Canon (refers to an old version of this article!)
This is good (and much) work, but several details sound "invented". These parts should be removed. -- Cid Highwind 04:06, 3 Apr 2004 (PST)
Cid, I tried to stay as close to canon as I could on this one. Most of the details in the technology section are drawn from the TNG Technical Manual. The history section is almost completely canon, with some conjecture on my part based on the canonical sources.
The specific parts I speculated on were Cochrane's original Phoenix being fusion-powered and his move to Alpha Centauri being partially motivated by trying to integrate warp engines with matter-antimatter reactors. (The former I felt pretty safe with, 'cause Cochrane and his team are inoculated for radiation exposure in First Contact, and I was hoping they weren't playing around with a fission pile.)
Another part was the date of the refactoring of the Warp scale- I saw someone somewhere had a date of 2313 which jibed well with the refitted big E being capable of warp 12 and the TOS E achieving warp 14.1, but the TNG E only capable of warp 9.6. I also took the liberty of tying this refactoring in with the failed transwarp program of Excelsior. The part about the warp scale being a piecewise function was an idea I got when researching formulae for computing "new" warp speeds, when in actuality the scale is just a pretty picture drawn by Okuda, who never even took Calculus. (The slacker!)
I also speculated on why they built the Constellation with four nacelles when Roddenberry dictated all ships have only two. (The date of 2269 for two warp nacelles being optimal is from TNG TM, pp. 65, and I was also trying to see if ther was a way I could re-inject Franz Joseph's starship designs from the original TM into canon- I have a real soft spot for them.;-)) The time frame of their construction being in the 2290's was also my conjecture based on the fact that the ships are seventy-odd years old by the time of TNG and DS9.
The last really big leap on my part was figuring out why in the last season of TNG they set the speed limit at warp five, but just a few months and movies later everone's back gallivanting at warp nine. (I know the real reason was because of lazy writing, but I'm trying to sound credible here.)
I really tried to do my homework on this article, and if there are specific points you have issue with, let me know and I'll rewrite 'em. Thanks! --Chuckhoffmann 00:37, 4 Apr 2004 (PST)
- Thanks for explaining all those points, Chuck. It's not that I don't agree with them, I just think that anything that is not directly "canon", even if it seems to be completely logical, should be marked as such. Otherwise, a visitor might assume that this conjecture is indeed canon for some reason. The style we often use for speculation is an indented and italicized paragraph, which you can achieve this way:
- :''SPECULATION HERE''
- I suggest that you separate facts from 'reasonable' conjecture this way in the article (pure speculation should probably still be removed) and add a short explanation why you came to those conclusions (like you did on this talk page). This also includes TNGTM info - I think we haven't yet decided whether this info should be included or not. -- Cid Highwind 01:19, 4 Apr 2004 (PST)
Canon vs. conjecture
I noticed that this article was changed to include some explanations for the existing conjecture. This is better than just offering the speculation "as canon", of course, but I still think that there might be better ways... Some examples:
- ARTICLE: Cochrane's original warp engines were fusion-powered1
- EXPLANATION: 1. The idea that Cochrane's original Phoenix was fusion-powered is my speculation based on the fact that in First Contact, Cochrane and his team are inoculated for radiation exposure after the Borg attack and I was hoping they weren't playing around with a fission pile.
Speculation based on canon facts. That's good, in my opinion. Could be rephrased a little, then integrated into the main text (but still marked as speculation, of course).
- ARTICLE: In 2269, research was done that showed that the optimum number of warp nacelles for a starship is two, although warp nacelles in pairs can generate greater speeds and longer durations at a loss of efficiency. (This research of using four nacelles eventually led to the creation of the Constellation class starships in the 2290's.4)
- EXPLANATION: 4. While developing Star Trek: The Next Generation, Gene Roddenberry decided that all starships should have 2 warp nacelles, so I had to come up with a convincing explanation of why a lot of starships have 1, 3 or 4 nacelles. Another, more selfish reason is that I'm trying to re-integrate the Franz Joseph Schnaubelt-designed starships back into canon. The date of 2290 as the date for the building of the Constellation class is based on the ships being about 70 years old at the time of TNG.
Roddenberry's decision is not canon, and we saw at least some ships with 1 or 4 nacelles, so no explanation is necessary. That bit can simply be deleted from the article. GR's decision might make a nice anecdote (footnote) on some page, though (if it is indeed valid, some people seem to doubt even that)...
- ARTICLE: The warp scale (...) was refactored in 2313.6
- EXPLANATION: 6. I saw someone somewhere had a date of 2313 for the refactoring of the Warp scale
This is basically some number picked randomly just to have a number. A less specific reference, or none at all, would be just as good in this case.
There are some other ideas I have, but this should be enough for the moment. If you think these need some discussion, just let me know. Otherwise, someone can just incorporate those changes... (I will do tomorrow if there are no objections) -- Cid Highwind 19:08, 22 Apr 2004 (CEST)
- Not exactly "tomorrow" (which would have been a little too fast, anyway), but I just incorporated those changes because there were no objections. I also moved the remaining footnotes to the relevant sections to allow easier editing in the future. Let's talk about some of those other bits: -- Cid Highwind 17:32, 28 Apr 2004 (CEST)
I'm glad to see somebody else noticed the # nacelles ish, & at least tried to address it. Is there any canon on why 2 nacelles is std? (I always presumed Gene picked it 'cause he liked the esthetics.) & if so, why Roms & Vulcans use the "arc"? Or do they (both?) use a whole different warp field theory? weyoun shran 12:42, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
History - 21st century
- The history of the first unmanned test vessel sounds like TNGTM-info (see: canon). It should be removed if that's the only source.
- Footnote 1 and the related part of the article is speculation and should be removed(?). Is the relocation to Alpha Centauri canon (then cite a source) or speculation based on "Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri" (then add this as a comment)?
This article still needs a lot of images. Of the top of my head, I'd say Constitution at warp, slistream, different types of warp-cores, intrepid with nacelles in different position for comparison, but there's lot's more to be added. -- Redge | Talk 17:27, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- Those images would not be suitable for the article - Slipstream images are at quantum slipstream drive, where they belong; warp core images are at warp core, where they belong; and images of the Intrepid should be at Template:ShipClass and/or variable geometry pylons. Only the Constitution at warp would be suitable. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:41, Aug 13, 2004 (CEST)
Instead of episode screencaps, I think the best addition would be one or more diagrams. There must be a few Trekkies here familiar with Trek-physics who can mark up something. Maybe a diagram explaining the nature of a warp shell and the surrounding space...?
It's interesting to see how my original article, written over a year ago, has morphed over time. I think this article is better than my original, which goes to show how the Wiki concept really works. --Chuckhoffmann 03:48, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- Not necessarily, because we are aware that the warp scale was changed at least once between TOS and TNG. Whats to say that the scale was updated between ENT and TOS? Zsingaya 08:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is very interesting. In "The Cage", Lt. Tyler mentions to the American Continent Institute--the crew of the Columbia which is from 2236--that they would not believe how fast they would be able get home, due to the time barrier being broken. Hinting at a more significant seed than Warp 7 which we know was reached in the late 22nd century. How much more significant is Warp 8 or 9 from 7? Of couse we have no idea if a similar Excelsior-transwarp incident occured, setting them back. Nor if the Columbia is a lower FTL research vessel like NX-01 and 02. I'm siding with Zsingaya on this one. The warp scale can change in a century like it did with the 24th century from the 23rd. AC84 04:08, 15 Jun 2005 (PAC)
- I think that once more we've got lazy writing to thank for a series of "canon" numbers that are skewed and are generally irreconcileable. There isn't a huge problem with the warp 4.5 to 5 thing in Enterprise, let's face it, humans were in a rush to get out of there. Starting with the Vulcans tooling around at cruising speeds of warp 6.5 (faster than TOS Enterprise's cruising speed) is a problem though, making us wonder what was going on in the research department for the next century. Although we might try to pull out the re-calibrated scale argument, it doesn't really work. Archer's comment in Broken Bow about thirty million kilometers per second from now on, though a touch high for warp 4.5, is about right for the generally accepted warp speed cubed formula of Kirk era. Of course trying to relate any scale to the apparent travel times in Enterprise is pointless. Routinely and miraculously they manage to cover a light year in a few hours (sure, six hours at warp 9, TNG scale), and Qo'noS is apperently only four days away (incidentally the time it should take the ship to go one light year at warp 4.5).
21st Century Physics
If you'd like, I'll tweek some of the science here by using warp theory of the 21st century combined with what we see in Star Trek. Keras 23:12, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- By the time the Template:ShipClass starship was being designed in the 2360s, warp technology had progressed to the point where speeds of warp 9.6 could be sustained for up to twelve hours, although warp 9.2 was considered the "red line".
According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the Galaxy-class was being designed in the 2340s, which is what the article stated before it was changed to the 2360s. While I know the Tech Manual isn't considered canon, wasn't there a canon reference stating the Galaxy-class were being designed in the 2340s? --From Andoria with Love 00:54, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I am removing link to wikipedia on warp drive, our external link policy states only to link to wikipedia for things beyond our mandate, the WP article talks about warp drive in star trek. The wikipedia link to that other drive remains. Jaz 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Speed Limit & Response
Fortunately, a solution was developed less than 8 months later that was gradually implemented on all vessels, and Starfleet vessels were again able to use the maximum capacity of their warp drives, first through the use of variable geometry nacelles, as on Intrepid-class vessels, which also allowed a warp engine of essentially the same construction as those on the Galaxy class to achieve speeds of warp 9.975 (VOY: "Caretaker"), and later through new nacelle design, as on the Sovereign-class.
This seems to be largely conjecture. It seems logical that Voyager had a 'better' warp drive than the Enterprise-D not only due to the increased speed, but the fact that it was constructed over ten years after it, and we saw it break the speed limit all the time. There is nothing to suggest however that this improvement is down to the nacelles being able to move (as I understand it, they were included both as a 'cool' factor and to make the design fit with Roddenberry's stated design rules, namely that the nacelles must be able to 'see' each other). Similarly, though the Sovereign nacelle is visually very different to that of the Galaxy, is there anything other than conjecture to suggest it is a 'better' design which allows for travel beyond the speed limit? - 220.127.116.11 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Warp speed insanity (from Reference Desk)
Ok, I may be a bit overanalytical, but....
If you follow the facts as submitted in Enterprise and other sources, the Klingon homesystem is about 1/3 as distant from Earth as the NEAREST star is.... ...yet nobody ever seems to comment on this....
I might add that by the same references, the "detour" to rigel in Broken bow would have taken about 7 weeks, one way.
So by the "official" Warp speed scale Warp 4,5 = Warp 12 (following the cochrane scale)
- In "Star Trek: Star Charts", they say that the vulcan starcharts showed a subspace shortcut, that allowed them to get to qo'nos so quickly. This however isn't canon, but does show that people have noticed it, and tried to explain it. So yes, several people have commented on it, and no, it doesn't make sence. It would have taken several weeks to get to Qo'noS, but as the producers say, "it makes for good drama". -AJHalliwell 18:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- It's what we call "dramatic license". :D There are several fandom explanations as to why this happens - search for "warp highway" on Google, for example - but the only real explanation is to make the stories as "speedy" as possible - a journey of several weeks or months between places either results in stories cutting out those weeks and months, with unrealistically slow character development as a result, or numerous "bottle shows" enroute. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Also, while they didn't have to go all the way to Qo'noS, it seemed awfully quick for the Enterprise-A to rendezvouz with the IKS Qo'noS One in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country... one would assume that the rendezvous took place at or near the Neutral Zone, so they could escort the Klingons all the way to Earth. But that is just assumption, of course. -- umrguy42 03:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not argue the dramatic licence, Star Trek is not a science show afterall. But the same senselessness is endemic, if not pandemic, to the entire "Trekiverse" Most obvious in Enterprise. By the first 10 episodes warp 4.5 has been effectively described as everything from 100c to 1000c interchangeably. So my problem is with any sort of "official" speedchart, rather than the show itself... If W4.5 is ca100c then the first season should span about 2-5years worldtime, or else the universe consists of nothing but warp highways. Take the first episode again, ignoring the Qo'noS part... rigel to earth, 3day stop then earth to rigel is summed up as "a few days" total... ...that makes 30 lightyears in at most 10 days unless more than 2 weeks constitutes "a few days"... ...avarage speed between 1000 and 2000c
Why bother with creating a warpspeed scale when it is utterly without relevance to the "reality" of the show?
- Well, they didn't "create a warp speed scale" -- they used warp factors to be a measure of speed, with the high numbers being dangerous and fast for the engines and the low numbers being slow for the engines. It was very much a random association as any two points in the Star Trek universe are usually 1 commercial break away at high warp and two or three acts away at low warp, no matter what the scientific measure of distance between them.
- It was later writers, such as the Star Fleet Technical Manual, and various other sources that presented the measure like the "cubed scale" (c = WF3) which is now honored for TOS-era (and ENT)..
- When new TNG science advisors tried to redesign the scale, as presented in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, they made it an asymptotic curve so it would never reach warp 10, but still allow for references to near-infinite speeds. They established a list of values for each warp factor, so its easy to figure how far the ship traveled at warp when a duration and speed are applied, but they rarely checked these for any kind of accuracy.
- TNG "Force of Nature" has referenced subspace phenomena creating "corridors" where warp travel is only possible in certain areas, where surrounding space is less permeable along the boundary, meaning the ability to traverse them at warp is diminished, and, far enough into the effect, prevented altogether. This effect was mentioned in an extreme form, an entire "un-warpable" sector, in VOY "The Omega Directive"
- This proves that warp factor speed is only an approximate value, as courses must be chosen that avoid areas of space where anomalies inhibit the effectiveness of warp drive -- we've already been shown that space can be "rough passage" and cause starships to move slower than they would in "Nicer" space -- many take it that mean that a starship traveling Warp Factor 2 (old scale) could be going 8 times the speed of light, in warped space, exactly as the speed factor describes, but traverse less distance, in less time, if they were in a disruption such as the Hekaras Corridor. There have even been technobabble mentions of the "permeability" of subspace, meaning the Warp 2 might not work as well, and the navigator must plot courses to the best places to go to warp at. (this is part of the "warp highway" theory here)
- So, based on canon facts, how can we use the measurement of the warp factor to illustrate any of these points at all? if Enterprise traveled warp five, as Archer mentioned they were at a value approaching 125 times the speed of light, but the amount of distance covered seems far greater -- because distance covered at x speed is variable based on a quality of the space, because it has been nearly proven that traveling at a warp speed means you move at a certain mutliple of the speed of light, but the amount of distance you cover and the time you might do has been proven variable by the episodes i mentioned, because a quality of the space itself negates all or part of the warp field of a ship, it means that because of the "space warp", speed becomes variable is comparison to the time to cross distance X. this could be an explanation of why the term "warp" is used at all, and an explanation for why certain astronomical distance relationships seem skewed in Star Trek.
- However, Memory-Alpha endeavours to accurately record only the episodic canon information to illustrate this, as this theory has not been mentioned specifically, besides the vague allusions to warped warp speed values in episodes i mentioned. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Just rewatched Voyager, season 2 ep. 1 There, Paris makes a comparison Warp 9.9 "About 4 billion miles/s" which would translate to a galactic circumnavigation taking 15 years if relatively constant....
Like a list of federation members, the exact way to calculate warp has never been explained in canon trek exactly for this reason. Writers want to be able to have some freedom without being chained rules and regulations. Could you imagine how bad Broken Bow would have been if it took them a month to get there? Jaz 04:38, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
my personal rationalization has been that the "Weather" in subspace can have drastic effects onwarp factors, rather like the wind affecting a sailing ship. but that's just me.
Citations and Speculation
This article needs some help. It doesn't cite sources and engages (so the speak) in too much speculation in the body of the article rather than in background sections. I'll try to get to it at some point, but if others want to wade in . . . . Aholland 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The slow pace of technological advancement
In the traveler Weasly makes a tremendous breakthrough in warp field travel. This could have been achieved by a computer. Weasly took only 15 second to enter in the data. A computer could have tried out every single combination in that time. Evolution algorithms could have also been used assuming that a isoliner chip wasn’t using its full power for the simulation to be done in real time. The computer core of the enterprise could have done a trillion simulations for a trillion generations in one second.
- The above is all speculation. (based on what info I don't know.) Noclevername 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if someone can answer me a question. How does 'Trek's Warp drive compare to the Hyperdrive used in 'Wars and 'Gate? (I mean, behind the scenes) and does the hyperdrive actually have a place in the 'Trek universe? --Jacen Solo 04:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- i think hyperdrive is much slower than warp, the people in wars could hardly get from planet to planet in a fast time.
- I have a question, if the enterprise went warp 11 and in voyager when Paris went to warp 10 he was everywhere in the universe at once and hyper-evolved how can this happen?
- First off, hyperdrive in Star War and Stargate is significantly faster than warp drive in Star Trek. In trek, it takes about a century to cross the galaxy. In Star Wars, the Millenium Falcon can cross the galaxy in a number of days. In Stargate, ships can fly from one galaxy to another in 2.5 weeks, and go anywhere within the galaxy in hours.
- That's not really a fair comparison between SW and ST. there's no reason to believe that the SW galaxy is any larger than ours, or that it is even half as big - consider that the falcon was capable at sublight speeds to get from a "Deep" space staging area to Bespin in a matter of days.
- The Hyperdrive is much faster, Obi-Wan got form Coruscant to Kamino in a couple of hours. Coruscant is a Core world and Kamino is outside the Republic in Rasi Maze!
- Second, not sure which Enterprise you are talking about going at warp 11. I am guessing you mean the TOS Enterprise. The explanation for that is that the warp scale seems to have changed between TOS and TNG. Warp 10 in TNG era (including Voyager) does not mean the same thing as Warp 10 in TOS. As for the hyper-evolution, that was just a dumb, stupid, idiotic plot device. One most fans try to ignore, along with the entire episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Speed limit overcome?
What was the first episode where a starship exceed the Warp 5 speed limit? -- StAkAr Karnak 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that depends. In "Homeward", they use the line "maximum warp" after traveling at warp 5. That could mean passing the warp 5 limit, or it might not (probably does). The first time they specifically say they have been given permission to exceed the warp 5 limit (or mention it again at all since "Force of Nature") is in "Eye of the Beholder":
- PICARD: "Geordi, the medical situation on Barson Two has worsened -- Starfleet has given us permission to exceed warp speed limitations so we can get back on schedule."
- GEORDI: "We'll be able to give you warp eight if you need it."
- Not only do they mention permission to exceed the limit, but they even give us the number. There ya go. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Warp-capable
- Merge --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge --GNDN 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. what're we waiting for? -- Sulfur 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Forum:Vulcan Warp Drive Date?
Query: On the Vulcan page, it says "The Vulcans might have had warp drive at least a hundred years prior to the 9th century BC"; however, on the "Warp Drive" page, I found this statement: "The Vulcans (and, by extension, the Romulans) had warp drive in the 3rd century AD (Earth calendar), although the technology was lost during that planet's civil war, and was not reacquired until several centuries later". Which is correct? (Or both?) --18.104.22.168 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The 9th Century BC reference is based off of the fact that P'Jem was an established during that time, and I guess the presumption is that they had to have some sort of advanced space travel to successfully make that trip. I'm not sure where exactly the "100 years before" reference came from, however some vague reference about it taking the Vulcans 100 years to "crack warp 2" comes to mind, though I'm not sure how that is related, directly. Also, since Surak lived during the 4th century, not the 3rd, it seems as though the Vulculans has still possessed some sort of advanced space travel. The 4th century again supported with the reference to the Debrune (another offshoot). --Alan del Beccio 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Viewscreen Warp Drive
Gang, is there a computer program where you can simultate looking out a viewscreen at warp drive on your computer? I.e., see the ship go to warp in the blaze of colors, followed by the stars streaking past, and then falling back to normal as the ship "drops out" of warp? A long time ago, under Windows 3.1 there was a very primitive version of this as a screensaver. I can't believe no one has ever made one in today's age but looking around the net, I can't find anything coming close. Thanks! -FleetCaptain 12:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That one you are referring to is Starfield, and its in XP also. If you look at the settings for that screen saver, it even says 'warp speed', mikeroq 22.214.171.124 16:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Warp drive demo animation
I tried creating an animation for the warp drive, but I would love to get some feedback before I post it on the actual article... Please visit my profile page and take a look, it's short and sweet. Let me know what you think in my user page. NurielZuaretz 10:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind? 126.96.36.199 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it alright to add a mention of Eugene's Limit (St:TNG Tech Manual, p.56) to the article? --WTRiker 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Warp drive works by distorting the fabric of space to propel the vessel. Simply put, the drive warps space, both in front of and behind a starship, allowing it to travel faster than the speed of light. Specifically, spacetime is contracted in front of the ship and expanded behind it. The starship itself rests in a warp bubble between the two spacetime distortions. This warped space, together with the region inside it, accelerates off at 'warp speed' and the vessel then 'surfs' the wave in spacetime created by this distortion (citation needed • edit).
- Travel at velocities exceeding the speed of light is possible in this fashion because the starship is, strictly speaking, stationary (relative to the space inside the warp bubble) while space itself is moving. Since space itself is moving and the starship is not actually accelerating, it experiences no time dilation, allowing the passage of time inside the vessel to be the same as that outside the warp bubble (citation needed • edit).
Uncited a bit more detailed than any episode or film would have ever gotten into. – Alan 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
André Bormanis's explanation
..which provides a bridge between electromagnetic and gravitational forces. By design, it has the property that when the warp plasma circulates through the coils, a [warp field]] is generated. Electromagnetic interactions between waves of the warp plasma and the verterium cortenide coils change the geometry of space surrounding the engine nacelles. In the process, a multilayered wave of warped space is born, and the starship cruises off to its next destination at hundreds of times the speed of light relative to normal space. Within the warp field, however, the starship does not exceed the local speed of light, and therefore does not violate the principal tenet of special relativity.
Travel at velocities exceeding the speed of light is possible in this fashion because the starship is, strictly speaking, stationary (relative to the space inside the warp field) while it is the space-time immediately around the starship that is actually moving. Since spacetime itself is moving and the starship is not actually accelerating, it experiences no time dilation, allowing the passage of time inside the vessel to be the same as that outside the warp field.
I removed this update as it doesn't show up in canon. It looks like a similar section that was already removed earlier. --Morder 11:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Canonicity isn't the issue so much as citation is. If it really did come from Bormanis, then it falls under one of the permitted resources ("Background information from the production staff") as defined in the Canon policy (although also according to policy, it should be in background, not in the main article). The question, then, is whether Bormanis really said all this and if so, where, so it can be cited properly. - Bridge 12:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)