XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv
From: jedi@nomad.mishnet
On 2006-05-16, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Mike Dicenso wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Maybe somehow subspace got a lot more dense.
> Or maybe there suddenly were safety issues not taken into account before....
> Nah.
...or maybe, just maybe these ships aren't built or expected to
run at full overdrive for years at a time. Top speed != range.
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
