What tech advances are there from 23rd to 24th centuries?

[Jeffe525]

Artificial sentience is a rarity in the Trek universe, and when it is achieved, it is frequently unstable.

News flash: Naturally evolved sentience, where ever it is found, is frequently unstable.

Not what I meant. I was referring to the kind of instability that leads to permanent collapse and "death," as with Rayna or Lal. The point, which I thought I had made clear enough already, was that it is extremely difficult in the Trek universe to create a sustainable artificial consciousness, one that can operate on a sentient level without suffering a fatal breakdown fairly early in its existence. This is presumably why such consciousnesses are so rare.

That was a joke. Sorry, I thought that was apparent.

23rd-24th century improvements:
Speed: 1701 Max normal cruising= Warp 6, or about 500 times the speed of light... 1701-D normal cruising=9.2, or about 1200 times the speed of light (warp factors represent orders of magnitude of light speed.) In short, Picard could cruise along at least twice as fast as Kirk could.

No, warp 6 was still considered regular cruising speed, although the velocity scale was reworked to make each warp factor faster. Checking my copy of the writers' tech manual used behind the scenes on TNG, it gives Warp 6 as "normal cruising speed" and Warp 9.6 as "Ship's maximum rated speed." Warp 9.9 says "auto-shutdown after 10 minutes," 9.99 says "nearly infinite power required, and 10 says "Warp 10 CANNOT be reached."

As for the different scales, I don't know where you're getting 500c for TOS-era warp 6. The alleged formula back then was that the velocity was the warp factor cubed times the speed of light, so it would've been only 216c. The TNG chart defines Warp 6 as 392c, which is the warp factor to the power of 10/3 (3.333...). Of course, neither alleged warp scale bears any resemblance to the speeds actually shown onscreen, which are always much, much faster. (The writers' tech manual chart I consulted says "Use these estimates for comparison only -- your actual mileage may vary.")

Sorry, Chris. I was going by memory and a rough graph. I should've known to be more precise. So let's see - according to my sources, max safe cruising speed for the Class I Heavy Cruiser (Kirk's Enterprise) was Warp 6, while its Emergency Speed was Warp 8 (Joseph, pg 01:04:10). 1701-D is designed to, "sustain a normal cruising speed of Warp 6 until fuel exhaustion, a maximum cruising speed of warp 9.2, and a maximum top speed of warp 9.6 for twelve hours." (Sternbach, pg 57).

And your numbers were more accurate on c factor conversions: Warp 6=392c, while Warp 8=1024c, and Warp 9=1516 (Sternbach, pg. 55). And for the sake of simplicity, I'm just using these numbers to compare the speed of the 2 ships (no old formulas).

So if we just compare Max cruising speed, we Kirk limping along at Warp 6, a meager 392c, while Picard goes galloping by at Warp 9.2, or about 1500c.

However, regardless of the fine details, what is clear is that 24th century-travelers can sustain much faster speeds for much longer periods of time; a hug advancement. When Janeway said the older ships were, "half as fast," she was being generous.


Sources:

Joseph, Franz; Star Trek: Starfleet Technical Manual, 20th Anniversary Edition; 1986.

Sternbach & Okuda; Star Trek TNG Technical Manual; 1991.

 

[Jeffe525]

They discovered very quickly that it would be possible for the ship to go too fast, removing many qualities of the vastness of space (including territorial or galactic borders) and diluting the dramatic sense of urgency. Hence, the warp curve was conceived with an upper limit that could only be broken with proper explanation within a given story.

Although that was forgotten later on, when DS9 had characters casually commuting from the station to Earth, or battle fleets crossing from Cardassian to Klingon or Romulan space in mere days. Not to mention ST V having the ship get to the galactic center in less than half an hour, or STID implying a trip of less than a minute from the Klingon border to Earth.

Sorry Chris, I forgot all about this part. You are correct, the general guideline for how long specific trips should take are typically ignored when they can't (or won't be bothered to) portray the passage of time.

Personally, I can forgive small infractions because I realize they only have 40+ minutes to tell the story. But large infractions like Klingon-Earth in a few minutes (STID), Romulus to the Neutral Zone in no time flat (Nemesis), or the DS9-Earth day trips do get on my nerves.

And don't get me started on ST V. No, no. Going to the center of the Milky Way lickety-split was the least of that movie's problems. Sure, get there in no time, fine by me - the faster they can get there, the faster this movie can end and I can leave. When it comes to that abomination, I chose to believe that the story began and ended on a camping trip, and everything in between was just part of Kirk's vision quest after accidentally eating mushrooms. I think it fits because, after all, there's no way Shatner was completely sober while thinking up that garbage story anyway.

 

[Christopher]

So if we just compare Max cruising speed, we Kirk limping along at Warp 6, a meager 392c, while Picard goes galloping by at Warp 9.2, or about 1500c.

First off, as I said, warp 6 by the TOS scale was slower than that, allegedly 216c -- and, of course, those number conversions are absolutely useless because they have no correspondence to the much faster speeds always shown onscreen. As the footnote said, they should be used for comparison purposes only -- they show the ratio between different warp factors and different warp scales, but the actual numbers can't be taken as meaningful indications of speed.

Second, I don't think it's right to call 9.2 the "maximum cruising speed," whatever the book may have said. I think it was used more like emergency speed, the equivalent of warp 7 or so in the TOS era. It's the maximum safe speed that the engines can sustain indefinitely, but I think it's incorrect to call that cruising speed; the maximum safely sustainable velocity would be called full speed. (And the even faster emergency speed that strains the engines would be flank speed.)

Personally, I can forgive small infractions because I realize they only have 40+ minutes to tell the story. But large infractions like Klingon-Earth in a few minutes (STID), Romulus to the Neutral Zone in no time flat (Nemesis), or the DS9-Earth day trips do get on my nerves.

I think in the case of the movies, you can assume there's some editorial trickery being pulled to make the trip seem faster than it actually is. This was the specific intent in the '09 film where the ship seems to get from Earth to Vulcan in minutes, but if you notice details like McCoy's costume change and the interval between Kirk being sedated and waking up again, it's implicit that hours have passed between what seemed like consecutive shots. The Klingon-border-to-Earth scene in STID didn't seem to have that kind of intentional hidden time jump built into it, but I prefer to assume that there is one -- that maybe the Vengeance is pursuing the Enterprise for several hours before it finally gets in firing range.

And don't get me started on ST V. No, no. Going to the center of the Milky Way lickety-split was the least of that movie's problems.

The saving grace there is that there are only three near-consecutive lines in the entire movie that even mention the center of the galaxy. If you just cover your ears for, like, 30 seconds, you can ignore that part altogether and just assume that Sha Ka Ree is someplace much closer to Federation space. It's no harder than ignoring the deck signs in the turboshaft that go up to a hundred and something in a 24-deck ship.

 

[FormerLurker]

I've always assumed* that Sha Ka Ree is caught in the Great Barrier between the galactic arms, on the way to the center of the galaxy. Story makes much more sense to me that way.


*Someone needs to tell comic book writer/artist John Byrne that this phrase means "For as long as I've been aware of this". He harps on the nonsensical "Always? As in since the beginning of time?" a little too much. "Always for me" doesn't necessarily mean "Always forever".

 

[Arpy]

If it takes three hours or three days to get to a destination, the actors should not look like they're shooting the same scene from, "Punch it," to, "Now entering orbit of Vulcan." The feel and direction and dialogue should reflect the change. We can rationalize stuff happened between cuts, but realistically, it only reminds one of the smoke and mirrors and takes one out of the narrative. No one would make a [good] movie about the Mayflower shooting, "Cast-off!" and, "Land-ho!" while cameras were still rolling.

Maybe in Trek we're now in a post-smartphone global-village era in which Kirk can call Scotty on Earth from Qo'nos in real time from his hand-communicator and ships can near-instajump from Earth to Vulcan...maybe contemporary artists don't care about period issues...but it is for me problematic.

EDIT: Also, if it takes three weeks or two months to get to some far-flung mission destination, that's an opening for Treklit or future episodes to fill with an en-route story. Or a few of them; think of Odysseus, Hercule Poirot (esp. Murder on the Orient Express), Frodo, etc.

 

[at Quark's]

If it takes three hours or three days to get to a destination, the actors should not look like they're shooting the same scene from, "Punch it," to, "Now entering orbit of Vulcan." The feel and direction and dialogue should reflect the change. We can rationalize stuff happened between cuts, but realistically, it only reminds one of the smoke and mirrors and takes one out of the narrative. No one would make a [good] movie about the Mayflower shooting, "Cast-off!" and, "Land-ho!" while cameras were still rolling.

I think it might be a consequence of somewhat lazy writing. Take part of the plot from Star Trek (2009), for example. Spock and Kirk are battling it out in the Kobiyashi Maru fraud hearing at SF academy (Earth) when news is received that Vulcan has sent out a distress call. And of course, the only ship that can be there in time is the Enterprise.

In that scene, you simply cannot say 'well, it still takes 4 days to get there', and keep the tension of the scene. So I can understand the decision to make it appear like it's just 5 minutes away.

So, if you'd stick true to travel times, the writers should have thought a lot harder to come up with a plausible scenario that involves the same type of drama we see now in that scene, and still be able to reach Vulcan in a few minutes. And that would hold for all such scenes, in all the movies and episodes.

I'm sure it can be done, but it's a lot of effort (hence: money) to please (I suppose) a rather small minority of the viewers who actually care about such things.

EDIT: Also, if it takes three weeks or two months to get to some far-flung mission destination, that's an opening for Treklit or future episodes to fill with an en-route story. Or a few of them; think of Odysseus, Hercule Poirot (esp. Murder on the Orient Express), Frodo, etc.

That's a nice idea, but I think one can do only so much with it. I mean, SF vessels and crews are supposed to be streamlined, disciplined, smoothly running highly professional operations. The excitement usually derives from something that disturbs that routine, and usually it's not caused by the crew themselves, but by some external factor. Can't have them murder one of their colleagues every other week (the alternate weeks being "love boat" episodes) or show people on intense personal quests that yet don't interfere with the show's main premise on the background without straining credibility of that premise too much ..

 

[Christopher]

I think it might be a consequence of somewhat lazy writing. Take part of the plot from Star Trek (2009), for example. Spock and Kirk are battling it out in the Kobiyashi Maru fraud hearing at SF academy (Earth) when news is received that Vulcan has sent out a distress call. And of course, the only ship that can be there in time is the Enterprise.

That's not what happened. Starfleet sent eight starships to Vulcan upon receiving the distress call. Seven of them were destroyed by Nero. The Enterprise was delayed in getting there because Sulu "left the parking brake on." So the only reason the ship survived is because it didn't get there as fast as the other seven ships. (And, presumably, the various Vulcan ships that Nero destroyed before Vulcan sent a distress signal to Earth.)

 

[at Quark's]

That's not what happened. Starfleet sent eight starships to Vulcan upon receiving the distress call. Seven of them were destroyed by Nero. The Enterprise was delayed in getting there because Sulu "left the parking brake on." So the only reason the ship survived is because it didn't get there as fast as the other seven ships. (And, presumably, the various Vulcan ships that Nero destroyed before Vulcan sent a distress signal to Earth.)

Ah, I knew I should have rewatched the scene before reacting ... my bad ... I was recalling from memory.

Still, that only aggrevates the travel time problem. Until now, I just believed they took some artistic license for dramatic tension and effect. Now it seems they want to deliberately show that Vulcan is only a few minutes away from earth, as that "parking break" delay (actually the inertial dampener) seems to take only about 45 seconds at most...

 

[Christopher]

Warp travel times aren't necessarily linear. It's possible a 45-second delay in getting started could translate to a larger delay in reaching the destination, because time and simultaneity are weird over interstellar distances.

Also, assuming a gap of a few hours between the part where McCoy gives Kirk a sedative and the part where Kirk reawakens, Chekov's line "engines at maximum" wouldn't come until the end of that gap, so maybe this brand-new ship on its first mission encountered some additional delays before finally getting the engines to maximum.

Filmmakers have been playing editorial tricks with time for as long as there's been film. Even when there are explicit countdowns, they usually don't run at anything like real time. So one can't take the evident onscreen durations of things too literally. (I know there's one TOS episode, maybe "The Doomsday Machine," where there's a gap of something like three minutes between 45 seconds and 15 seconds in a countdown.)

 

[Kemaiku]

McCoy had time to get Kirk to sickbay, change him into another outfit. Change into his own uniform and see to not only sickbay but let Kirk sleep for a while until the sedative wore off before they were even a few minutes out from Vulcan.

As Kirk had time to have his sickbay scene, run down to comms, then up to the bridge, and they still weren't there yet.

 

[FormerLurker]

Warp travel times aren't necessarily linear. It's possible a 45-second delay in getting started could translate to a larger delay in reaching the destination, because time and simultaneity are weird over interstellar distances.

Also, assuming a gap of a few hours between the part where McCoy gives Kirk a sedative and the part where Kirk reawakens, Chekov's line "engines at maximum" wouldn't come until the end of that gap, so maybe this brand-new ship on its first mission encountered some additional delays before finally getting the engines to maximum.

Filmmakers have been playing editorial tricks with time for as long as there's been film. Even when there are explicit countdowns, they usually don't run at anything like real time. So one can't take the evident onscreen durations of things too literally. (I know there's one TOS episode, maybe "The Doomsday Machine," where there's a gap of something like three minutes between 45 seconds and 15 seconds in a countdown.)

What that was was the thirty second countdown from when Kirk pressed the button until the Impulse engine explosion at the climax. My brother timed it once and got a two minute and thirty-six second block of time covering the thirty second countdown. I figured out that it was because all the simultaneous action was shown in linear fashion for dramatic purposes. I was probably right.

 

[Christopher]

^It's because film editors cut for emotional impact and pacing rather than exact chronology. You almost never see a cinematic countdown that actually happens in real time, except in cases like that M*A*S*H episode where there was a literal countdown clock superimposed on the screen to show how much time they had to get a transplant done to save a patient. Heck, most of the time when actors count down seconds verbally, the "seconds" they count are significantly longer than one second each. It gets slowed down to build suspense. (I think "The Corbomite Maneuver" is a prime example of this.)

In my novel Only Superhuman, there's a countdown at the climax with a character periodically calling out how many seconds were left, and I read the lines out loud so I could time the scene accurately. But when they did a dramatic audiobook adaptation, they used the same numbers in the countdown dialogue, but they didn't match the actual elapsed intervals, because the lead actress delivered her dialogue more slowly than I'd read it aloud to myself. There's really no way to tell how long a scene will take once it's acted out, let alone how its length may be altered in editing. So it takes a special effort to get the timings right when there's a countdown. Usually they just don't bother, because they know few people in the audience will notice.

 

[Push The Button]

TOS: The Naked Time also fudges things a bit when it comes to the passage of time in the story.

 

[Christopher]

It'd be easier to make a list of TV episodes and movies that don't fudge the passage of time, since they're so much rarer. I think even 24 cheated the intervals sometimes, and that was a show that was entirely built around a ticking clock. (They certainly cheated travel times, often having characters travel across town in mere minutes when it should've taken far longer. Or so I've heard -- I stopped watching that show during the third episode.)