Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just watching an episode of Next Generation, and was struck by how rapidly the stars appear to whisk past the starship when you get the external view.


In Voyager it was going to take them 75 years to get home at Warp 9 from the Delta Quadrant. However, this seems at odds with the speed of those twinkling lights winging past.


Can someone explain where I'm getting it wrong?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/14537-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-d/
Share on other sites

It would take over 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way galaxy while travelling at the speed of light.


I think most people find galactic distances beyond everyday comprehension.


Star Trek uses many clever literary devices to fit intra-galactic storylines into hour-long episodes - warp drive being one of the most significant.

According to the ST:TNG Technical Manual:


From page 55:

"Field intensity increases geometrically and is a function of the total of the individual field layer values..... For example, a ship travelling at Warp Factor 3 is maintaining a warp field of at least 39 Cochranes and is therefore travelling at 39 times c , the speed of light."


Warp Factor (c = speed of light)

1 = 1 Cochrane = c x 1

2 = 10 Cochranes = c x 10

3 = 39 Cochranes = c x 39

4 = 102 Cochranes = c x 102

5 = 214 Cochranes = c x 214

6 = 392 Cochranes = c x 392

7 = 656 Cochranes = c x 656

8 = 1024 Cochranes = c x 1024

9 = 1516 Cochranes = c x 1516


For perspective: it takes about 24 hours to get from Earth to Alpha Centauri at Warp 9.


The above factors are fairly consistent with Voyager?s 75-year journey to cross the galaxy at normal cruising speed.


HTH

Very true. Not a Trekkie myself, it's so self important. Babylon five was genuinely funny, it even had Neil Gaiman as a writer.


New Battlestar Galactica is pretty good drama, though admittedly missing much of that all important humour element.

New V is just awful.

Yes I agree V is awesome show.....

Battlestar remake bloody good show....Liked at the end when battlestar started cracking up because of too many hyperjumps.

Caprica the spin off series not sure about it really tried to get into it but finding it hard going.

In the world of fiction, you can go at any speed you want. Star Trek was one of the best and origional series made.

It was amusing ecscapism.

I thought the new Mr Spock, the bloke from heroes, was a good replacement, but the one that replaced Kirk was nothing

like him.

Mr Spock was fascinating.

Most quality science fiction tries to be somewhat consistent with speed and distance.


I particularly like Alistair Reynold's books, which address the massive problems involved with time dilation when travelling at relativistic speeds.


Am quite enjoying Stargate: Universe at the moment, which seems to have a nice blend of visual spectacle and character drama. Do you get that in the UK?


Caprica starting with us next week. I've not watched any Battlestar Galactica remake yet, so clearly I need to have a heavy duty weekend of that.


Never even realised there was a V remake. I've got no idea how they intend to do that!!!

As an aside - a little titbit of sci-fi fan folklore:


The pilot episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) aired just weeks before the debut of Babylon 5. Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski indicated that Paramount was aware of his concept as early as 1989, when he attempted to sell the show to the studio, and provided them with the series bible, pilot script, artwork, lengthy character background histories, and plot synopses for the first 22 episodes. Paramount passed on Babylon 5, but later announced Deep Space Nine was in development after Warner Bros. announced its plans for Babylon 5. Straczynski has stated on numerous occasions that he thinks Paramount may have used his bible and scripts as the basis for DS9's first season. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5#Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_controversy)

 

Original star trek was very good. A bit daft, a lot of fun and humour embedded in the DNA.


The problem with the later stuff was that it took the mythos too seriously but lost touch with the ethos of the original series.


You hVe to blame the writers of Next Gen. Subsequent spin offs tried to find a middle ground but were ultimately hampered by decisions taken in next Gen.


Voyager was the most successful of these, DS9 the least. Really, really bad.

I thought Enterprise cleverly sidestepped the prime directive issues by prequeling it, and I still think underrated and unfairly canned, suffering as it did from overload of all the stuff that went before.


At least sic fi is no longer a dirty word and we are spoilt these days. Not that it's all good, but some is, much is passable and we can ignore the rest.


Babylon 5 ended up crushed under the weight of it's own mythos too, and became almost unwatchable after a few series, but we can treasure the first three.


Books will always be the best medium as there's no concomitant budget on the words used to express fanciful ideas.


I, like Huguenot, love a bit of space opera and our own alistair Reynolds is very good. Loving Dan Simmon's stuff, though he nods to many another author as his inspiration. I've been trawling through a lot of the stuff from the fifties and sixties and it's amazing how little it ages and how influential it remains.


Of modern stuff The Road is a standout novel(la). Everyone should read it. I bought a copy for missus mockney's brother who self confessedly doesn't read much and he was blown away by it.


Of course if you want the real thing just read through Philip K Dick's canon.



Aaaaaaand breeeeeaaaaathe......

Voyager was the most successful of these, DS9 the least. Really, really bad.


I'm the opposite, I'd chose DS9 over Voyager. (plus Jadzia Dax was fit!)


Never saw any of Enterprise.


Next Gen had some great great stories, and some not so great. Q was always fun, and episodes with him in them were generally good. The final episode "All good things" was a great ending too (well, sort of ending, unless you count the films, which with the exception of "First Contact" were not great).

I grew up on TOS (and Dr Who) and was a voracious reader of everything sci-fi until the early eighties - haven't read much in that genre since, though.


But, for me, Voyager represents the pinnacle of the Star Trek franchise - I'm not sure why it's my favourite (Seven-of-Nine notwithstanding) perhaps because the production team had by then refined and perfected its story-telling skills to the point where fantasy and reality became virtually indistinguishable, albeit sparse on humour.


I especially like the Borg story-arcs (originally introduced in TNG - admittedly) - the Borg being an extraordinarily creative alien construct that, I think, probably evolved from the humble Cybermen.


I also think the world of The Matrix may well been inspired, in part at least, from the Borg's UniMatrix Zero.


The original Stargate series, on the other hand, is notable for its self-effacing humour and plethora of in-jokes - always good for a laugh.

I agree with pretty much all of that post HAL9000, Voyager was definitely my favourite. Also I think Star Trek was at its best when the Enterprise was captained by a bit of a prat. OK so Patrick Stewart maybe a fine shakespearean actor, but listening to him in interviews is just painful, their two successors were just too bland for Star Trek.


Though I don't read much SciFi these days, when I did, I found the near future novels more interesting. Greg Bear's Eon comes to mind as a great book.


A recommendation, particularly aimed at Mockney Piers though, is for Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End. An excellent look at the near future when his dreams of technological synesthesia have been realised with the help of augmented reality lenses and portable computing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...