HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: worthm@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Michael A Worth)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Beaming Down... is it smart?
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:09:44 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Well, to add in my $.02 worth, I must agree that there is a serious flaw in
 beaming down. If beaming down to an unknown planet isn't inherently dangerous,
then I don't know what is. And yet the Enterprise consistently beams down it's
most senior officers (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Piccard, Riker,Giordi, and Data).
That is akin to having our four star Generals in the Marines be the first to storm an entrenched beach. Wouldn't the Enterprise have specialized teams of
people specifically trained to beam down and collect data, then contact the 
ship? Just a quick thought..
From: humor@gnu.ai.mit.edu (The Ever-Mirthful Man of Mayhem)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: warp speeds
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:46:44 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Originator: humor@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Sep30.150822.21543@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>Michael Joseph Harris <mh6g+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>have we forgotten that in an episode ( The Traveler,  I think ) in which
>>the Enterprise went faster then Warp factor 10 and ended up in another
>>galaxy?
>
>Data's line notwithstanding, here's what the Tech Manual has to say
>about this:
>
>"(By the way, we estimate that in 'Where No One Has Gone Before' the
>Traveler was probably propelling the ENTERPRISE at about Warp
>9.9999999996.  Good thing they were in the carpool lane.)"  p. 55,
>footnote.

I don't remember if it was the book 'Ghost Ship' or in one of the very early
TNG episodes, but I recall mention of a ship that was travelling at Warp
14. Now, they say that warp 10 is infinite speed...how inconsistent.

Side Note: Can anyone tell me the formula for calculating the various
warp speeds in terms of the speed of light?
i.e. Warp 1 = Light Speed
     Warp 2 = ?


Thanx.

The Ever-Mirthful One



-- 
My Father Always Believed That  |"On Screen!"       | The Acquisition
Laughter Is The Best Medicine	|"Which one, sir?"  | of Information
I Guess That's Why Several Of Us|"What?! Ummm..the  | is an 
Died of Tuberculosis! :-)	| first one..."	    | Advantageous Inquisition!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144)
Subject: Re: Warp Speed Formula Revealed
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:59:14 GMT

> I have seen many articles up here about warp speeds and such, and I don't
> know if anyone has submitted a fromula for calculating relative warps speeds
> yet.  I used exponential regression (and a lot of luck!) to figure out the
> formula of calculating warp speeds according to the graph presented in the
> Next Generation Technical Manual.
>
> Here goes:
>
>  WF^(10/3)+(10-WF)^(-11/3)= speed as a multiple of the speed of light.
>
> These are some ugly exponents, folks, but they work.  Also the speeds don't
> exactly match those on the charts, but I figure you aren't going to care if
> you are travelling 392 or 393 times the speed of light (warp 6).
> Warning:  remember that there is no such thing as warp ten or beyond.  If you
> enter values of 10 or greater into this formula, your calculator will give
> you a bad time.  Besides warp 9.9999 is already 4.64 x 10^14 * c.  Why would
> you need to go faster?

I don't have the charts with me for the crazy range from 9.5 to 10, but have 
checked the critical points of 1, 9.5, 9.9..., and 10. And some interger
values between 1 and 9. Very low error in the range of 1 to 9.5 and it is
definately undefined at 10 and above. I'll have to compare this to the 9.5 to
10 range, but this may very well be the best equestion I have seen for the
warp scale.
From: goudswaa@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Goudswaard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Infantry Vehicals in ST?
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:03:05 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

chan@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca (Mike Chan) writes:

>       I am making a Star Trek role plating game and I was wondering if there
>is such things as ground infantry vehicals? I also wonder if they have

I created my own Next Generation-era RPG (and it kicks ass, too! ahem.)
and due to a lack of information on this and other subjects, began
recently to create my own.  If you take into consideration that the
UFP has member worlds of various technological levels, and non-Fed ones,
too, it should come as no surprise that many would have ground infantry
vehicles.

>different kind of makes of Phasers. Like we have Smith and Wessons, so would
>they have different kinds of phasers? How about aircraft and naval vessels do

As far as phasers go, check out the Star Fleet Technical manual by
Franz Joseph -- you know, the old one -- and in it they list a hand
phaser type I and type II, and a "ray gun" area weapon.  And don't
forget disruptors, and the Varon-T disruptor from the TNG episode
"The Most Toys".

>they have does also? Does Star Fleet have some kind of intellegence division
>like the CIA or the FBi or even Interpol. 

From FJ's SF Tech Manual, they list a "Justice Division" under Starfleet
Command, and a "Security Division", which assumes that one or both have
an internal security department.  There is also an Inspector General,
doesn't that position indicate some sort of internal Starfleet security?


>      Also why doesn't the crew members even recognise any earth Holidays? Like
>Christmas or even easter? I mean they go and party on Worf's Right of Passage
>and other stuff but what about the holidays? and what Exactly is the use of
>Credits? wouldn't that cause greed again?

Credits are most likely used for Starfleet crewmembers to purchase any
necessities if they go on shoreleave on some planet.  They aren't going
to be given things for free.  Also, supplies cost money, regardless of
where they come from, so there must be *some* sort of accountability
within Starfleet.

>Data Chan
>Student/ Major RPG and ST Fan

My best advice to you is buy every book written on Star Trek, and watch
every show and movie, and ADAPT, ADAPT, ADAPT.  Use things you like,
discard things you don't.  If your players like the game, you must be
doing something right!

-- 
 Peter Goudswaard                  _________                     _________
 goudswaa@sfu.ca                  |         |      __/^\__      |         |
 pgoudswa@cue.bc.ca               |         |      \     /      |         |
 peterg@quesnel.education.gov.bc.ca         |   _/\_\   /_/\_   |         |
                                  |         |   >           <   |         |
 "Peace through superior          |         |    >_________<    |         |
    firepower" -- ad for EP607    |_________|         |         |_________|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: goudswaa@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Goudswaard)
Subject: Re: Retrofit Technology
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:26:57 GMT

ses52823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sven E. Skoog) writes:

>While we're on the subject of 'outdated technologies'...

>STIII:TSFS made the Excelsior out to be the hottest thing since Tribbles.
>Isn't it a little less than plausible that such a vaunted vessel would be
>downgraded to the several-year task of 'examination of gaseous anomalies'?
>Surely Captain Sulu, who is made out in many of the novels (and hinted at
>within the movies and series) to be the foremost helmsman in Starfleet at the
>time, would be assigned to a (eek!  a Worfism) "worthier task."

True, and I thought of this myself, actually (but not taking any credit
here!)  and thought that it might be explained simply by, "This is Starfleet
Command calling Excelsior.  Since you're in the neighbourhood..."

-- 
 Peter Goudswaard                  _________                     _________
 goudswaa@sfu.ca                  |         |      __/^\__      |         |
 pgoudswa@cue.bc.ca               |         |      \     /      |         |
 peterg@quesnel.education.gov.bc.ca         |   _/\_\   /_/\_   |         |
                                  |         |   >           <   |         |
 "Peace through superior          |         |    >_________<    |         |
    firepower" -- ad for EP607    |_________|         |         |_________|
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ST:TNG Communicators
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:40:47 GMT
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory

In article <rrheaume.65@emr1.emr.ca>, rrheaume@emr1.emr.ca (Roberta Rheaume (CPB)) writes:
|> I am new to this news group, so pardon me if this question has already been 
|> answered.  I wonder how the communicator knows when a person has stopped 
|> talking to the communicator and has resumed talking to the person in front 
|> of them.  

   Either the writers just ignore this or the computer is very
adept at interpreting converation. I opt for the latter. If you
can talk to the computer and it can easily understand you as is
the case on ST:TNG, then the voice recognition is probably
sophisticated enough to detect who the person is talking to. I
suppose if there is no verbal cue to indicate that the
conversation has changed persons, then the computer would have
to just keep sending the conversation to the receiver. I must
admit... I've never seen such a mistake happen, though.

-- Tim
From: cap36406@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Carlos A. Pero)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Distance in the Holodecks
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:50:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvGKFx.EEK
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I have a question regarding spatial relationships in the holodeck. I don't
have any of the tech manuals for the show, and I've only seen a few episodes
address how the holodeck works. So hopefully, someone out there can explain
this to me.

In "Encounter at Farpoint", Data demonstrates the mechanics of the holodeck
to Riker by throwing a rock at the wall. I believe he then babbles something
about the illusion of distance how the holodeck allows movement, or something
to that effect.

Fine. I can understand the holodeck would somehow "move" the occupant
backwards in the room (if walking a great distance) so that they do not
collide with the physical walls of the holodeck. Probably by shifting the
holodeck-controllable ground like a treadmill. But what would happen if
two people were in the holodeck simultaneously, and walked apart from each
other a distance greater than the actual confines of the room? Would they just
be a set distance and the holodeck somehow fool their vision to make them
appear farther away?


-- 
______________________________________________________
\                    				      \
 \   Carlos A. Pero  -  University of Illinois at U-C  \
  \   Email to: cap36406@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu               \
From: ehohnbau@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Eric Trent Hohnbaum)
Subject: Re: Phasers
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Reply-To: ehohnbau@ics.uci.edu (Eric Trent Hohnbaum)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:44:13 GMT


This is a minorly related comment on the episode where the acelerated people
from the planet Scalos accelerate Kirk and try to take the Enterprise:

When Kirk fired his phaser at the woman and she stepped out of the way,
why didn't the others notice the beam and the damage it would have caused?
Deliberate plot omission or oversight?  You make the call!

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Holodeck Walls
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 22:10:40 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Oct2.154706.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>On the subject of the holodeck, since it is designed to simulate
>reality as perfectly as possible, why, in the first episode, did the
>rock Data threw hit the wall?  Shouldn't the computer have removed the
>rock and replaced it with an image on the wall?  

Probably. Mind you, the ship was new at that point, and the
computers have been upgraded a few times since then (once a year
or so, right?), and even just a few episodes later.

>Or did it realize that
>Data was trying to demonstrate the wall (the computer is smart enough to
>simulate people, remember) and let the rock hit, with a suitably nifty 
>ripple effect on the wall? :)

Uh, yeah, thats it. :) No, it was either a foul-up, the writers
hadn't written out the specs yet, or the computers weren't that
complex yet.

>COULD the computer do the "replace-with-receding-image" move?  (What I
>mean is, is it fast enough?)  How fast can the computer move an object
>in the holodeck?  How fast can it pull the matter together to make an object?
>Given how the holodeck works, I would think it would have to be many times
>faster than the standard food replicators.

Good point. The question is, is the rock a real rock, or just a
forcebeam/hologram projection? I say that _now_ (6th season) it'd
just be a projection. Not wet, not likely to be eaten. For EaF,
tho, Data describes the holodeck as having its scenery created
from the bulk matter stores... not very efficient. I imagine the
Bynars tuned that during the system upgrade.

Joshua
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jfarmer@fraser.sfu.ca (Jason Michael Farmer)
Subject: Re: photorps are useless!!!!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:56:00 GMT

jp_torun@uuisis.isis.org (jp torunski) writes:

>why not use the transporters to simply "beam away" any photon torpedoes? or 
>plasma rays/asteroids etc..

>also, when attacking the Borg, why not just beam way large parts of the 
>ship, and re-materialize them inside a planet (overide safety factors), or  
>spread the matter all over the place?

>                        J

One minor problem with this method.  You have to drop the sheilds.  Perfect timefor the Borg to open fire, beam troops aboard, etc.

Jason Farmer
jfarmer@fraser.sfu.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Eating within the Holodeck
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:12:47 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Robert Swindley (swindley@elec.uq.oz.au) wrote:
>
> I don't know if this is a FAQ, but is it possible
> to eat something that appears on the holodeck?
> and if it is, do you feel the sensation of taste,
> and being full after a meal?

There seem to be many opinions about the holodeck.  I'll just
provide mine as part of the debate.

The holodeck uses a variety of technologies to present the
virtual reality (VR) that is programmed into it.  We have seen
that it is possible to touch and move various objects within the
holodeck, and that many of these objects are more than holograms
for you can not walk through them.  They are solid.  

Considering the existence of replicator and transporter technology,
it would make sense that any non-animated part of the holodeck
scene would simply be replicated into existence.  These means that
food, water, rock, paper, and so forth would be replicated on the
spot and could be used, tasted, touched, manipulated or removed
from the holodeck whenever needed.

However, when it comes to animated portions of the holodeck, whether
it be people, animals, or plants, we know that the replicator can
not create these items (within "Data's Day" we see that replicated
material isn't the same as the original material leading one to
believe that the replicator isn't able to accurately reproduce material
at all levels below the molecular).  But the "people" are fairly solid.
This implies that something is there and that it is being animated
by the computer (perhaps  it is being moved by constantly being refreshed
via the transporter/replicator field much as television pictures move
when the pixels are refreshed).

In one scene within Worf's calisthenics, he chops through an animated
character which slowly derezzes.  In another scene, as a character leaves
the holodeck, it is derezzed slowly as if the "picture" were fading.
Using these datapoints, I'll go with the basic-stuff-is-replicated-and-
complex-stuff-is-replicated-refreshed-and-some-stuff-is-just-holograms
group of people (the walls are obviously holograms as demonstrated by
Data in "Encounter at Farpoint" - I claim a faulty program there, for the
computer should have derezzed the thrown rock and shown a hologram of
it falling in the program; perhaps the next release was better).

Mark Runyan  {r.a.s random rationalizer}
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Time travel back in ST:TVH.
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:59:52 GMT

In ST:TVH, the bridge crew of the Enterprise traveled back in time with an
old Klingon ship by making a turn around the sun. This was very difficult,
but nescessary. But I wonder why they did the same to travel back to the
23rd century: wasn't it much easier to travel some time with, e.g. warp 0.99
through space and use the relativistic time shift?
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************
From: z_westmorelb@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Technology Retrofit
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:48:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Sep30.094815.1275
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

Question of the Day:

	What would be some of the difficulties (or impossibilities for that
matter) of trying to retrofit Galaxy Class Technology/Equipment to an 
Excelsior class spaceframe, specifically the Warp Drive and the main computer
core.  

Please re-post or E-Mail

Thanks in Advance

Lee Westmoreland
E-Mail:Z_westmorelb@ccsvax.sfasu.edu

Searching for knowledge from those upon high
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Subject: Re: Computer / Saucer Separation
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:32:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.030917.12520@watson.ibm.com>, rrogers@watson.ibm.com (Ryan Rogers) writes:
|> In  <1992Oct1.191928.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>  ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
|> >Is there only _one_ main computer on the Enterprise-D?
|> >
|> >What is the status of the computer system when the saucer is separated?
|> >
|> 
|>    There are identical computer cores on both the saucer (primary) and
|> engineering (secondary) sections.  This from the Tech Manual...

   Isn't that the BATTLE section (not engineering)? That's what I recall
it being named in the Tech Manual.

-- Tim
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Collisions!
Date: 2 Oct 92 06:05:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1OCT199212565122@rosie.uh.edu> cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787) writes:
>  A) What happens when two equivalent size ships collide with
>     shields up at sub-light?  Head-on?  Off-angle?  Chasing?

*Crunch!*

Seriously tho, the shields are made to deflect energy or objects
of low momentum (relative to the ship). Even light impacts on the
shields tend to screw about with the IDF, so odds are the ships
would either grind to a halt (if slowly), bounce apart (if a bit
faster) with internal damage, or plow through each other's
shields and physically crunch together (realfast). Anything over
a snails pace should cause severe damage to a craft like the
Enterprise. 

>  B) Oh I guess I had a second one :) Shouldn't a object 
>     i.e. photorp dropped backwards destroy a chasing ship that
>     is at warp speed when the object hits?  We remembered the
>     one with the Borg and it still bothers us why the Borg
>     didn't even feel it.

Ships have navigational deflectors to clear debris from their
paths, so collisions are avoided. The photon torpedo would likely
just detonate on the shields as usual. Remember, though warp
speeds add like you would expect in a Newtonian universe (warp
9.7 forward + 9.7 backward is twice as fast as 9.7) the actual
advantage in speed can't be viewed as linear (maybe 9.73?) so the
energy of the collision isn't that much greater relative to the
shields power. (If that makes any sense, you've been watching
Trek more than I have. :)

Joshua
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: grady@world.std.com (Dick Grady)
Subject: Re: Beaming Down... is it smart?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:11:09 GMT

In article <91552@netnews.upenn.edu> worthm@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Michael A Worth) writes:
>Well, to add in my $.02 worth, I must agree that there is a serious flaw in
> beaming down. If beaming down to an unknown planet isn't inherently dangerous,
>then I don't know what is. And yet the Enterprise consistently beams down it's
>most senior officers (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Piccard, Riker,Giordi, and Data).
>That is akin to having our four star Generals in the Marines be the first to storm an entrenched beach. Wouldn't the Enterprise have specialized teams of
>people specifically trained to beam down and collect data, then contact the 
>ship? Just a quick thought..
>

I wondered that too, until I realized that if Kirk, Picard, etc., didn't
go then the film-makers would need to hire some more actors (which would
cost more money!).
Also, it's more dramatic if your lead actors are in trouble.
(After all, it's just a TV-show/movie.)

-- 
            Dick Grady               grady@world.std.com

       Do-it-yourself Term Limits:  Re-elect NO-ONE !
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jp_torun@uuisis.isis.org (jp torunski)
Subject: photorps are useless!!!!!
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 02:41:18 GMT

why not use the transporters to simply "beam away" any photon torpedoes? or 
plasma rays/asteroids etc..

also, when attacking the Borg, why not just beam way large parts of the 
ship, and re-materialize them inside a planet (overide safety factors), or  
spread the matter all over the place?

                        JP
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ST: TNG Communicators
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:56:26 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <rrheaume.65@emr1.emr.ca> rrheaume@emr1.emr.ca (Roberta Rheaume (CPB)) writes:
>I am new to this news group, so pardon me if this question has already been 
>answered.  I wonder how the communicator knows when a person has stopped 
>talking to the communicator and has resumed talking to the person in front 
>of them.  

According to the Tech Manual, the computer (note that the
communicators are NOT used aboard ship - the 'tap' is completely
optional) waits for the word 'Out' spoken out of context, or ten
seconds of silence. Of course, this never happens. :) You can
speculate that the computer actually listens in on the
conversation and listens for the changes in nuance when you stop
talking to someone 'far away' and return to speaking to someone
up close. We can tell, so the computer should be able to.

Plus, it reads the scripts. :)

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
From: mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Michael Stegbauer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed Formula Revealed
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:26:10 GMT
Reply-To: mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Michael Stegbauer)
Organization: sgi


 > you a bad time.  Besides warp 9.9999 is already 4.64 x 10^14 * c.  Why would
 > you need to go faster?

How about:
to catch Vger
to catch the Borg heading for earth
to deliver any number of medical cures, in any number of shows
to outrun Q
to get home in time to see ST:TNG ?