From t89djo@student.tdb.uu.se Thu Jun 2 19:42:29 1994 Received: from vesicle.ibg.uu.se by receptor.ibg.uu.se via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for david id AA00851; Thu, 2 Jun 94 19:42:29 +0200 Received: from albireo.tdb.uu.se by vesicle.ibg.uu.se via SMTP (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for david@receptor.ibg.uu.se id AA04136; Thu, 2 Jun 94 19:42:25 +0200 Received: (from t89djo@localhost) by albireo.tdb.uu.se (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA26143 for david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se; Thu, 2 Jun 1994 18:42:13 +0200 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 18:42:13 +0200 From: David Jonsson Message-Id: <199406021642.SAA26143@albireo.tdb.uu.se> To: david@vesicle Subject: (fwd) Mini-FAQ: Warp and Subspace Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech Reply-To: t89djo@student.tdb.uu.se Content-Type: text Content-Length: 43000 Status: RO Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech Path: columba.udac.uu.se!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!tribune.usask.ca!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!jsbell From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) Subject: Mini-FAQ: Warp and Subspace Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:23:40 GMT Expires: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada Lines: 987 WARNING: Contains spoilers for TNG "All Good Things..." Warp and Subspace Mini-FAQ (updated May 30, 1994) Maintained by: Joshua Bell Answers to common questions as theorized by me, and based on canonical and quasi-canonical information. Comments, additions, suggestions, flames, etc. are welcomed. I *strongly* suggest reading Jason Hinson's "Relativity and FTL" FAQ. I'll try to avoid dealing with real science in this FAQ, and focus on that portrayed in Star Trek (in all its incarnations). Contents: Glossary | I. Gettin' Nowhere Fast - Speeds and Basics | II. A Wrench in the Works - Mechanics of Warp Drive | III. Can We Talk? - Subspace Communication | IV. Nitty Gritty - Non-Warp FTL, Miscellaneous Credits Note on References ...................................................................... Glossary: FTL - Faster Than Light (usually communication or travel) STL - Slower Than Light M/AMR - Matter/Antimatter Reactor (also called Warp Core) IPS - Impulse Power System c - Speed of Light ( ~= 3 * 10^8 m/s ) warp - One method of FTL travel used in Star Trek Warp - Short for "Warp factor", referring to a velocity of warp ...................................................................... Part I: Gettin' Nowhere Fast "Warp speed is !" Many things have shown up in that spot. Here's the lowdown on figuring out how fast warp travel is. Velocity is always quoted as a multiple of the speed of light. Tables: Note that this table is based on the TNG era warp scale. See notes below. From the Encyclopedia and Tech Manual: Warp Factor Velocity Comment 1 1 Speed of Light 2 10 3 39 4 102 5 214 Federation speed limit (TNG "Force of Nature") 6 392 7 656 8 1024 9 1516 9.2 1649 (From here down c/ Encyc except 9.9997) 9.6 1909 9.9 3053 Enterprise-D maximum speed. 9.99 7912 9.9997 ~198696 Subspace radio speed (TM) 9.9999 199516 Maximum boosted subspace radio speed (Encyc) The Tech Manual (on page 111) says that a subspace radio signal travels at Warp 9.9997, and takes 45 minutes to reach 17 light years. The value above is only approximate, and the value in the Encyclpedia may be a mistake, given the similarity. Formulas: v = velocity c = speed of light in vacuum W = Warp factor ^ = "to the power of" M = Mike's constant "TOS scale" (TOS/TAS/TFS except ST4): v = (W ^ 3) * c This is old, boring, and accepted by almost everyone, even though it has never been stated in any episode or movie. It's even in the Encyclopedia. "TNG scale" (TNG/DS9 & ST4): We haven't a clue. Before the Encyclopedia came out we had some pretty good guesses, since fewer data points existed. The best formula proposed thus far is: / _______ M \ v = | 3| 10 + (10 - W) | * c \ \| W / Two values have been proposed for the M constant. The first, and most often quoted, is (-11/3). This generates a graph which matches the TNG Tech Manual almost exactly, and swoops off to infinity quickly after that. The second, derived by Sharon Collicutt, has M ~= -1.502. This includes the "lost data point" given on page 111 of the Tech Manual, the speed of Warp 9.9997. The M=-11/3 value works for W <= 9. The M=-1.502 value works for W <= 9 and W = 9.9997, but misses the other new datapoints by a fair margin. The TNG Tech Manual indicates that Mike Okuda has an actual formula, within an Excel spreadsheet on his Macintosh, but no-one has reported seeing it to r.a.st.tech. "Our solution was to redraw the warp curve so that the exponent of the warp factor increases gradually, then sharply as you approach Warp 10. At Warp 10, the exponent (and the speed) would be infinite..." Note that none of the proposed formulas have an increasing exponent. Given the description, I attempted some simple formulas, on the hunch that Rick and Mike wouldn't bother with anything really fancy. v = c * (W ^ (3 + 1/(10-W))) is the right shape, but is very off for anything above 7 or so. I suspect that the actual formula is something similar to this, however. Here's an ASCII version of a graph from the TNG Tech Manual: Warp speed/power graph | :| .- 10^10 | : | := | + : | :- | ::: ' :- 10^9 10^4 -| + : | := =| + : : | :- =| + : ::::: ,/ :- 10^8 -| + : : :: __*-' := 1000 -| : : :::: __*--' | ???:- =| + : :: __*--' | | :- 10^7 =| : :: __*--': | | | := -| + : __*--': |::: | | | :- 100 -| : _*--': |:: | | | | :- 10^6 =| : _-':| : | | | | | := =| + _*' : |:: | | | | | :- -| : _-':| : | | | | | | :- 10^5 10 -| *' :| : | | | | | | := =| + ,'| : |:: | | | | | | :- =| : ,' :| : | | | | | | | :- 10^4 -| :/ :| : | | | | | | | := 1 -| :* : |:: | | | | | | | :- =| :/| : | | | | | | | | :- 10^3 =| ::/ | : | | | | | | | | := -|:_:-' |:: | | | | | | | | :- -| ,-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----. :- 10^2 ------' | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9| | `:::::::: | Warp Factor | `--- Velocity in Power usage in ---' multiples of c Megajoules/cochrane __.---' Velocity * Integral Warp Values ::::::: Power + Power Thresholds The part of the graph above the ??? is speculation, and is just to show that as W -> 10, velocity and power -> infinity. |"Future TNG scale" (TNG "All Good Things..."): ?!?!? | |Quoted in this episode is the speed Warp 13. While we haven't a |clue how fast this is, it is presumably faster than Warp 9 on the |TNG scale, and necessarily slower than Warp 10 on the TNG scale |(since TNG Warp 10 is infinite speed). Three possibilities |present themselves: | | - They switched back to the TOS scale when warp travel at | speeds > Warp 9 became routine for all ships. | - New integral warp factors were discovered between Warp 9 and | infinite speed, so Warp 10-13 *at least* are the new integral | values, and what we thought was Warp 10 was really something | else. | - Warp 10-13+ are shorthand for Warp 9.x. One possibility is | that 9.90 is called Warp 10, 9.91 is called Warp 11, etc. | |Unfortunately, there's no way to tell which of the following is |correct, although the latter two have the most support on the |newgroup, and the second is most pleasing to my eyes. .... "Where has there been support on screen for this?" TNG "The Most Toys" gives one set of numbers that verify the Warp 3 values listed above. If anyone out there has them, can you pass them on to me? TNG "Bloodlines" gives another set of numbers for Warp 9, stated by Riker after hearing some numbers from Data: 300 billion kilometers in 20 minutes @ Warp 9 Warp 9 = (300e12 m) / (20 min * 60s/min) = 2.5e11 m/s From the chart: Warp 9 = 1516c ~= 4.548e11 m/s Discrepancy? Riker did the calculations in his head in about 5 seconds given arbitrary numbers. He's within a factor of two, so I won't complain. Still, something more accurate would |have been nice. Bok's ship was "holding position", so it was |a simple flight path. |TNG "Emergence": the Enterprise jumped to Warp 7.3, and |travelled 30 billion kilometers in a couple of minutes. | |All of the formulas we have for warp speeds predict Warp 7.3 to |be approximately 746c. Using c = 3e8 m/s, we get v = 2.24e11 m/s. |30 billion km = 3e13m. So t = 134s, or just over two minutes. Any further numbers that can be derived from the show would be appreciated. .... "Whats a cochrane?" The Tech Manual has this definition: "The cochrane is the unit used to measure subspace field stress. Cochranes are also used to measure field distortion by other spatial manipulation devices... Fields below Warp 1 are measured in millicochranes." Basically, it's a new unit of measurement. The Tech Manual says that one cochrane of asymmetric subspace distortion roughly corresponds to one factor of the speed of light, so a field of Warp 3, 39 times the speed of light, is actually a 39 cochrane field. .... "What does cochrane stand for?" The units are named after the scientist credited with the development of the warp drive, Zefram Cochrane, known as Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri. With a drive capable of Warp 1, his team from earth relocated to colonies on Alpha Centauri (established with sublight ships). In TOS "Metamorphosis", we learn that Cochrane, at age 87, left Alpha Centauri and was presumed dead. It turns out he was kept alive by an energy entity, and met by Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, although no official record of this encounter is made. Rumors of Cochrane being native to Alpha Centauri were once spread by Klingon sympathizers who wanted to knock Earth down a peg, but fortunately this disinformation campaign seems to have ended. (This is a joke, BTW, referring to ST:WoF) .... "Whats this about a Warp 10 barrier?" In the TNG scale, Warp 10 is infinite speed. As you approach a position on the graph corresponding to Warp 10, your power requirements increase astronomically compared to your increase in speed. But you can keep speeding up forever, unlike the light barrier, which keeps you from getting to the speed of light. In other words, keep piling on the 9s. Warp 9.99 is a lot faster than Warp 9.9, while Warp 3.99 is only marginally faster than Warp 3.9. The barier is only one of energy, not velocity. .... "But in TOS "Is There in Truth no Beauty?" and TOS "That Which Survives", the old Enterprise went over Warp 14!" Yes, but that's on the old scale. By the new scale, that translates to about Warp 9.7, which the Enterprise-D can do for brief periods (its emergency speed is Warp 9.6). The original Enterprise was being shaken apart. .... "So why'd the Warp scale change between TOS and TNG?" Gene Roddenberry himself put Warp 10 at infinite speed, according to the TNG Tech Manual. To keep the scale fluid, Okuda and Sternbach made it asymptotic, while starting off similar to the TOS scale. The best explanation for why it changed internally (from the characters' point of view), is that the original scale was established before warp was fully understood. Looking at the graph, you can see that the energy costs for cruising at integral Warp values are much lower than for non-integral Warp factors. The first explorers to travel past Warp 1 must have realized this. Since for Warp values in the 1-3 range follow the v = (W ^ 3) * c formula, it makes sense that a scale based on the formula would come into use. When ships started cruising at Warp values larger than 5, the difference between what v = (W ^ 3) * c predicted to be the most energy efficient speeds and what actually were must have become noticeable. It may have taken a long time for a new, accurate scale based on new observations came into use. (Look at the USA and SI, for an example of a large sociopolitical body taking a long time to adopt a more useful, universally used scale.) Sulu's readings of Warp velocity in Star Trek IV seem to hint that the Klingons had moved to an accurate scale by the 2280s, but the Federation didn't catch up until much later, even though it must have been painfully obvious that the old scale was next to useless. Fortunately, some time before TNG, the new, accurate scale was adopted by Starfleet. |Based on evidence in TNG "All Good Things...", it is possible |that this was later found to be inaccurate, and in fact more |integral warp values were found beyond 9, allowing for somewhat |more efficient warp travel in the Warp 9.9+ range, and |conveniently known as Warp 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. This was |doubtless a surprise to the theoreticians who thought Warp 9 was |the last integral value. .... "What causes fractional warp speeds?" As you can see from the above chart, travelling at integral Warp factors is much more energy efficient. But there are times when a fractional value must be used - for example, staying a certain distance from another ship, or keeping pace with some phenomenon. Also, beyond Warp 9, only fractional speeds are possible. |(Modulo TNG "All Good Things...", of course.) .... "Why not use impulse drive within the warp field to create a higher velocity?" There's no reason to think that a Newtonian drive (Impulse) would augment a non-Newtonian drive (warp). Also, consider that the maximum velocity attainable with a Newtonian drive is c. At Warp 2, which is ~= 10c, this gives you a whole 11c at maximum (overloading, fuel wasting) impulse. Warp 2.1 is about 12c anyway, so overloading the impulse drive doesn't get you much. "What about TOS "The Corbomite Maneuver"?" Kirk and Sulu use a combination of warp drive and Impulse to break free of the First Federation pilot craft. The combination of a tractor beam, impulse drive, and warp drive would be very strange, and many explanations come to mind, such as the warp field causing the tractor effect to "slip" away, while the impulse provides propulsion, or the impulse fighting the tractor beam intertially while the warp drive provides propulsion, etc. ...................................................................... Part II: A Wrench in the Works NOTE: There are *two* distinct problems to be solved when describing any FTL drive. The first is that relativity will not permit an object to accelerate to speeds greater than or equal to c. The second problem is that in a relativistic universe, if you could get from point A to point B faster than light could by ANY means (including leaving the universe altogether), you have traveled backwards in time from certain reference frames. Thus, you could, for example, relay a message to yourself before you underwent the FTL travel, and create a paradox. Both must be addressed to form a believable FTL system. "Warp works by !" Some favorites include: - Making space into waves, and skipping between the crests. - Bringing points in space closer together. - Changing the speed of light around the ship.* - The ship's mass is reduced to 0, and it can go any speed.** - Leaving our universe, and going through a hyperspace. - Entering subspace, and taking a bubble of real space with you. - Compressing space around the ship to make the distance shorter. All of these attempt to get around the first problem, but ignore the second. And none of these match the evidence seen on screen and in the Tech Manual, which is that the FTL effect is created by powerful, nested subspace (aka warp) fields that push off each other to generate FTL speeds. Further, without any additional effects, each of these can lead to a violation of causality, meaning every time you go into warp you time travel, from a certain frame of reference. This is addressed in great detail in Jason Hinson's "Relativity and FTL" FAQ. Ships in warp interact with things in normal space, one of the reasons for the navigational deflector. Things in warp require a subspace field to enter and stay in warp, and it takes an enormous amount of power to generate this. When the subspace field decays, a ship drops out of warp returning to some STL velocity. * The point has been made that by constructing a space with a hyperbolic geometry(?) between the source and destination of two points, you can get away with FTL travel without the nasty causality violation effects pointed out by Jason's FAQ. However, this involves making changes to spacetime along your entire flight path before you travel, a change which then must last forever. This doesn't seem as similar to what we see on Star Trek as Jason's proposal. This information is from memory, so corrections from someone in the know would be appreciated. ** A subspace field does reduce the inertial mass of an object within it, i.e. it appears lighter. But it does not lower the mass to zero, nor on its own would this effect allow FTL travel, as massless particles in our universe are still restricted to light speed. It turns out that this effect isn't even considered for warp travel, although it is used for impulse engines - less mass to push around. .... "Well, so how *does* warp work?" A powerful, asymmetric subspace field is established around the ship by the warp nacelles. The field is composed of nested layers, each pushing against the one beyond it. This drives the ship forward, at a super-luminal velocity. The nacelles are powered by a tuned plasma stream from the warp core Matter/Antimatter Reactor (M/AMR). Injectors feed the plasma into warp field coil segments at specific times, causing pulses to run the length of the nacelle, front to back. This peristaltic flow causes the push of the nested warp fields, and moves the ship forward. The warp field wraps around the ship in a two-lobed bubble, with the locus at Main Engineering (by design). The shape of the ship determines the efficiency of the field, and this explains why the Enterprise has such a sleek design. Meanwhile, the subspace field reduces the inertial mass of the ship, aiding in maneuvering. In fact, a small subspace field is kept around the ship at Impulse speeds, so the Impulse drives have less mass to push around. However, this is only a side effect and is NOT the mechanism used to allow FTL travel. .... "But, but... that's just what it does! How does it work!!!" Alas, there is no canonical answer. The "Relativity and FTL" FAQ offers a possibility, that the subspace field forces the ship to take on the reference frame of subspace itself, which is a special reference frame, circumventing the limits of General Relativity. Unfortunately, this *still* isn't an explanation of how it works. The Tech Manual offers that each of the nested fields couple and decouple from each other at velocities near (but less than) c. It could be that the interaction of these fields, combined with the special frame subspace provides, causes the ship as a whole to travel at FTL speeds. If two nested fields have their outer edges "locked" into the special frame, while the inner edges travel at near-c relative to one another, this might cause the FTL effect, as an artifact of the special frame trick. This has the added support of being almost exactly what the Tech Manual describes, but it doesn't mention the special frame. Since this makes for boring drama, it's unlikely we'll ever "really know" how warp works in Star Trek. .... "So what stops the ship from accelerating and getting faster and faster?" Warp travel is non-Newtonian. Without a constant influx of energy, the subspace field will decay, and the ship will drop out of warp. In other words, you *must* continue to provide energy to maintain your warp velocity. Anything which travels at FTL speeds must use a warp field (or some other technology) to keep moving at those speeds. .... "What about "continuum drag" ?" This was an idea proposed in the forgotten past to explain the above problem. To me, however, it seem that there is no need for such a force, since we are not dealing with Newtonian action/reaction drives, or force/acceleration systems. .... "So how'd the Saucer travel at warp speeds (in "Encounter at Farpoint") ?" The Tech Manual states that the subspace field generators coupled to the Impulse drive can be used to maintain a decaying subspace field for brief periods of time. The decay is inevitable, but it can be drawn out, to allow the saucer section to get out of danger. By field-saturating the nacelles (according to TNG "Force of Nature"), after a 6 second burst of maximum warp the Enterprise can "coast" at warp for 2 minutes 8 seconds before dropping out of warp. This is a form of "warp without warp drive", although the effect does not last very long. This is similar to how photon torpedos can be used at warp speeds. They have small "warp sustainer" engines that allow them to cruise at their launch velocity (if launched while in warp) for brief periods. .... "This new Warp 5 speed limit - whats up with that?" In TNG "Force of Nature" it is discovered that the Hekaras Corridor, a region of space where warp travel is hindered except for a narrow path, that the intense use of warp drives in an already sensitive area can, over time, cause subspace rifts to form, where subspace manifests itself in real space on a macroscopic scale. This is not a good thing. "Does this take effect everywhere?" Yes. In TNG "???" Admiral ??? authorizes Picard to travel faster than Warp 5 for the duration of the mission. The Encyclopedia concurs as well, naming Warp 5 as the new cruising speed for starships. Overkill? Probably. Typical bureaucratic overcompensation? Yep. |"So what about in TNG "All Good Things..." ?" |It's safe to say that the USS Pasteur and USS Enterprise, |cruising at Warp 13, were able to ignore the Warp 5 limitation |enforced by Starfleet. There are a couple of explanations. The |first is that Starfleet simply repealed the ruling, and is |allowing ships to muck up subspace. That isn't what we'd expect |in the happy Star Trek Universe, however. | |The second is that changes to warp mechanics allow warp travel |without the nasty side effects. The Pasteur had very different |nacelle designs, the Enterprise had "fins" on the nacelle pylons |which would affect the shape of the warp fields, and it even had |a third nacelle which might be used to eliminate the nasty |effects of warp drive. | |The third possibility is that these new integral speeds above |Warp 9 just don't hurt subspace the same way that other speeds |do. Personally, I go for the second option. ...................................................................... Part III: Can We Talk? "What is subspace?" According to the Encyclopedia, it is a continuum with different laws than our own. That doesn't help much, considering you can makes fields of it in our universe. The best explanation I can come up with is that subspace is the "substrate" within which our universe exists. A subspace field is either a forced or natural intrusion of this domain into our own space, altering the behavior of things within our spacetime. |The "subspace barrier" is the albeit flimsy dividing line |between the two continuums. Many things support this: in TNG "Schisms" creatures exist within a tertiary subspace manifold, a manifold being a term used to describe the form our own universe takes when viewed from a higher (theoretical) dimension. This is also called a deeper level of subspace; another universe which is connected to ours by subspace. In TNG "Remember Me" an entirely new universe was "spawned off" by a static warp bubble, and it was only accessable through subspace. The protouniverse in DS9 "Playing God" was an intense subspace manifestation as well. Protrusions of subspace, such as in TNG "Force of Nature", DS9 "Voretex", or the shockwave in ST6 do nasty things to our spacetime. But subspace is also everywhere: sensors can detect subspace distortions caused by normal objects (TNG "Descent, Part I"), communications work through subspace, and you can create subspace fields. Whenever our spacetime is distorted or torn, or large amounts of energy released (explosions) there are subspace effects; wormholes and Transwarp Conduits are good examples where subspace plays a part in the effect, and the presumably material- based explosion of Praxis in ST6 generated the subspace shockwave. Subspace fields are intentional manifestations of subspace in our spacetime, caused by the controlled release of energy in a warp field coil. These fields have many effects, often depending on the intensity. - They leave subspace distortions behind (TNG "Interface", DS9 "The Maquis") even when they're gone. - An object placed in a subspace field has a reduced inertial mass relative to things outside the field. (TNG "Deja Q") - A symmetrical field (aka "Warp bubble") with enough power can create an entirely new universe, but it may not be stable. (TNG "Remember Me") - An asymetrical field can propel the generating ship at the speed of light; nested fields propel the ship at the speed of light relative to the field beyond. (TM) - A subspace Soliton wave can carry a ship at the propagation speed of the wave. (TNG "New Ground") - A field can be embedded in an object (TNG "Phantasms") | - Overlapping static warp shells can create an artificial | subspace barrier in a localized region of spacetime (TNG "All | Good Things...") You can think of subspace as being the "medium" in which our spacetime exists. The nearest parts (nearest being measured by the energy it takes to access them) are tightly coupled to our own universe, and can be thought of as being mapped to our spacetime. This is what sensors generally read, and what the subspace fields of warp drive are interacting with. Slightly deeper parts can connect points in our universe to others. Wormholes and Transwarp Conduits are this sort of thing. Deeper still are the "untamed wilds" seen in "Force of Nature". And even further down are entirely separate universes, all held together by subspace. Subspace is not in an alternate reality, or "place", or spacetime where things go - or at least, they don't go in the world of Star Trek. It is not entered by a starship at warp. A ship creates a subspace field which acts like another universe very tightly coupled to our own. If I was inside such a field and you were outside, we could conduct a conversation, shake hands, etc. But when the field is powerful enough (1000 millicochranes or more) and asymetric, it is propulsive. Nested, decoupling fields magnify the effect considerably. But the ship still interacts with everything in our universe, and vice versa, as the level of subspace in which the field exists is so tightly coupled to our own that it appears no "fancier" than, say, a magnetic field, if you're looking closely at it. The weakest subspace fields do appear very similar to traditional fields, like magnetic fields. They have associated particles (see below), can be bound to objects (TNG "Phantasms"), can be used for transmissions (subspace radio), and generally unremarkable on their own other than as residue from more powerful effects. To keep Jason Hinson and General Relativity happy, subspace doesn't need to follow the rules of relativity. Subspace might have a unique reference frame, and everything enclosed in a subspace field has the reference frame of subspace. .... "What are Tetryons and Verterons?" Subatomic particles mentioned in TNG "Force of Nature", and a number of other episodes. These seem to be some of the particles associated with subspace fields, just as photons are particles associated with electomagnetic fields. A verteron mine is used to disable the Flemming, a Ferengi ship, and the Enterprise in "Force of Nature". Verterons somehow manage to break all devices which use subspace. Simplest explanation - they inhibit interactions with subspace, causing massive overloads and feedback which damages equipment. Verterons also infest the Wormhole near Bajor. In DS9 "Playing God", a protouniverse intruding into our own c/o subspace was kept contained by an energy field, but verteron pockets in the Wormhole threatened to release it, destroying a Runabout and perhaps even the Wormhole. Verterons and subspace do not mix well. They also allow vessels to travel through the wormhole under impulse power (DS9 "In the Hands of the Prophets"), and they appear in a display in Keiko's classroom on DS9 as the verteron membrane at the outer boundary of one side of the wormhole. Tetryons are particles which are stable in subspace but unstable in normal space. They appear to be the main mediating particles of subspace interactions with normal space. They were introduced in TNG "Schisms" but they've shown up in "Force of Nature", and a tetryon field is the result of an metaphasic shield interaction in "Suspicions". .... "What is subspace radio?" A means of sending a signal through subspace, so that it is not limited by the speed of light. This is done by creating a subspace distortion which propagates in much the same way as an electromagnetic field. A large amount of energy is needed to send a signal any large distance, and the more energy that is available, the deeper the signal can be forced into subspace. However, the signal dissipates over time, eventually releasing the energy that is left as an electromagnetic field. A more powerful initial signal can travel farther before this happens, but there is a limit; too much energy and the level of subspace that is used won't be tightly coupled to our own spacetime any more, and the signal will probably go awry. .... "How fast is subspace radio?" Under ideal conditions, Warp 9.9997. (TNG TM, page 99) This is "sixty times faster than the fastest starship, either existing or predicted" - assuming traditional warp technology. The Encyclopedia says that with boosters and relays, Warp 9.9999 is the speed, but this may be a typo. .... "Why is it instantaneous in the movies?" No ad breaks. ...................................................................... Part IV: Nitty Gritty "FASA says the Enterprise-D uses UltraWarp, so nyeah!" According to the TNG Tech Manual and Star Trek Chronology, the Enterprise-D uses the same old warp technology seen in TOS... just a much more advanced version. The only hint that TOS, TFS and TNG warp drives might be different is in their visual appearance on screen - only the TFS Enterprise "blurs" while in warp. We *have* seen the TNG Enterprise do this - in "Force of Nature", when it field- saturated its nacelles and ran at high warp for 6 seconds. Perhaps the TFS era warp drives used this field saturation to generate higher speeds at lower energy, an effect which was surpassed by later developments and obselete by TNG? .... "Some Starfleet ships use 3 nacelles!" In 2269, Starfleet attempted ships with 1 and 3 or more warp nacelles (TNG TM p65). As previously thought, 2 is the most efficient, but 4 is apparently useful in some cases (Constellation Class, Cheyenne Class). You need one nacelle to get anywhere, minimum. However, to yaw you need the nacelle to be split vertically (left and right halves) and to pitch you need the nacelle to be split horizontally (top and bottom halves). By using a split nacelle, you can induce slight timing differences, and cause the desired rotational effect (TM p65). This is a bit of a problem with one nacelle, since you end up with each warp coil divided into four segments. The TM indicates that matching *pairs* is difficult and very sensitive. Matching four, and providing four plasma injectors for each coil segment is probably difficult. Having more than two nacelles (either 3 or 4) allows you to use only a single segment per coil. But the warp field itself requires a gap to be released! (TM p65) (For anyone who doubts this, in TNG "Eye of the Beholder", we see TNG TM fig 5.3.3 reproduced on a large screen display with labels.) So you've gonna have the warp coils split in two anyway; if you use the top/bottom split to provide pitch control, and two nacelles to provide yaw control, you're set. On some designs, four nacelles may be the way to go; even with the required split, being able to tune the warp field discreetly may be enough of an advantange to warrant using four nacelles. .... |"Ha! Three nacelle ships are canon!" (TNG "All Good Things...") |Note that a number of things have changed by the time we see the |USS Enterprise zipping around with three nacelles in that |episode: | | - Warp 13 is a common cruising speed | - Warp is no longer damaging spacetime | - New nacelle designs are being used on other ships | |My own explanation: new nacelle designs allow ships like the USS |Pasteur to cruise at Warp 13 without frying spacetime. Older |ships, like the Enterprise, can be refitted with a third nacelle |(and other wingdings and widgets) to clean their subspace |emissions, so to speak. The third nacelle also allows a more |powerful field to be generated, to drive the ship around at Warp |13, but this goes beyond TNG-era knowledge of subspace mechanics. | |So as far as strictly TNG-era ships are concerned, three nacelles |are still worse than useless. .... "But the Ferengi/Borg/Klingon Bird of Prey don't have nacelles!" The Borg probably have subspace field generators (redundantly) scattered throughout their cube; they can then pulse them to generate *massive* overlapping, pulsating subspace fields in any direction. Same technique, more power, more flexibility. As for Ferengi, perhaps they use shielding. One thing is certain; the design of Ferengi ships allows for the ship to be contained in a single lobed warp field. The Enterprise requires a double lobe. Having "inboard" warp drives (like the Bird of Prey) gets you a fast ship for less power; likely, shielding can prevent the fields from frying the crew. A display screen in DS9 "Blood Oath" may show the warp field of the Bird of Prey - again, a single lobe. Something to consider; most of the small ships (picture the raiding ship from TNG "Gambit") don't have outboard drives. They probably make the single-lobe/shielding tradeoff to keep their ships small, fast and cheap. Ditto for shuttles with warp. .... "What's TransWarp?" According to the Star Trek Chronology, the Excelsior was commissioned as NX-2000 in 2284 as a test bed for the new TransWarp technology. By 2287, the TransWarp Development Project was deemed unsuccessful by Starfleet Command, and experiments were halted. TNG Tech Manual, p 14: "...The attempt to surpass the primary warp field efficiency barrier with the TransWarp Development Project in the early 2280s proved unsuccessful...." It seems as though the designers were trying to get around the energy limits traditional warp entailed, after passing Warp 9. A few sources offer speculation on what TransWarp might be. Unfortunately, when we finally saw TransWarp in action, they were blown out of the water. TNG "Descent" portrays the Borg using TransWarp Conduits. They are still an artifact of subspace, but appear to be artificial. Transfer through the conduits is 200 times faster than the fastest warp available to Federation science (Warp 9.7 or 9.8), covering lightyears in a matter of seconds rather than hours. It *may* be that a TransWarp drive attempts to tunnel through subspace, bypassing the limitations of warp entirely. If this is the case, then it is no wonder Starfleet was forced to give up - the energy requirements are beyond what the Borg have. Instead, they use semi-stable conduits, accessed via a tachyon interaction with a subspace distortion. .... "Besides TransWarp Conduits, what other alternate forms of FTL travel have we seen?" TNG "Where No One Has Gone Before" - The Traveller propells the Enterprise to the Andromeda Galaxy, using more advanced warp equations. TNG "The Nth Degree" - The Cytherians bring the Enterprise to the center of the galaxy via graviton mediated subspace folding. TNG "New Ground" - Soliton waves are used to move a ship at warp speeds; "Warp without warp drive." TNG "When the Bow Breaks" - The Aldeans shove the Enterprise away at some immense speed. (Q does this too, often.) TNG "The Price", and DS9 - Wormholes, stable and unstable, connect remote parts of the galaxy. TNG "Interface" - Geordi proposes an artificially created subspace "funnel" connecting points 300 light years apart. (I'm missing lots, please let me know.) .... "Why do ships always meet the same way up?" I know it's been proposed as a joke, but the idea that warp travel requires a universal "up" isn't as silly as you might think. We know that things in normal space affect subspace. What if the mass and orientation of the entire galaxy, which is nothing to sneeze at, affect subspace in such a way as to make travel more efficient if your warp fields are generated parallel to the plane of the galaxy? It's then more efficient for ships to align their warp drives with the plane of the galaxy, so flying "up" and "down" in the galactic plane (which is relatively thin, about 1/10th to 1/40th the diameter of the galaxy) would take more energy. This also explains the banking into turns and such. If you have galactic-up and galactic-down to choose from, why always the same way up? Probably a matter of protocol. Only "loser" races don't adhere to the standard. You'll also note that many small ships are vertically symmetrical, perhaps as their designers aren't quite up to snuff when it comes to designing warp drives. The second is that the subspace field of the galaxy would do really weird things at the edge and at the center. Remember the Great Barrier of TOS fame ("Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "By Any Other Name") does nasty things to the Enterprise, and the one near the center of the galaxy (if you believe in Star Trek V) was pretty scary too. Kirk made a number of references in "By Any Other Name" about warp drive not working outside the galaxy, or something to that effect. While the Kelvans of Andromeda had got that licked, this does give the theory a little bit of support. Another note: the subspace shockwave seen in Star Trek VI was both planar and aligned with the direction of the Excelsior's vertical axis, and shockwaves within the subspace rift of TNG "Force of Nature" were also aligned coplanar to the ship. ...................................................................... Contributors: Jason Hinson Greg Berigan A.J. Madison Axis Sharon Collicutt <864677@academic.stu.StThomasU.ca> ...................................................................... Note on References: See the Reading List Mini-FAQ for a full details on the volumes mentioned above and below. More recently presented information is considered to supercede old information, unless the weight of the evidence supports the original data. Greatest priority is placed on aired live-action material (canon) and documents produced by or quoting the production crews for Star Trek (quasi-canon), most notably the Technical Advisors to ST:TNG and ST:DS9, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach. Other materials are not considered reliable sources of information, and anything gleaned from these is of questionable relevance. Canonical Material: (DS9) Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (TNG) Star Trek: The Next Generation (TFS) Star Trek feature films (TOS) Classic Star Trek Quasi-canonical Material: (Encyc) The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future (Chron) Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future (TM) Star Trek: The Next Generaion Technical Manual Questionable Materials: The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion - contains some behind-the-scenes notes of interest Other episode guides (Compendium, Concordance, etc) - useful, esp. for spellings and details The Making of Star Trek - contains Roddenberry-approved TOS ship systems info Episode scripts - unaired material is often cut for a reason Trading cards (esp. Skybox) - technical stuff often prepared by production staff Material that is ignored (other than where it reproduces material from the above, e.g. photographs, descriptions, etc.): (TAS) Star Trek: The Animated Series Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise (WoF) Worlds of the Federation (SFTM) Star Fleet Technical Manual (TJ) Starlog's Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Journal Other "reference" guides Novels, incl. novelizations of films and episodes Blueprints, drawings, photographs, models, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- David Jonsson Voice&Fax +46-18-24 51 52 P.O Box 353 Postal giro 499 40 54-7 S-751 06 UPPSALA Internet E-mail t89djo@student.tdb.uu.se SWEDEN ++++++Cold EMISSION before the end of the century++++++