The Warp Scale: Trek's Biggest Mistake?

[Matthew Raymond]

The Warp Scale is a highly problematic system that really never needed to exist. It has the following serious flaws:

1) Because it changes based on the context, one cannot easily compare velocities between ships of different eras. You either convert both Warp Factors to the speed of light or convert from one Warp Scale to another.

2) Because the scale is logarithmic, linear acceleration results in ever smaller increments of change in velocity. It's even worse when you're using a Warp Scale with Warp 10 pegged to infinity. If a helmsperson reports that you're at Warp 9, then a few seconds later states that you're at Warp 9.1, it might be on the order of minutes before you get to Warp 9.2, and you might not reach 9.3 before the end of the episode.

3) The audience can't easily comprehend the speed or distance, because it would basically require a calculator just to know the speed alone, and without speed, you can't imagine the distance. For instance, if you tell someone you were going 1,500 times the speed of light for a day, you might be able to figure out that you've gone about the distance between the Sun and Proxima Centauri. If I tell you that we've been going Warp 8.971 for a day, how far did we go?

4) Because of the scaling, rounding to a particular decimal point can result in a significant difference in velocity. The difference between Warp 8.99 and Warp 9 is roughly 5.6 x C (speed of light). Doesn't sound like much, but in one second that puts two vessels more than 1,681,520 kilometers apart.

Simple example: The maximum velocity of Voyager is Warp 9.975, and the maximum velocity of the TOS era Enterprise is 8. Intuitively, the difference in Warp scale is 1.975. Less than two points, so naturally Voyager would be... GREATER THAN 26 TIMES FASTER! Relatively speaking, that's the difference between someone jogging down the side of a highway and a car going down the highway with its gas pedal glued to the floor.

Why not just use the number of times the speed of light to measure velocity? Too cumbersome? Just say "C" at the end.

"But no one will know what the 'C' means," you might complain. Just have the Captain say "times light speed" once an episode and have the helmsperson repeat "C"...

Captain: "Set course for Tau Ceti IV at 500 times light speed."
Helm: "Aye sir. Course laid in. 500 C."
Captain: "Engage."

Do you agree? Defend thy Warp Scale, if you can!

 

[Kemaiku]

The 1701 and Voyager used two different warp scales.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

The 1701 and Voyager used two different warp scales.

I know. I'm intentionally showing why Warp Factors are problematic.

 

[Timo]

Most of the cons you list sound like pros to me...

- If the "scale" were easily comprehended, it would be useless, as its purpose is to obfuscate. We don't want to learn how fast a ship is really going because that would cause more problems than it would solve.

- A scale of complex nature looks like it could be a law of nature. It's cool to think that there would be a futuro-scientific reason behind something this weird, and cooler still to keep on guessing what it might be.

- If it indeed is a law of nature, then it makes sense for the heroes to get it wrong at first and then gradually refine their understanding. So obviously the scale ought to change with time... But only as regards the highest warp factors, as soon as engines capable of reaching those factors become available.

- Also, if it is a law of nature, all the better if it is awkward to use. Nature doesn't bow to the needs of the heroes.

- But of course the heroes still know how it works (or think they do). They need to. The audience does not.

As for how it does work, the Okuda model is as good as any: at certain levels of power input, one gets better power output than at others, but the effect may go unnoticed or misunderstood until one builds engines capable of sustaining the associated speed long enough for study.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis had it right. They travel at hyperspeed, some aliens can hyperspeed faster than they can and others do it slower. Nothing more specific than needs to be said.

 

[TommyR01D]

I thought the TOS scale was supposed to be V = (W^3)C

V is velocity. W is warp factor. C is speed of light.

That is just about manageable, but the Okuda version just strikes me as gibberish.

 

[KyleRaynous]

3) The audience can't easily comprehend the speed or distance, because it would basically require a calculator just to know the speed alone, and without speed, you can't imagine the distance. For instance, if you tell someone you were going 1,500 times the speed of light for a day, you might be able to figure out that you've gone about the distance between the Sun and Proxima Centauri. If I tell you that we've been going Warp 8.971 for a day, how far did we go?

That's exactly the problem. If you want to create a scale seriously, establish it from the very beginning and sitck to it, with clear and understandable rules, as they should have done with the whole "stardate" thing. Many series/movies choose not to do it to save themselves the problem, as @King Daniel Beyond mentioned. While the second alternative may seem lazy, it's still better than an ultimately confusing "midpoint"...

 

[Mytran]

I thought the TOS scale was supposed to be V = (W^3)C

V is velocity. W is warp factor. C is speed of light.

That is just about manageable, but the Okuda version just strikes me as gibberish.

The trouble is, that formula is contradicted by just about every episode

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Most of the cons you list sound like pros to me...

- If the "scale" were easily comprehended, it would be useless, as its purpose is to obfuscate. We don't want to learn how fast a ship is really going because that would cause more problems than it would solve.

I would argue that obfuscation has caused problems itself. For instance, we really don't have a clear idea of how far across the Federation actually is.

- A scale of complex nature looks like it could be a law of nature. It's cool to think that there would be a futuro-scientific reason behind something this weird, and cooler still to keep on guessing what it might be.

That's just a mystery box masquerading as science fiction.

- If it indeed is a law of nature, then it makes sense for the heroes to get it wrong at first and then gradually refine their understanding. So obviously the scale ought to change with time... But only as regards the highest warp factors, as soon as engines capable of reaching those factors become available.

Seeing as you have the option to use effective velocities, I don't see why you'd have an reason to use a non-linear measurement and not explain why. Might as well say "They went straight into plad."

- Also, if it is a law of nature, all the better if it is awkward to use. Nature doesn't bow to the needs of the heroes.

It should be hard of the heroes to know how fast they're going?!?

- But of course the heroes still know how it works (or think they do). They need to. The audience does not.

Except they eventually DID tell us how to figure out how fast it was, so they basically put us and our heroes in a mathematical bind for no reason.

As for how it does work, the Okuda model is as good as any: at certain levels of power input, one gets better power output than at others, but the effect may go unnoticed or misunderstood until one builds engines capable of sustaining the associated speed long enough for study.

By that reasoning, the Warp Scale would be different or every possible engine configuration.

Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis had it right. They travel at hyperspeed, some aliens can hyperspeed faster than they can and others do it slower. Nothing more specific than needs to be said.

I'd prefer they actually tell us the speed and distances. I know it's harder, but it would be better for fans if they sweat the details. I agree, though, that if you're not going to get the details right, you might as well not say anything.

 

[Tenacity]

It should be hard of the heroes to know how fast they're going?!?

Sure, put a element of doubt into their journey.

Some fans have hypothesized that in addition to just the warp scale, that there would be a variable that would change the ship's speed based upon what region of subspace the ship was traveling through, and that these regions shift and change over time.

Warp 6 might be 800 sol one week and 2000 sol the next. Third week warp 6 might be 5 sol and the fastest route would be the long way around.

There was probably a reason TOS starships had a full time navigator.

And way 22nd century Starfleet was so eager to get the Vulcan star charts.

 

[Timo]

I would argue that obfuscation has caused problems itself. For instance, we really don't have a clear idea of how far across the Federation actually is.

Which is another clear pro. There would be no advantage to knowing how far across the Federation really is - and indeed the whole concept should be meaningless, with both "far" and "near" equally correct answers, depending on the situation. Much as with somebody asking how far across the British Empire is, or the US Civil War theater of ops. In terms of a decisive dramatic event, the answer could be "across the Channel" or "from Washington to Richmond" just as well as "the sun never sets on it" or "it took months to get news from the farthest battles". And in order to create enjoyable 19th century fiction, one doesn't have to write up the entire history of the English-speaking world or add a map supplement of every surface contour of the globe. Indeed, such would be massively counterproductive - as the creators of artificial histories and geographies in mere global scale (Middle Earth, Game of Thrones) can readily tell, making use of partial and evolving models rather than things carved in stone.

That's just a mystery box masquerading as science fiction.

It ain't science fiction if it omits the mystery.

Seeing as you have the option to use effective velocities, I don't see why you'd have an reason to use a non-linear measurement and not explain why. Might as well say "They went straight into plad."

Verisimilitude. Anything real is straight out because it would be telling. But anything unreal must be at least as complicated as real or it will not feel right. Simple will feel silly, as in Spaceballs, and soon enough it will also feel formulaic, no better than warp factors in the dramatic sense.

It should be hard of the heroes to know how fast they're going?!?

This is very much a feature of the real world, and immense drama has been wrought from the uncertainty of how fast an aircraft is flying or a sub is diving, or even how fast a man is running.

But the heroes know. The audience has no business knowing.

Except they eventually DID tell us how to figure out how fast it was

Nope. They may have lied to us twice or thrice with these bogus "formulas", but we can clearly see they provide less than a partial truth on the matter.

By that reasoning, the Warp Scale would be different or every possible engine configuration.

False. There's but one truth - but our heroes struggle to understand that truth, just as with every law of nature our there. All engines obey the same law, but not all can help in the quest of better formulating that law.

I'd prefer they actually tell us the speed and distances. I know it's harder, but it would be better for fans if they sweat the details. I agree, though, that if you're not going to get the details right, you might as well not say anything.

I don't quite see where you're coming from - how would it be better?

I mean, starships are fiction. The environment where they operate is fiction. To make it "science" fiction, you want an interface with the real world. But such an interface cannot exist, because starships and their environment are impossible fiction, fundamentally incompatible with the real world. So you insert smoke and Mirror Universes.

Which works just fine. After all, audiences (and people in general) are comfortable with things they don't understand. They are very itchy about things they think they do understand.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Matthew Raymond]

While being unnecessarily specific can paint you into a corner sometimes, creating the illusion of a velocity scale that doesn't actually serve to communicate meaningful information about velocity serves no narrative purpose. It's okay to leave out inconsequential details, but doubt should not be artificially produced in the minds of the audience when it's not present in the minds of our heroes. Unless you're trying to make the audience commiserate with the protagonist's confusion, injecting uncertainty for the audience is just bad writing. It's a crutch to prevent writers from having to worry about consistency and continuity.

You have to remember that science fiction fans are both very demanding and very appreciative of attention to detail.

Which is another clear pro. There would be no advantage to knowing how far across the Federation really is - and indeed the whole concept should be meaningless, with both "far" and "near" equally correct answers, depending on the situation. Much as with somebody asking how far across the British Empire is, or the US Civil War theater of ops. In terms of a decisive dramatic event, the answer could be "across the Channel" or "from Washington to Richmond" just as well as "the sun never sets on it" or "it took months to get news from the farthest battles". And in order to create enjoyable 19th century fiction, one doesn't have to write up the entire history of the English-speaking world or add a map supplement of every surface contour of the globe. Indeed, such would be massively counterproductive - as the creators of artificial histories and geographies in mere global scale (Middle Earth, Game of Thrones) can readily tell, making use of partial and evolving models rather than things carved in stone.

First of all, there's a huge difference between carrying a message on horseback, then on a ship, across unfamiliar terrain and treacherous seas for thousands of miles and flying in a starship going from point A to point B in empty space and a fixed velocity. One circumstance is chaotic and indeterminate, and the other is quite easy to determine. In fact, no one would go on a space mission where they don't know how long it will take to get there or if they'll have enough fuel, food or oxygen for the journey. A chaotic world can serve to mask continuity problems and inconsistencies in your world building, but that isn't an option when you have a ship that's going between two named star systems that actually exist in a specified timeframe. Effective velocity can be determined with high school math.

It ain't science fiction if it omits the mystery.

It ain't science fiction if it omits the science. By virtue of the fact that it's not happening to a real person, it's already fiction. We don't have to make it more fictiony. It's not in danger of suddenly becoming real.

Verisimilitude. Anything real is straight out because it would be telling. But anything unreal must be at least as complicated as real or it will not feel right. Simple will feel silly, as in Spaceballs, and soon enough it will also feel formulaic, no better than warp factors in the dramatic sense.

Ironically, that's a better argument for a single movie (like Spaceballs) than a long running franchise (like Star Trek). The longer a series goes on, the more data points you give the audience to figure out how fast they're going.

Nope. They may have lied to us twice or thrice with these bogus "formulas", but we can clearly see they provide less than a partial truth on the matter.

Is the argument here that the audience really likes being jerked around?

I don't quite see where you're coming from - how would it be better?

I mean, starships are fiction. The environment where they operate is fiction. To make it "science" fiction, you want an interface with the real world. But such an interface cannot exist, because starships and their environment are impossible fiction, fundamentally incompatible with the real world. So you insert smoke and Mirror Universes.

Which works just fine. After all, audiences (and people in general) are comfortable with things they don't understand. They are very itchy about things they think they do understand.

Don't condescend to the audience. They may accept certain conceits in order to enjoy the show, but they'll notice when you're not even trying. That's why I was agreeing that it's better to say nothing than to spout out Warp Factors that change their underlying velocity by orders of magnitude from one episode to the next.

There will always be some conceits that are necessary (like artificial gravity), but good science fiction sticks to the science whenever reasonably possible. Can't get the ship to an emergency in time to stop an attack because it would exceed the ship's established maximum velocity? Make the A plot about an away team stuck in the crossfire without their ship for support, and the B plot about the anxiety of the ship's crew not knowing if their crewmates are still alive. Or force the ship to make a detour so they can shortcut through an unstable wormhole that might destroy the ship. Established that the Federation is only 100 light-years across? Well, that's something on the order of a million cubic light-years, so it's plenty big, but perhaps you're worried that the ship may actually get everywhere too soon. Just put a nebula, a black whole or a sub-space minefield left over from a war with the Romulans in the way, and then the ship has to go around.

The bottom line is that good sci-fi doesn't work against the science. It makes it a natural part of the drama. After all, if science isn't part of the drama in your science fiction series, it might as well just be fantasy.

 

[Timo]

While being unnecessarily specific can paint you into a corner sometimes, creating the illusion of a velocity scale that doesn't actually serve to communicate meaningful information about velocity serves no narrative purpose.

I'd say the purpose becomes clear from Velocity=Distance/Time already. A basic characteristic of the fictional realm of Trek, or any other interstellar show, is the fundamental impossibity of distances given. Most locations are fictional, which is almost as bad as most of them being real, because travel time is dictated by plot needs anyway, leaving velocity as our only means of obfuscating the issue of distance. And fixing travel time from A to B in one plot and then A to C in another is fatal for the utterly unpredictable future plot calling for B to C, unless one obfuscates (or then creates a map featuring A, B and C from the get-go, which is insane.)

Unless you're trying to make the audience commiserate with the protagonist's confusion, injecting uncertainty for the audience is just bad writing.

Not really, since we expect uncertainty. This is how the real world works: say, nautical adventures have these means of navigation undecipherable to the layman, sometimes wrought with danger to the heroes, but usually just highlighting the fact that they are real professionals for ever getting their ship from A to B. The audience wants to look up to its heroes (although perhaps the term "competence porn" coined for The Martian takes this to certain new heights that don't characterize science fiction in general).

It's a crutch to prevent writers from having to worry about consistency and continuity.

And? The writing wouldn't happen without it. Writing is always about crutches - you just get to select your particular set, and sometimes enjoy the messy results of kicking one from beneath the story.

You have to remember that science fiction fans are both very demanding and very appreciative of attention to detail.

Which is why the kindergarden approach to travel times would be an instant flop.

First of all, there's a huge difference between carrying a message on horseback, then on a ship, across unfamiliar terrain and treacherous seas for thousands of miles and flying in a starship going from point A to point B in empty space and a fixed velocity.

And that's more or less the problem: travel in Trek cannot be of the kindergarden variety. There's no such thing as "empty space" in Trek - there are superdense nebulae and evil empires between any given two locations. As said, starships have navigators for a reason (even if the reason is never quite spelled out).

In fact, no one would go on a space mission where they don't know how long it will take to get there or if they'll have enough fuel, food or oxygen for the journey.

Which is what separates Star Trek from said fact. You need to forget about the faulty analogy to what NASA is doing: the NYPD does not provision its cruisers for missions of given length and carefully reconnoiter the route and destination before selecting and training the crew.

The basic properties of the Trek starship make it immune to space travel. Gravity is not a concern, orbital mechanics are for wussies, and generally you run out of crew lifespan before you run out of fuel or air or ammo. It is from this position of extreme overkill that the starships approach the task of getting from A to B. And in a sense, the overkill risks making space travel dull (almost as dull as it is in reality!) unless some of the romance of travel of yore, or a reasonable substitute, is reintroduced. And for that, the warp scale is as good a means as any.

A chaotic world can serve to mask continuity problems and inconsistencies in your world building, but that isn't an option when you have a ship that's going between two named star systems that actually exist in a specified timeframe.

In fact I doubt Trek has ever featured travel between two existing star systems. The closest we get to that is Earth to Vulcan (with the backstage identity of Vulcan system), and this is a prime example of the desperate need for obfuscation.

We don't have to make it more fictiony. It's not in danger of suddenly becoming real.

Which is good, because real doesn't work. But without the extra fiction, we risk it becoming so simplistic that even the kids in the saturday morning jury would poke holes it before closing the channel.

It's not just the people being fictional, either. It's the stories being fiction. Every cop show out there is fiction and fantasy, regardless of whether they use the correct make of cruiser and correct turn of jargon phrase: the concept that heroism produces results week after week is already so far out there that we have to turn a blind eye to the very roots of the fiction. Scifi has it easier, as it can introduce more conceits.

Ironically, that's a better argument for a single movie (like Spaceballs) than a long running franchise (like Star Trek). The longer a series goes on, the more data points you give the audience to figure out how fast they're going.

Which means you have to fight them. And obfuscation is the way to go. Again, the "other option", of keeping the datapoints consistent, simply doesn't exist.

Is the argument here that the audience really likes being jerked around?

More or less. Verisimilitude calls for complexity that goes above the heads of the audience, because that's how the world around them really works. If the heroes get off with less, they aren't really heroic.

Don't condescend to the audience.

Why not? What is, is.

They may accept certain conceits in order to enjoy the show, but they'll notice when you're not even trying.

And creating a warp scale (and then keeping it secret) is trying. Not creating one is not trying.

That's why I was agreeing that it's better to say nothing than to spout out Warp Factors that change their underlying velocity by orders of magnitude from one episode to the next.

Thankfully, Trek overgrew that orders-of-magnitude thing after TOS. But it would still be stuck with inconsistencies of that scope if it tried to pretend that speeds can be understood. Or then it would have to limit its scope to a fixed setting, say, a single star system such as in Firefly or The Expanse, and even then be the source of ridicule for its futile attempts.

There will always be some conceits that are necessary (like artificial gravity), but good science fiction sticks to the science whenever reasonably possible.

It's far more important to stick to the fiction. The audience will notice if the phaser stuns in one episode but kills in another and no explanation is given. And if an explanation is given, the audience will then expect the toggling of the relevant switch. But the audience is not concerned with the logistics of vaporizing somebody to oblivion with a raygun, as long as the ability is firmly established in the beginning.

The bottom line is that good sci-fi doesn't work against the science.

The train for that sailed long ago. Trek starships move at warp; the consequences make most of today's science irrelevant to the show.

It makes it a natural part of the drama. After all, if science isn't part of the drama in your science fiction series, it might as well just be fantasy.

And it always is, even if you call it Gravity or The Martian (or The Wire for whatever it's worth). Calling it names won't affect the fact that you have to stick to your guns, and if they are rayguns, you just have to stick harder and not let the audience see the wires.

Trek can insert some science to its stories, but from the in-universe point of view, it will have to be either fictional (from our POV) or then outdated (from their POV). Both can work to a degree, of course (see the Christopher Bennett novels, say), but they won't carry an entire show.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kor]

The purpose of the "warp scale" is to serve the dramatic needs of storytelling. It's not meant to be technically analyzed from a real-world perspective.

Kor

 

[at Quark's]

Perhaps an idea for the next series to drop that entire warp thingy and just call things by their name?

- Helm, engage plot drive and set course for planet Alpha Beta Gamma.
- Aye sir. Which plot speed factor? "No hurry at all", "only arriving just in time", "arriving seconds too late, bad guy just escaped", or "arriving a lot too late and we'll have to repair the damage somehow"?
- "Arriving seconds too late, bad guy just escaped" will do nicely Ensign, we still have 27 minutes of adventure to fill.

 

[Idran]

doubt should not be artificially produced in the minds of the audience when it's not present in the minds of our heroes.

But doubt is only placed in the mind of the Treknologists like this forum. The percentage of fans for whom this actually trips anyone up is extraordinarily small. I've got a ton of friends who are as into Trek as I am, but the technical details like this never even occur to them.

Doubt is only placed in the minds of maybe a fraction of 1% of the audience; the vast majority doesn't care, because honestly it doesn't matter to the narrative, which is the real point. It's just a fun game to try to get things to fit together despite the best efforts of the writers.

 

[Tenacity]

It's not meant to be technically analyzed from a real-world perspective

And how could it be?

With few exceptions the hero ship travel from one made-up location to another. There no real distance between these point, so what difference does it make how faster the ship is moving.

 

[Lord Other]

The trouble is, that formula is contradicted by just about every episode

Indeed. AFAIK there's no episode that actually adheres to the scale. The most challenging aspect to the cubed warp scale is when two relative points _are known_ and the distance traveled by the time given isn't even close. In "By Any Other Name" Spock cites the overall travel time to the nearby Andromeda galaxy as taking under 300 years. On the cubed scale, Spock is likely smoking something or taking some other form of recreational drugs, (perhaps the "LDS" he spoke of in Star Trek IV) if he thinks that they will getting to Andromeda in that time at Warp 11. A fourth power warp scale actually brings Andromeda in line with the dialogue, but on that scale, Warp 10 does as well. Go figure.

The purpose of the "warp scale" is to serve the dramatic needs of storytelling. It's not meant to be technically analyzed from a real-world perspective.

I would generally agree, save for some of the memos cited in TMoST seem to indicate that there was some effort in the part of Roddenberry and production staff for some level of technical accuracy. Whether that went out the window due to time constraints, or was something that was only paid attention to when it served narrative purposes, it makes no relative difference- the Enterprise and her crew bandy about the galaxy as needed, arriving when dictated by the writer/director, as humorously noted by at Quark's.

 

[Ithekro]

There was always the Warp 36 from the Animated Series.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Just making warp speed a function of acceleration instead of absolute speed would solve all of these problems, with each warp factor being a square of G:

Warp 1 = 9.8m/s^2
Warp 2 = 96.04m/s^2
Warp 3 = 941m/s^2
Warp 4 = 9,223m/s^2
Etc.

With numbers like this, a starship traveling at warp two would take something like 10 weeks to travel from Earth to Alpha Centauri, but it would need to reverse power and decelerate halfway there in order to not blow past it at thousands of times the speed of light.Warp 4, 5 or 6 would be equivalent to dash from one system to another in a couple of days or even hours.