whenever it launches shuttlecraft. That's semantics (or wordplay at best) because by your definition, then every starship and starbase is capable of MVAM.

No, i'm sorry but that's your misunderstanding of the debate happening here. The Drive, Saucer(when seperated) and a shuttle still count as 3 vessels. I never implied nor said anything close to suggesting the shuttle was a section of the Enterprise. I simply said it counts as 1 vessel out of 3.

And I said earlier, the the saucer section was used merely as a visual diversion in a one-off tactic that was specifically tailored against one person.

Yes, you keep saying this and I'm asking you how does this change the fact that when the saucer section is separated it
becomes another vessel unto itself?

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

The flaw it this is ignoring the word "simultaneously"

 

[Captain_Nick]

Why do you buy into the misuse of the english language like that?

How are the phasers 'arrays'? What are they arrays of?

What are you talking about grammar nazi?

I am Jewish, how dare you use that word

 

[C.E. Evans]

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

And that same other ship could fire upon a enemy vessel from multiple angles at the same time?

Not really, while it's possible to to conduct a battle in that fashion, it would a fall back option of last resort. Again neither EMH understood the ship or tactics, they had to use the automated system.

It's like the Enterprise's sickbay, there was a actual doctor (Beverly Crusher), so they didn't use the ship's EMH. But if there were no doctor in sickbay (like no Captain on the bridge) then you would employ the fall back option. But that wouldn't be your first choice.

No, even through the saucer did not fire on the Borg cube, it was part of the attack. Both a feint and a demonstration, even if the enemy isn't directly engaged, would be a aspect of attack. The events of BOBW part two, was an example of a multi vector attack. Although we could likely drop the word "mode."

The Prometheus bridge has six wall stations (four with chairs), and a dual console in front of the command chair, plus the Captain's chair itself. It was designed for a normal sized bridge compliment.

The Sovereign Class was contemporary to the Prometheus class, it's design would have had access to the same generation of automation technology, the Enterprise E carried a full crew.

In one of the TNG episodes (I want to say "Haven"), Data was prepared to take the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone, with himself the only effective crewmember. It's possible that any competent officer could have done the same. In fact supposedly the entire Enterprise can be run literally from a single handheld PADD. So the Prometheus ability to be run with automatics isn't unique among Starfleet vessels.

Agreed on all counts.

Yup. In fact, almost all systems aboard a starship are automated with the crew serving primarily to monitor their operation once they engage them and to intervene when something goes wrong.

It's still 3 to 1 odds in favor of Starfleet.

Doesn't change anything because my point still stands.

No, i'm sorry but that's your misunderstanding of the debate happening here. The Drive, Saucer(when seperated) and a shuttle still count as 3 vessels. I never implied nor said anything close to suggesting the shuttle was a section of the Enterprise. I simply said it counts as 1 vessel out of 3.

No, you misunderstood. My position was that if the saucer and stardrive section can be considered two separate components of the Enterprise, then the shuttlecraft can be regarded as a third during the operation.

And I said earlier, the the saucer section was used merely as a visual diversion in a one-off tactic that was specifically tailored against one person.

Yes, you keep saying this and I'm asking you how does this change the fact that when the saucer section is separated it
becomes another vessel unto itself?

Huh? Where did this come from? Go back and read what I said earlier, and you'll notice that no one has argued that, least of all me.

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

The flaw it this is ignoring the word "simultaneously"

Actually, the flaw in this is ignoring that ships without MVAM have inflicted the same kind of damage with the same number of strikes (if not less).

 

[N1N]

Why do you buy into the misuse of the english language like that?

How are the phasers 'arrays'? What are they arrays of?

What are you talking about grammar nazi?

I am Jewish, how dare you use that word

How dare I. How dare YOU!
I could not care less that your Jewish, so go take your unfounded outrage elsewhere.

And that same other ship could fire upon a enemy vessel from multiple angles at the same time?

Not really, while it's possible to to conduct a battle in that fashion, it would a fall back option of last resort. Again neither EMH understood the ship or tactics, they had to use the automated system.

It's like the Enterprise's sickbay, there was a actual doctor (Beverly Crusher), so they didn't use the ship's EMH. But if there were no doctor in sickbay (like no Captain on the bridge) then you would employ the fall back option. But that wouldn't be your first choice.

No, even through the saucer did not fire on the Borg cube, it was part of the attack. Both a feint and a demonstration, even if the enemy isn't directly engaged, would be a aspect of attack. The events of BOBW part two, was an example of a multi vector attack. Although we could likely drop the word "mode."

The Prometheus bridge has six wall stations (four with chairs), and a dual console in front of the command chair, plus the Captain's chair itself. It was designed for a normal sized bridge compliment.

The Sovereign Class was contemporary to the Prometheus class, it's design would have had access to the same generation of automation technology, the Enterprise E carried a full crew.

In one of the TNG episodes (I want to say "Haven"), Data was prepared to take the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone, with himself the only effective crewmember. It's possible that any competent officer could have done the same. In fact supposedly the entire Enterprise can be run literally from a single handheld PADD. So the Prometheus ability to be run with automatics isn't unique among Starfleet vessels.

Agreed on all counts.

Yup. In fact, almost all systems aboard a starship are automated with the crew serving primarily to monitor their operation once they engage them and to intervene when something goes wrong.

Doesn't change anything because my point still stands.

No, you misunderstood. My position was that if the saucer and stardrive section can be considered two separate components of the Enterprise, then the shuttlecraft can be regarded as a third during the operation.

The drive & saucer apart of one ship, but the shuttle craft however are considered auxiliary craft. The simple way to look at it is that, auxiliary craft can be added, and taken away from any ship in the fleet. But the galaxy class drive & saucer sections can not.

No, i'm sorry but that's your misunderstanding of the debate happening here. The Drive, Saucer(when seperated) and a shuttle still count as 3 vessels. I never implied nor said anything close to suggesting the shuttle was a section of the Enterprise. I simply said it counts as 1 vessel out of 3.

Huh? Where did this come from? Go back and read what I said earlier, and you'll notice that no one has argued that, least of all me.

Seems like other ships without MVAM had no problems firing at the same vessel multiple times.

The flaw it this is ignoring the word "simultaneously"

Actually, the flaw in this is ignoring that ships without MVAM have inflicted the same kind of damage with the same number of strikes (if not less).

I's sorry but the flaw is with you. No one is arguing that a ship without MVAM can not attack an enemy multiple times. What is being said is that space is 3-D, and a normal ship can only attack in 2-D. An example would be that a star ship can only attack one side of an object. However a star ship with MVAM which can be in more than one place at the same time can attack multiple sides of a object simultaneously.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The drive & saucer apart of one ship, but the shuttle craft however are considered auxiliary craft. The simple way to look at it is that, auxiliary craft can be added, and taken away from any ship in the fleet. But the galaxy class drive & saucer sections can not.

Semantics. If the shuttlecraft is used as a third vehicle in an operation, then it's a third vehicle.

The flaw it this is ignoring the word "simultaneously"

Actually, the flaw in this is ignoring that ships without MVAM have inflicted the same kind of damage with the same number of strikes (if not less).

I's sorry but the flaw is with you.

Nope, the flaw is with you. If you'd actually think about it and stop ignoring what other ships have done in Trek without MVAM, you'd realize it. The Prometheus splitting apart amounts to a "kewl-looking effect" for a television episode, but that's about it.

 

[exodus]

What are you talking about grammar nazi?

I am Jewish, how dare you use that word

How dare I. How dare YOU!
I could not care less that your Jewish, so go take your unfounded outrage elsewhere.





The drive & saucer apart of one ship, but the shuttle craft however are considered auxiliary craft. The simple way to look at it is that, auxiliary craft can be added, and taken away from any ship in the fleet. But the galaxy class drive & saucer sections can not.

The flaw it this is ignoring the word "simultaneously"

Actually, the flaw in this is ignoring that ships without MVAM have inflicted the same kind of damage with the same number of strikes (if not less).

I's sorry but the flaw is with you. No one is arguing that a ship without MVAM can not attack an enemy multiple times. What is being said is that space is 3-D, and a normal ship can only attack in 2-D. An example would be that a star ship can only attack one side of an object. However a star ship with MVAM which can be in more than one place at the same time can attack multiple sides of a object simultaneously.

Give it up, it's just not going to sink in.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I am Jewish, how dare you use that word

How dare I. How dare YOU!
I could not care less that your Jewish, so go take your unfounded outrage elsewhere.





The drive & saucer apart of one ship, but the shuttle craft however are considered auxiliary craft. The simple way to look at it is that, auxiliary craft can be added, and taken away from any ship in the fleet. But the galaxy class drive & saucer sections can not.

Actually, the flaw in this is ignoring that ships without MVAM have inflicted the same kind of damage with the same number of strikes (if not less).

I's sorry but the flaw is with you. No one is arguing that a ship without MVAM can not attack an enemy multiple times. What is being said is that space is 3-D, and a normal ship can only attack in 2-D. An example would be that a star ship can only attack one side of an object. However a star ship with MVAM which can be in more than one place at the same time can attack multiple sides of a object simultaneously.

Give it up, it's just not going to sink in.

Objectivity is wonderful.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's worth pointing out that the two other times we see Prometheus-class ships, in "Endgame" and the alternate future of "Azati Prime", it stayed in one piece.

Obviously, because it looks coolest as a ship in one piece. But if you want to read into it....

FIRST OFFICER: "We're under attack! Do we deploy Multi Vector Assault Mode?"

CAPTAIN: "Mmmmm.... no."

 

[T'Girl]

It's worth pointing out that the two other times we see Prometheus-class ships, in "Endgame" and the alternate future of "Azati Prime", it stayed in one piece.

Well the mvam would be a option in a combat situation, not a requirement. Always good to keep the enemy guessing if you're going to hit him from all sides, or batter away at a single flank.

Being inconsistent is a tactic in of itself.

 

[Captain_Nick]

That didn't work at all. N1N must have Asperger's (or is a Nazi)

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

That didn't work at all. N1N must have Asperger's (or is a Nazi)

-5

 

[MacLeod]

That is an interesting point.

Though with warp drive, I always think its more about endurance rather than speed. Seeing as how warp 10 is "unattainable" (or transforms you into mutant newts) unless the scale is changed, the ship that can hit and maintain warp 9.9 for longer would be better.

But thats just my thoughts.

Well, according to the 'Starship Spotter' (a non cannon source, I'll admit), the Prometheus has a sustainable cruising speed of warp nine, as compared to warp six for an Intrepid class.

I rather think the multiple warp systems must have something to do with this. Not just several warp nacelles, but more power from more warp cores (it has been suggested that the Prometheus has only one warp core, that somehow splits into three for separated flight mode. However there's nothing from the show itself to support that). So it seems to me to be quite plausible that the Prometheus was designed to be a long range rapid response unit. Indeed, the whole MVAM concept might not have been the main point of the design at all.

Incidentally, does anyone have a link to the dimensions of the ship, both in combined and separated form? I was wondering how it compares to other fleet ships.

Didn't "Caretaker" give the Intrepid Class a Sustainable Cruise velocity of Warp 9.975?

 

[Paul Weaver]

Top cruising speed 9.975, which is twice* the speed of a galaxy's maximum of 9.2.

However we can probably assume 9.975 was equivalent to Enterprise's 9.6 capability, and was cruisable for a few hours.

A permament (fuel level nonwithstanding) cruise speed of 1000c, or about warp 9 fits in with most the 70 year trip home.