Transwarp & Computers

[Timo]

Naah. The meaning of words varies from application to application, especially in the technological context where Webster's tends to be worse than useless as a reference.

"Sustainable" is probably just a standardized expression for the ability to sustain the speed for the ISO 47001-specified twelve minutes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MacLeod]

Good thing that the OED is considered to be the difinitve dictionary (at least on this side of the pond)

 

[Deks]

Naah. The meaning of words varies from application to application, especially in the technological context where Webster's tends to be worse than useless as a reference.

"Sustainable" is probably just a standardized expression for the ability to sustain the speed for the ISO 47001-specified twelve minutes.

Timo Saloniemi

Nope.
The writers messed it up.
Plain and simple.
In-universe wise, it's possible that a critical component on VOyager was damaged in their initial journey to the DQ which prevents them from sustaining maximum warp.

Also, that Warp scale is a bit skewed.
Warp speed means faster than light.
Ergo Warp 1 should probably be faster than the speed of light... otherwise, you are in fact not traveling faster than light at Warp 1.

 

[Timo]

Nowhere in Trek is it said that warp means faster than light.

Nor is it established that warp 1 equals lightspeed, for that matter. If the backstage ideas on this technobabble don't please you, feel free to ignore them and substitute your own.

As for the definition of "sustainable" as "sustainable till infinity", it just plain isn't real. if a dictionary uses that definition, then the dictionary is wrong. Real usage always trumps dictionaries.

"Sustainable flight" is one example of a technical term that contains the word. It has a specific meaning (or did, until airlines started the current greenwashing campaign): it's what separates a sparrow from a flying squirrel. Nobody pretends that a sparrow would stay airborne indefinitely, or even until exhaustion. It's simply that a sparrow can dictate the time it spends airborne, within realistic limits, while a flying squirrel is subject to physical limitations beyond its control.

I'm not arguing the writers of VOY didn't screw up with their references to the sustainable speed of the hero ship. I'm simply pointing out that in this context, the usage of "sustainable" would be perfectly correct if it referred to hours rather than centuries of sustainability.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kemaiku]

The line is "Stable cruise velocity of Warp 9.975", its made clear in the pilot that Voyager cannot sustain this speed for very long however. Its the fastest stable speed the ship can cruise at, but theres a very limited time it can maintain that speed.

 

[Timo]

True enough - most transcripts have this wrong. It's either quoted as "sustainable cruise velocity" or even as "maximum sustainable cruise velocity", both of which are incorrect.

Whether "stable cruise" is something that would be of a shorter duration than "sustainable cruise" is debatable. And in any case, the ship never manages to "stabilize" at warp 9.975, any more than she manages to "sustain" it. The highest speed actually quoted, 9.9 from "Threshold", was said to spell "imminent structural collapse". (Well, Chakotay did order Helm to do warp 9.9, but we didn't learn if she actually managed it. All we know is that their target kept accelerating, and that Chakotay gave up the chase when the target was doing warp 9.97.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

From the new Warp table...

Warp 1: 1x C or the speed of light (1 year to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 2: 10x C (876 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 3: 39x C (225 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 4: 102x C (86 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 5: 214x C (41 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 6: 392x C (22.5 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 7: 656x C (13.5 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 8: 1024x C (8.5 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 9: 1516x C (6 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 9.975: 6069x C (1.5 hours to travel 1 lightyear)

Now the computer can detect subspace speed because it picks up communications. For a subspace message to travel 1 LY takes around 2 minutes and 30 seconds. So that puts the speed of subspace at around Warp 9.9999 (or 199516x C). So from that it's safe to assume that the computer can only recognise up to that velocity.

You can probably adjust the "sensor speed" up a little.

For the TNG production and onwards (excluding TOS and 6 movies):
W9.0 = 833c TNG:Bloodlines.
W9.9 = 21,457c VOY:The 37s.

Voyager has made attacks at 6,667c in "Maneuvers" but I agree that in the poor shape she was in it was unlikely she'd make good on W9.975. She'd probably be able to cruise around at W9-9.2 range easily though...

The TOS charts would've been in the 100,000's of c range

Edlt: From "The Mark of Gideon", it would appear that "warp speed" does mean faster-than-light*

KIRK: Took the ship out of warp speed.
ODONA: Out of what?
KIRK: Space terminology. We're no longer moving faster than the speed of light. I've trimmed down to sublight speed until we find out where we are.

*Of course that's dependent on the local space conditions as we've seen in TOS that warping close to planets and stars can slow warp down to the equivalent of sublight speeds. This doesn't apply to TNG and later productions though.

 

[Mr Silver]

In "Hope and Fear" it was mentioned that it took Voyager 2 days at high warp to travel 15 lightyears to catch up with the Dauntless. In order to make sense of that, a retcon of the warp table is needed...

Warp 1: 1x C or the speed of light (1 year to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 2: 65x C (135 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 3: 150x C (58 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 4: 294x C (30 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 5: 513x C (17 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 6: 826x C (11 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 7: 1253x C (7 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 8: 1837x C (5 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 9: 4942x C (2 hours to travel 1 lightyear)
Warp 9.975: 6477x C (1.3 hours to travel 1 lightyear)

This retcon would be consistent with them taking around 4 days to travel 50 lightyears at warp 9 (high warp). Now assume that they were able to keep up warp 9 indefinitely, it would take them 13 years and 5 months to get home. I reckon that the maximum indefinite velocity they could sustain is around warp 7.5 (from my revised table). That would mean it would take around 75 years at that speed to get home (if Earth is the destination and not the border of the Alpha, or even Beta quadrant(s).) As for the reason why they cannot just go at speeds higher than warp 7.5 indefinitely, it's probably something to do with their being a minimum cool down period after prolonged travel. Say 9.975 can only be kept at for 6 hours and once those 6 hours are over, the maximum cruising speed (7.5) is the fastest they can travel for a week or so, whilst the matter/anti-matter reaction regains stability for faster speeds.

From TMP, we can gather that full impulse power is 0.5 C. Which doesn't make much sense given how it would take around 20 hours to exit the solar system. Therefore, I think full impulse should be rated at a maximum of 0.99 C, just before lightspeed so that it would take less time to exit the solar system. Although I'm pretty sure that warp drive was initiated much earlier whilst still within the solar system, because of the need for time.

 

[blssdwlf]

TUVOK: No sign of them. Commander, we've travelled over fifteen light years.

Captain's Log, Supplemental. After two days at high warp, we've rendezvoused with the Dauntless. Arturis has helped us reconstruct most of the Starfleet message. The pieces of this puzzle are finally coming together.

That would put the "high warp" in the 2,700-3,000c ballpark or faster than Warp 9 (833c) and slower than her speed in "Maneuvers" (6000c).

@Admiral M - why do think "Hope and Fear" was a retcon?

 

[Mr Silver]

Because they couldn't travel at 9.975 for two days (I estimate around 6 hours with a week cooldown period where they are limited to no speeds greater than 7.5), otherwise maximum sustainable cruise velocity wouldn't be a factor (which it is, otherwise Voyager could have just warped home within a few years). I'd place it more at warp 9 to coincide with the revised warp table I came up with. That would mean two days at warp 9 would get them to the Dauntless' position.

And I made an error with the 50 lightyears calculation, it's been a while since I've seen that episode. Although the 15 lightyears figure still fits in with my revision.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Memory Alpha has the real, nonsensical warp speed Trek chart. Where warp 8.4 is faster than warp 9.975.

 

[Timo]

The chart becomes much less nonsensical if one assumes that speed over long distances is always less than over short ones.

Indeed, the very concept of "top cruising speed" (as mentioned in "Relativity") indicates that there is a range of cruising speeds available. If warp meant accelerating against some sort of strong galactic resistance, then perhaps longer journeys would be made at higher cruising speeds because the acceleration has enough time to defeat the resistance. But we don't hear of such resistance, in which case it makes more sense to assume that one can recklessly cruise at high speed for a short time, but must take it easier if one is to spend a long time at warp.

The above considerations eliminate e.g. the contradiction between Tom Paris' "The 37s" high outlier for warp 9 and the lower value for "maximum warp" in "Friendship One" - because maximum warp for two months is going to be much lower than warp 9. OTOH, it is a very welcome thing that Tom tells us his ship can do tens of thousands times lightspeed (for brief periods), because most examples of high warp really require this sort of performance. Certainly this is more acceptable than the "official" charts that suggest mere thousands of lightyears per year for warp nine.

All of this still leaves "That Which Survives" as an outlier. Quick dashes like the one in "Bread and Circuses" are perfectly all right even when elsewhere the same ship cannot maintain a speed anywhere near this for any appreciable period of time. But eleven hours at a speed that's an order of magnitude higher than Voyager's warp nine is still an unacceptable deviation from the general trend.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr Silver]

The chart becomes much less nonsensical if one assumes that speed over long distances is always less than over short ones.

Indeed, the very concept of "top cruising speed" (as mentioned in "Relativity") indicates that there is a range of cruising speeds available. If warp meant accelerating against some sort of strong galactic resistance, then perhaps longer journeys would be made at higher cruising speeds because the acceleration has enough time to defeat the resistance. But we don't hear of such resistance, in which case it makes more sense to assume that one can recklessly cruise at high speed for a short time, but must take it easier if one is to spend a long time at warp.

The above considerations eliminate e.g. the contradiction between Tom Paris' "The 37s" high outlier for warp 9 and the lower value for "maximum warp" in "Friendship One" - because maximum warp for two months is going to be much lower than warp 9. OTOH, it is a very welcome thing that Tom tells us his ship can do tens of thousands times lightspeed (for brief periods), because most examples of high warp really require this sort of performance. Certainly this is more acceptable than the "official" charts that suggest mere thousands of lightyears per year for warp nine.

All of this still leaves "That Which Survives" as an outlier. Quick dashes like the one in "Bread and Circuses" are perfectly all right even when elsewhere the same ship cannot maintain a speed anywhere near this for any appreciable period of time. But eleven hours at a speed that's an order of magnitude higher than Voyager's warp nine is still an unacceptable deviation from the general trend.

What I think needs to be done is to establish some rules that cannot be ignored for continunity purposes. One of these "rules" would be a warp table, which I would be happy to come up with should you be onboard for such a project.

 

[Deks]

Nowhere in Trek is it said that warp means faster than light.

From Voyager:

Janeway: "Tom. What's the first thing they teach you about Warp?"
Paris: "Uh... faster than light, no left or right... when possible, maintain a linear trajectory".

I'd say it's pretty well established that Warp = faster than light, going so far as to even stating on numerous occasions just how fast Warp factors are (depending on the show and script/drama needs of course - all of which were much higher than the 300 000 km/s - which is light speed).
Also, First Contact, moments before the Phoenix jumped into warp and was shaking a lot, Riker yelled: 'Approaching light speed.' - followed by Cochrane: "We're at critical velocity".
This one I'll grant you 'COULD' be interpreted as Warp speed equaling light speed, but I find it doubtful.
Only in Enterprise did we have an example of when the dialogue completely contradicted Warp = faster than light and it seemed as if the ship was moving at several times SLOWER than the speed of light, regardless of the show's dialogue also stating on several occasions that Warp = faster than light - shining example of the show contradicting itself and the writers messing it up - there's no escaping that.
Unless you want to state that Warp speed suddenly became slower than light speed (in which case it would take the ship a LONG time to get ANYWHERE in the known area of space).

Nor is it established that warp 1 equals lightspeed, for that matter. If the backstage ideas on this technobabble don't please you, feel free to ignore them and substitute your own.

Canon-wise (except for the dialogue in Enterprise royally messing things up and contradicting itself several times in the same episode), nothing really contradicts the well repeated premise that Warp is faster than light (at least not in shows other than Enterprise).
And yes, on-screen wise, virtually nothing indicates that Warp1 EQUALS light speed (however the mere meaning of Warp speed is kept repeated through Trek as being FASTER than light - actual Warp factors are usually placed into that category automatically).

As for the definition of "sustainable" as "sustainable till infinity", it just plain isn't real. if a dictionary uses that definition, then the dictionary is wrong. Real usage always trumps dictionaries.

Sustainable as a term was used by Janeway to pose a question to Paris right after they took Voyager back in 'Basics Part 2'.
Janeway: "Mr. Paris! Is this ship capable of sustained flight?".
Paris: "All of propulsion and navigational systems are online captain".
Janeway: "Good. Take us away from our new home, and set a course for the old one Mr. Paris. Warp 8!"

Sustained flight in this context would probably mean 'for as long until I say otherwise/or we have the resources'.

Also, Voyager was repeatedly stated to have a 'top cruising speed' of Warp 9.975
Cruising speed in contemporary human terminology means: 'where flight is most fuel efficient' (taken from Wiki).
So if we would to apply this to Voyager, then the ship should be able to sustain Warp 9.975 for as long as it has the power/resources to do so.

I'm not arguing the writers of VOY didn't screw up with their references to the sustainable speed of the hero ship. I'm simply pointing out that in this context, the usage of "sustainable" would be perfectly correct if it referred to hours rather than centuries of sustainability.

Timo Saloniemi

Except that in case of Star Trek, 'sustainable' was never defined as meaning 'for short periods of time - such as minutes or hours', unless of course it was explicitly stated as such in order to increase the drama.
For example, Paris stated that Voyager wouldn't be able to sustain the quantum stresses of QS drive for more than 1 hour.
In that particular scenario, 'sustainable' was limited in duration, hence your version applies, but most other times it was not.
Besides, Voyager didn't use the phrase 'sustainable', instead, it used the term 'top cruising speed'.
To me it always meant that the ship would be able to hold Warp 9.975 for as long as it had the fuel/resources to do so.

 

[blssdwlf]

The chart becomes much less nonsensical if one assumes that speed over long distances is always less than over short ones.

Or if we put TOS on it's own continuity with it's own separate warp chart. I suspect we'd end up doing the same for Abrams Trek as well

There was a long discussion regarding Voyager's (Intrepid class) cruising speed and/or max warp a while back. Interestingly, it appears that "Relativity" amended the phrase with the word "top" to indicate "maximum" cruising speed if we were take the dialogue chronologically.

We can probably ignore Neelix here since he's just repeating the Starfleet literature

However, if we were to take Janeway's description as being more accurate than Stadi's then the Intrepid class' "TOP Cruising Speed" aka "Maximum Cruising Speed" is Warp 9.975 when she's undamaged and fresh out of drydock. That would imply that her "Maximum speed" is higher than Warp 9.975. And since we know from "The Swarm" that Voyager can hold Warp 9.75 for only a few hours and in "Threshold" going above Warp 9.9 is risking structural collapse that we can infer that Voyager's structure is now keeping the ship from reaching Warp 9.975 since her maximum speed is now lower. Her engines could probably sustain Warp 9.975 since we're given no indication of warp engine problem but accumulated damage to the structure is holding her back, IMHO.

The dialogue:

Before Janeway takes the ship in "Relativity":

JANEWAY: Seven hundred thousand metric tons, fifteen decks, and computer systems augmented with bio-neural circuitry, top cruising speed warp nine point nine seven five.
​

later when Paris is being brought to Voyager in "Caretaker":

STADI: That's our ship. That's Voyager. Intrepid class. Sustainable cruise velocity of warp factor 9.975. Fifteen decks. Crew complement of 141. Bio-neural circuitry.
​

And we get an idea that Voyager's top sustainable speed is Warp 9.75 for several hours in "The Swarm":

CHAKOTAY: I'd say over fifteen months even if we could sustain maximum warp, which we can't.
...
PARIS: I'll try holding warp nine point seven five for as long as I can.
CHAKOTAY: If we can sustain that for twelve hours we'll be nearly a third of the way through.
​

and by "Threshold", Voyager's new maximum speed appears to be Warp 9.9-9.95 and we're actually given a reason why she can't go faster:

PARIS [OC]: Warp nine point seven, nine point eight, nine point nine.
TUVOK: He's exceeding our maximum velocity. I'm switching to long-range sensors.
PARIS [OC]: Warp nine point nine five!
​

KIM: They're approaching warp nine point nine.
CHAKOTAY: Increase speed to match.
COMPUTER: Warning. Nearing maximum warp velocity. Structural collapse is imminent.
CHAKOTAY: Are we in tractor range?
KIM: No. And they're still accelerating. Warp nine point nine seven.
COMPUTER: Warning. At present speed, structural failure in forty five seconds.
CHAKOTAY: Reduce speed to warp nine point five. Keep a sensor lock on them as long as you can.
​

"Barge of the Dead":

NEELIX: Fifteen decks. Computers augmented with bio-neural circuitry. Top cruising speed, warp nine point nine seven five, not that you'll be going anywhere.​

 

[Timo]

What I think needs to be done is to establish some rules that cannot be ignored for continunity purposes.

I sort of think this is the worst thing that could happen. Not only would it deprive us of the joy of nitpicking, but it would force the writers to also pay attention to the exact locations where the adventures take place. Another opportunity for epic fails would be shoved down their throats...

Only in Enterprise did we have an example of when the dialogue completely contradicted Warp = faster than light and it seemed as if the ship was moving at several times SLOWER than the speed of light

Doesn't TOS also offer plenty of examples of (adversary) ships moving at high warp yet covering very little ground?

Also, Voyager was repeatedly stated to have a 'top cruising speed' of Warp 9.975. Cruising speed in contemporary human terminology means: 'where flight is most fuel efficient' (taken from Wiki).

But "top" cruising speed contradicts that definition, as it establishes a range of options of which this one is the fastest.

Of course, backstage technobabble and even some onscreen graphics establish that warp can indeed be fuel-efficient at several different speeds while being fuel-inefficient in the speeds between. Essentially, every starship capable of (TNG) warp 9 ought to have nine cruising speeds, coinciding with the integer warp factors.

However, engine technology may be unable to exploit these "valleys of efficiency" equally; for a 24th century engine, warps 1 through 6 may be as efficient as theoretically possible, but at warp 7 the inherent inefficiencies of the engine kick in, and warp 9 is barely more efficient than warp 8.99.

Whether treknology allows for similar efficiency above warp 9 is another question; perhaps (TNG) warp factors 10, 11, 12 and 13 represent further energy consumption minima that will be discovered in time for "All Good Things..", thanks to faster starships with better engines spending time at high warp and providing research data. Voyager may already be exploiting one of these minima, without yet going for a terminology change.

For starships that are intended to cover great distances, the choice of cruising speed may be dictated by factors other than efficiency. The speed that gets the ship from Alpha Garrisonis to Beta Vulnerabilis fast enough to provide a deterrence to an invader may be defined as the cruising speed, even if it generally ruins the engine and kills an average of 4.7 engineers per run; any speed beyond that is defined as dash or flank, and provides a further tactical advantage. Commercial ships in turn may cruise at a speed that consumes more fuel than the absolute minimum, but provides better revenue from timely deliveries.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

Or if we put TOS on it's own continuity with it's own separate warp chart.

The problem is that the TOS high outliers already contradict TOS itself; if the ship indeed had the ability to cover about a thousand lightyears in a day or less, all the references to distant locations visited would become nonsensical, because destinations like Trelane's planet would simply be "around the block" and would have been visited by hundreds of Federation ships already before Kirk got there.

Voyager's structure is now keeping the ship from reaching Warp 9.975

A sound idea, as structure has always been quoted as the weak link when the hero ship dabbles in high speeds. Apparently, warp doesn't really consume all that much power, and the power requirements do not increase massively when speed does; indeed, it appears that power consumption increases so moderately that it doesn't even hit infinity yet when speed does. So even though Scotty is complaining about his poor bairns, it's actually the ship herself that is being shaken to pieces.

by "Threshold", Voyager's new maximum speed appears to be Warp 9.9-9.95

...Assuming the ship ever reached those speeds during the chase, where there was constant acceleration and only the speed of the quarry, not the hunter, was referenced. Quite possibly, Chakotay's ship had not yet even hit warp 9.9 when Tom's shuttle reached warp 9.97 and the chase became hopeless. All we know for certain is that "maximum velocity" is higher than warp 9.5.

STADI: That's our ship. That's Voyager. Intrepid class. Sustainable cruise velocity of warp factor 9.975.

Again, the quote appears to be inaccurate: Stadi says "stable" rather than "sustainable", despite the Chakoteya transcript.

Speaking of "Caretaker", Janeway famously defines the task awaiting the heroes like this:

Even at maximum speed it would take 75 years to reach the Federation

So she apparently believes that "maximum speed" is much less than warp nine. Which makes a lot of sense, if maximum speed varies with the duration of the run.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cmdr_Blop]

I think the basic question here was in essence, CAN the computer on a single Federation starship literally hold the sum of EVERY bit of information in the entire universe? Every scan of ever molecule of every lifeform on every planet, and the total sum of all the information scanned from those computers, in every galaxy in every galactic cluster, and every molecule of space in between. Does the computer have that much storage capacity, or will we be needin' an external HD?

I know the DF was unaffected in the episode, but let's be fair... that was VOY, lol. Accuracy was never their job one.

 

[blssdwlf]

Or if we put TOS on it's own continuity with it's own separate warp chart.

The problem is that the TOS high outliers already contradict TOS itself; if the ship indeed had the ability to cover about a thousand lightyears in a day or less, all the references to distant locations visited would become nonsensical, because destinations like Trelane's planet would simply be "around the block" and would have been visited by hundreds of Federation ships already before Kirk got there.

Well, we've got several "high speed" examples in TOS such as "Breads and Circuses", "Obsession" and "That Which Survives". All three instances are somewhere in open space and "Breads and Circuses" is from out of the system heading to the 4th planet. I've pointed out in other threads, TOS has been consistent in allowing ships to go fast between systems and slow down significantly inside a star system, particularly when within the 3rd planet orbital distance to the star or near large space masses.

Speaking of nonsensical, Trelane's planet should've been spotted long ago:

SPOCK: Inconceivable this body has gone unnoted on all our records.
​

It makes more sense for that episode if Trelane just happened to have been given freedom to play and all the other hundred of times a ship passed through he (or it) just wasn't allowed to grab a ship.

STADI: That's our ship. That's Voyager. Intrepid class. Sustainable cruise velocity of warp factor 9.975.

Again, the quote appears to be inaccurate: Stadi says "stable" rather than "sustainable", despite the Chakoteya transcript.

I've listened to her a few times just now (go Netflix ) and it sounds like "sustainable" instead of "stable". She says it really fast but it doesn't sound like "stable". Curious if anyone else can verify?

Speaking of "Caretaker", Janeway famously defines the task awaiting the heroes like this:

Even at maximum speed it would take 75 years to reach the Federation

So she apparently believes that "maximum speed" is much less than warp nine. Which makes a lot of sense, if maximum speed varies with the duration of the run.

That estimate of hers puts "maximum speeds" at slightly ABOVE Warp 9. TNG's "Bloodlines" puts Warp 9 as 833c. Voyager's "Caretaker" 70,000 ly trip at 75 years puts Voyager at 933c. Now, since she says this at the end of the episode, it could very well be that she made the calculation based on the damage the ship has suffered and it doesn't indicate what an undamaged, fresh from the drydock Intrepid class could max out at.

I think the basic question here was in essence, CAN the computer on a single Federation starship literally hold the sum of EVERY bit of information in the entire universe? Every scan of ever molecule of every lifeform on every planet, and the total sum of all the information scanned from those computers, in every galaxy in every galactic cluster, and every molecule of space in between. Does the computer have that much storage capacity, or will we be needin' an external HD?

Likely not able to store the whole universe since they had a hard enough time with quantum data in "Our Man Bashir" I think the biggest problem is still getting valid sensor data as the ship is moving faster than her own sensor gear was designed for.

 

[Timo]

I think the basic question here was in essence, CAN the computer on a single Federation starship literally hold the sum of EVERY bit of information in the entire universe?

I'm not sure why this would be relevant, because the sensors feeding the computer have a finite and set rate of gathering this information. This rate won't be changed by the fact that the sensors are looking at the entire universe in one glance; there will still only be so many pixels in the image (to use a no doubt anachronistic and technologically incorrect analogy for 24th century imaging technology), and each pixel will only update so many times per second.

It is strange indeed that the computer of Tom Paris' shuttlecraft would choke in a few minutes when it otherwise can be assumed to keep on gathering information for weeks. More probably, the computer froze because it got nonsensical information, not because it got too much information; say, a navigation system could easily go haywire when the image of the star camera shows the usual amount of pixels, but each pixel comes from a different corner of the universe.

TOS has been consistent in allowing ships to go fast between systems and slow down significantly inside a star system

We could extend this to all the other shows, too. ENT gives us hard data on how the Warp Five engine behaves on the Earth-Neptune-Earth run, but the same engine performs the Earth-Qo'noS run immensely faster in the very same episode.

However, this won't solve the internal problems of TOS. If the engines are fast in the interstellar "subspace vacuum", then every location Kirk visited should have been pre-visited already.

Speaking of nonsensical, Trelane's planet should've been spotted long ago:
SPOCK: Inconceivable this body has gone unnoted on all our records.

Ah, good point! I'll switch my argument to other dubiously close locations that Kirk is the first to survey, then. Say, Pollux in "Who Mourns for Adonais". Or even the distant Rigel and Deneb (assuming they are Beta Orionis and Alpha Cygni, respectively, and not other stars with the words "rigel" and "deneb" in their names), which could have been reached in a day at the anomalous warp 8.4 of "That Which Survives".

That estimate of hers puts "maximum speeds" at slightly ABOVE Warp 9.

Not above Tom Paris' definition of that warp factor, which is a show-internal reference and also one in accordance with most of the travel time feats of the TNG hero ship. That is, if the E-D couldn't do four-digit speeds with ease, basically every pair of locations visited in an episode would have to be neighboring star systems or worse.

TNG's "Bloodlines" puts Warp 9 as 833c.

Let's remember that it's Riker's hipshot estimate, not a Data figure... Although to be sure, Data was present and no doubt ready to correct Riker on tactically erroneous estimates.

It's an outlier in any case, and might be attributed to their target Bok residing in the shallow space of a star system, where even warp 9 gets quite slow as per "Paradise Syndrome".

Regarding Janeway's estimate, it probably won't take into account repairable damage because that would get repaired in 75 years. But it may well be what the field manuals tell her about the true sustainable speed of her ride on long voyages, because it appears to be in rough accordance with the estimate Barclay uses for the ship's speed in "Pathfinder"...

Timo Saloniemi