XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv   
   From: mdicenso@seds.org   
      
   On Tue, 16 May 2006, JEDIDIAH wrote:   
      
   > On 2006-05-16, videonovels@yahoo.com  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > Wouter Valentijn wrote:   
   > >> Mike Dicenso wrote:   
   > >> > On Sat, 13 May 2006, Wouter Valentijn wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> Mike Dicenso wrote:   
   > >> >>>   
   > >> >>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:   
   > >> >>>>>>   
   > >> >>>>>> That's the other way around I'd say.   
   > >> >>>>>> TOS was *first*.   
   > >> >>>>>> Voyager was never consistent with the speeds in TOS.   
   > >> >>>>>   
   > >> >>>>>   
   > >> >>>>> .   
   > >> >>>>   
   > >> >>>   
   > >> >>>   
   > >> >>>  TOS had it's "slow" moments, too. In "By   
   > >> >>> Any Other Name", Kirk tells Kelvin leader Rojan that it would take   
   > >> >>> the Enterprise "thousands" of years to reach Andromeda.   
   > >> >>> That's grossly inconsistant with an Enterprise that in other   
   > >> >>> episodes, like "That Which Survives", which have the ship crossing   
   > >> >>> a thousand light years   
   > >> >>> in a day or less. The trip to Andromeda should only take about 3 to   
   > >> >>> 5 years.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> Indeed!   
   > >> >> And the Kelvan's themselves claimed three hundred years.   
   > >> >> And wasn't that also the number mentioned in 'Where No One Has Gone   
   > >> >> Before'? Or was that another galaxy?   
   > >> >   
   > >> >   
   > >> > It was 300 years at maximum warp from the far side of the Triangulum   
   > >> > Galaxy, M33, which is farther away to begin with than Andromeda. The   
   > >> > latest data from Sky Catalogue 2000.0, M33 is about 2.9 million ly   
   > >> > away from the Milky Way. Add about another 100 thousands or so ly for   
   > >> > the E-D winding up on M33's far side, and you have about 3 million   
   > >> > ly. That means at "maximum" warp, the E-D is capable of at least   
   > >> > 10,000c. -Mike   
   > >>   
   > >> And at that speed that 70,000 lightyears could be done in 7 years..   
   >   
   > 	...assuming you can maintain max speed for 7 years straight.   
   >   
   > 	Assuming this is kinda like assuming that a Tomcat can run on   
   > afterburners for as long as it would take it to fly out to it's effective   
   > range.   
      
      
   Well, if you're going to make assumptions, then why not assume it's the   
   ship's maximum sustainable cruise speed, not it's top dash speed? There's   
   all kinds of assumptions you can make.   
   -Mike   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)