HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwayne@triton.unm.edu (Chris Wayne)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ENTERPRISE CUT AWAY
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:39:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.q-1j-8q
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr14.231121.1299@bvc.edu> kesslerbrian@bvc.edu writes:
>Has anybody seen or ordered the new cut away poster of the Enterprise, 
>advertised in the STTNG Magazine #19? I am wondering how close it is to the 
>Technical Manual?

     If it is produced by ADT Associates, then I have it on order and I'm
expecting any day now.  I doubt it'll be anything like the TNG:TM, but I'll let
you know.


-- 
 Chris Wayne @ UNM        |  "THE CAST AND CREW OF STAR TREK WISH TO DEDICATE
 cwayne@hydra.unm.edu     |   THIS FILM TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE SPACESHIP
 --------aka--------------+   CHALLENGER.  THEIR COURAGEOUS SPIRIT SHALL LIVE
  Don Quixote of RAS       \  ON TO THE 23RD CENTURY AND BEYOND."
From: bvan@ncs.dnd.ca (Bryan Van Blaricom)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: What are those points of light, anyway?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:40:27 GMT
Organization: DND, Ottawa, CANADA

In article <1992Apr6.201104.23332@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Philip.Banks@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Philip Richard Banks) writes:
>  To quote the HHGTG "Space is big,really big! You just won't beleive how
>mindbogglingly big it is...". No these particles must be some local effect
>around the ship, presumably particles entering/leaving/being eaten by the 
>Warp field. It is a shame that Paramount hasn't placed this kind of info
>in the TNG Tech manual - mind you I'd like to *see* the TNG Tech manual at
>some point....
>

   Hehe, Sternbach and Okuda didn't bother to comment on the "speedo"
special effects in the Tech Manual.  Unless you're really inventive,
you'll probably have a tough time coming up with a likely sounding
explanation of the zippy stars and the warp speed ship stretch.  I've
always taken them at face value: the show's way of saying "Look!  This ship
is going REEEEEALLLLY fast!" :-)

Bryan
From: me308lab@ux.acs.umn.edu (Mechanical Eng consultant)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace vs. Antispace
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:32:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux.1992Apr11.223239.4539
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <#l4tqpn@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>
>  I was plugging some funny (imaginary) numbers into some quantum physical
>equations and came up with a NEGATIVE probability curve.  When I consider this,
>and the fact that, if you put in a velocity v, greater than c, you get an
>imaginary number (NEVER complex, but imaginary).  To me, this signifies a space
>that you enter to go faster than c. 
>
>  In this anti-space, ONLY a v>c is permitted, with velocities approaching c (e.g.
>slowing down) take more energy.  What relation is this antispace to subspace?  And
>if there is none, then what IS subspace?  I mean, I've read the TNG Tech Manual,
>but it never specifies what subspace is.
>
>

Please forgive if this is well-travelled r.a.s.t. ground, but isn't what
this individual is referring to related to tachion (sp?) theory.  I 
remember reading in some hard science mag that any normal particle  
travelling faster than the speed of light would go backwards
in time.  Tachions, some claim, are sublight particles that travel
_backwards_ through time.  Hense, if a tachion could somehow find
itself going forward in time, it would have a FTL velocity.

Pure rubbish?

Wrong group?

-- 
Tola H. Marts   \\\   ME at MN   \\\   email: TMARTS@VX.ACS.UMN.EDU

   "You'll be the mule, I'll be the plow, come harvest time,
    we'll work it out."- Nancy Griffith, _Troubled Fields_
From: sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com (Kent Sarff)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:26:43 GMT
Reply-To: sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO


>>Is there a USS Asimov?
>>
>>If not...There should be!

>Damn straight! And it should be more of those unnamed Galaxy Class ships...

Just name a ship??  Come on, how about a Azimov Class?  He will always be in
a class of individuals that have shaped the present and future of science fact.

            Kent Sarff
      sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com
Digital is blameless for my rambling
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: phk@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Pieter Kallemeyn)
Subject: Re: ENTERPRISE CUT AWAY
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:42:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.231121.1299@bvc.edu> kesslerbrian@bvc.edu writes:
>Has anybody seen or ordered the new cut away poster of the Enterprise, 
>advertised in the STTNG Magazine #19? I am wondering how close it is to the 
>Technical Manual?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
I received my copy just last week, paid $20 for it, and it's worth every penny!
It is VERY close to the technical manual, since it was produced by the same 
guys (Okuda and Sternbach).  To get a copy, call STARLAND at 1-303-671-TREK.

You'll spend hours studying it.  Beautiful artwork!

--
--
Pieter Kallemeyn                     |   phk@aristotle.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratory            |          - or - 
California Institute of Technology   |   phk@cabrilho.jpl.nasa.gov
From: stdnt163@whscdp.whs.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: TOS Stardates taken in TNG mode (was Re: >>stardate conversion...
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:27:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: whscdp.1992Apr10.102735.388
Organization: Washington HS, Milwaukee, WI

In article <1992Apr9.014517.2291@ducvax.auburn.edu>, dsturm@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> ...and to shatter things even more...
> 
> A neat little retrofitting (aka back-continuity) works fairly well
> if you establish a stardate cycle starting in 2264.
> 
> 0000 = 2264
> 1000 = 2265
>            Kirk's test run with Enterprise (E:t1Ad,StrSky,WNMHGB,early 1st 
>            season)
> 2000 = 2266
>            Kirk starts a full 5YM (mid 1st season)
> 3000 = 2267
>            Kirk's first full year of 5YM (late 1st, early 2d season)
> 4000 = 2268
>            Kirk's second full year of 5YM (end 2d season, few 3d)
> 5000 = 2269
>            Kirk's third full year of 5YM (most of 3d season, some TAS)
> 6000 = 2270
>            Kirk's fourth full year of 5YM (some TAS, novels)
> 7000 = 2271
>            Kirk's fifth full year of 5YM (novels)
>            Brings home Enterprise in good shape.
>            Promoted to rank of Nogura's whore :-)
> 8000 = 2272
>            Chief SFO
> 9000 = 2273
>            Chief SFO
> That stardate cycle included a scaling factor for distance from SFHQ...
> 
> Anyways, if you treat it like the TNG system 1 SD = 8 hours, it's not
> horrendously bad.
> 
> 
> Presumably the next stardate cycle was of the form
> YYdd.d
> 
> 7400 = 2274 TMP
> 
> 7500 = 2275 etc.
> 
> New cycle established...
> 
> 0000 = 2277
> 
> 8000 = 2285 ST2-5
> 
> Return to the YYdd.d cycle...
> 
> 8700 = 2287
> :
> :
> 9522.6 = 2295 August 15  ST6
> 
> Presumably only military intelligence ;-P can explain the switch between
> the Ywww.h and YYdd.d systems.  (Maybe to keep the Roms guessing?)
> 
> Dave Sturm.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: inde6tx@rosie.uh.edu (Jay Jimenez)
Subject: ** Request for help on ST Tech paper **
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Thermodynamics
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:13:00 GMT

 I am looking for some info. on how (and on which episodes) ST:TNG uses 
technology or principles that break the laws of thermodynamics. My main
concern is the misuse of laws :
      1) Energy is conserved. (You can never get more energy out of a system
         than you put in.OR. You can NEVER get more toothpaste out of the tube
         than the toothpaste that was put in.)
      2) Systems that produce entropy are possible; those that destroy entropy
         are not. (Energy can be lost, but the lost energy cannot be useful.
         OR. You can never get ALL of the toothpaste out of the tube.)  
 I also need some information on a few episodes. ONe of which was the episode 
where the Enterprise was involved in an experiment that involved warp w/o warp
drive. (Some scientists devised a wave as a means of propulsion.) I would like
to know the name of this episode and if possible the principles behind the wave
and how it kept accumulating energy, size, and speed.
 I also seem to remember an episode that had something to do with a planet that
was losing it's atmosphere. The scientists found some way of shooting (here's 
where it gets fuzzy) a series of photon torpedoes (?) at the planets sun(?) in 
order to restore the atmosphere of the planet.  This experiment worked.  What 
I want to know is how, why, and on which episode.

  Thanking you in adavnce.....
     Jay Jimenez
 inde6tx.jetson.uh.edu
Organization: Wherever it lands, it stays 'til I need it
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 14:32:57 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
 <1992Apr12.160848.685@newcastle.ac.uk> <1992Apr12.183423.25221@nic.umass.edu>

What's all this talk about an ASIMOV class starship? Granted, he was
important to science and to science fiction.  But, gee, it seems like
everyone's forgotten another dude, who recently died, who is much more
deserving of his own class of starship than Asimov. (At least, IMO)

What about a Roddenberry class?  Why does Asimov get preferential treatment?
I don't believe he ever even wrote an episode of Star Trek, did he?  (Would've
been neat if he had, though.)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: bvan@ncs.dnd.ca (Bryan Van Blaricom)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace vs. Antispace
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:42:11 GMT
Organization: DND, Ottawa, CANADA

In article <1992Apr9.213121.25076@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mbrockma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman) writes:
>
>If this were the case then it would take zero energy to go infinitly fast!
>
>BTW, I thought that Complex numbers were imaginary numbers?
>
>

A complex number is a real number plus an imaginary number (e.g. 6 + 4i).
You can think of them residing in the "complex plane" - a plane formed by
the "real" number line and the "imaginary" number line intersecting at
right angles.  An imaginary number can be thought of as a complex number
with a real part = 0, just as a real number could be thought of as a
complex number with a zero imaginary part.

Bryan
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:01:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.111912.7821@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>Is there a USS Asimov?
>
>If not...There should be!              .

I've heard that Paramount has spies reading the net, so maybe this will
happen...

(Maybe it'll be a Bradbury-class ship, like in Menage a' troi ?  It'd be
nice to have ships with a non-random naming pattern for once...)


-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:06:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr7.230619.17515
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

<U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Sorry, but the smart money says that you can't even make it to "warp 1".

Smart money once said you couldn't break the sound barrier.  Smart
money once said the atom was indivisible.  Smart money still says the
bumblebee can't fly.  Around the turn of the century, everyone thought
that physics was a closed book -- they had discovered everything there
was to discover.

I don't feel very comfortable about closing the book on physics at the
turn of this century for the same reasons.  The history of science is
the history of discovering that what worked up until now doesn't work
anymore, and advancing a new theory.

I hate to break it to you, but the ones who ended up making some of
these wonderful discoveries (supersonic flight, nuclear power,
bumblebees) were the ones to didn't believe it when others said "it
can't be done" (even when mathematics was on their side).  So the ones
who will continue to make woderful discoveries are those who question
the status quo.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Transporter nightmares
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:38:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.153250.14722@gtech.com> rbe@gtech.com (Robert B. Easterbrooks) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.135205.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>I seem to recall from an ST novel (possibly the novelization of a movie) that
>the transporter is NOT energy cost effective, and is not used on Earth except
>by the rich and VIPs.  On space vessels, however, it is considered cost      
>effective considering the alternatives (shuttles to the surface, shuttles or
>individual suit packs to other ships, etc.) and also considering the amount
>of energy available in the standard matter/anti-matter converter.

It's not 'canon', but that conclusion is required by common sense... the thing
even *looks* like it uses enormous amounts of energy.

>I agree, a very scary concept.  There was a story written many years ago which
>discussed the same problem with transporter booths, which need both a sending 
>and receiving station to operate.  When I find the name of the story/author,
>I will post it for anyone who is interested.

Larry Niven, of course!  He wrote several stories based on transport booths.


-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: USS Asimov?
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:18:00 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Is there a USS Asimov?

If not...There should be!              .
                                     .' `.                                      
___________________________________.'-{*}-`.____________________________________
Zerxes M. Bhagalia                '---------` TCP: v064lnev@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
State University of New York   .---------------.    bhaga-z@acsu.buffalo.edu    
  at Buffalo                 .'                 `.  BIT: v064lnev@ubvms.bitnet
Recovering Engineer        .'                     `.  Director, News Information
Computer Science         .'________MDCCLXXVI________`.    Division, WFFT 90.5 FM
---------------------N O V U S   O R D O   S E C L O R U M----------------------
From: v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <+0zt+4c@rpi.edu>, petitc@rpi.edu writes...
> 
>  I was wondering what would happen if, say, the big E. and another warp-capable
>ship came VERY close to each other.  I mean so close that their warp fields 
>started to overlap.  What would happen?  Would the ships both be ripped apart
>because they would be experiencing vastly different forces on the hull (due to
>warp field interference) sections?  Or nothing would happen?
> 
> 
   (quote deleted)


	Perhaps a phenom. much like NASA pukes use to accelerate Galileo and
other space faring vehicles using the Gravitational fields of a planet and the
vehicle's.  I believe it's called something like a 'non-impact collision'.
	I kniow that you need to use the gravity field of a very very very
large object-such as a planet- but since the two ship are moving near
speed of light relative to each other- wouldn't they be incredibly massive
realtive to each other also.
	Therefore, one ship could use the velocity of the other to boost
it's velocity to almost twice it's original velocity relative to the galaxy...?

			If it does work- it could be a neat little plot
	device for an episode.
			Jim
SUNY Buffalo
From: sasgig@guitar.unx.sas.com (Greg Grimes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Dilithium replication
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:25:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr7.152518.602
    <1992Apr2.233140.10280@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
X-Bytes: 669

In article <1992Apr2.233140.10280@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
...
>transmission via transporter.  I cannot recall an episode in which
>dilithium crystals were transported, but I'm sure someone else can if
>there was one.

"Mudd's Women", as I recall, after the miners and the women resolved their
differences, Kirk and party beamed up with crystals to BigE in a decaying
orbit.
-- 
Greg Grimes          |  "Sit down, please.  There are a thousand questions I'd
AIX Host Development |  like to ask you."   -- Prof. Jacob Barnhardt to Klaatu
sasgig@unx.sas.com   |                       ("The Day the Earth Stood Still")
From: sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Why can't federation ships cloak?
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:45:28 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


I realize that this my not be cannon, but I just read the
noveliztion of Star Trek VI.  It said that the Enterprise
WAS capable of cloaking and actually did cloak when they
entered Klingon space...

Just a thought,
sidlives@athena.miy.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Dilithium replication
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:30:36 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

jcurrie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (James Gordon Currie) writes:
>
>          Dilithium can't be replicated for a simple reason... It has a 
>"fourth" dimentional aspect to it (for lack of a better word). It extends into
>the same dimention used for sub-space communications.

It can't be replicated so far as we know, but it can be manufactured.
The TNG Technical Manual explains this on page 61.

Where did you get this "fourth dimension" idea?  I've never heard it
before. 
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: jlee@smylex.UUCP (Jeff Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:39:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: smylex.266-JNEWS-1.2
Organization: Shipbrook Software  (Newington, CT)

In article <3422@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.223425.10712@husc3.harvard.edu>, kim3@husc10.harvard.edu (Jason Kim) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr2.174132.11549@b15.b15.ingr.com> smw@wikki.b15.ingr.com writes:
>>>This is an IMHO... When traveling at warp speeds, the Enterprise never
>>>"goes faster than the speed of light". Space is warped so that two points
>>>
>>>An analogy to this is a piece of string held tightly between your hands, and
> 
>>Oh my God can we say PLAGIARISM??! I seem to recall that "humble opinion"
>>almost verbatim out of a kid's novel called  A WRINKLE IN TIME by Madeleine
>>l'Engle.
> 
> Oh, lighten up, willya?  He said it was in his own humble opinion, he didn't
> say he made it up all by himself.  The two are not the same, and if he failed
> to provide a chapter-and-verse credit for all aspects of the idea then it
> merely proves he's human.

Besides which, if I recall correctly, the explanation in AWIT was given by 
some grandmotherly figure who used the folds of her *skirt* to demonstrate 
the idea, rather than a piece of string.

It is, after all, a fairly common theme in SF; if they're not using 
hyperspace, or some other extra dimension, to move faster than light, 
they're usually using a space-warp (or "Jump") technology to do it...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
       Jeff Lee - jlee@smylex.uucp - jlee%smylex.uucp@uhasun.hartford.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Iron rusts from disuse; stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather
  becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind -- da Vinci
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: justin@lkba (Justin Blische)
Subject: Maby the federation can cloak
Reply-To: uunet!lkba!justin
Organization: LKB Associates, Inc.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:30:49 GMT

Now this may be stupid but maybe that federation ships can cloak , to a  
point. They miight have a cloaking device ,but its scroowed up. Sensors  
may be able to pick them up but they don't look like a ship.I know this  
sounds strang ,but its posible.


                                    Justin
From: genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 17:55:29 PDT
Organization: TradeNET Corp., Castlegar, BC CAN

jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

> smw@wikki.b15.ingr.com writes:
> 
> >This is an IMHO... When traveling at warp speeds, the Enterprise never
> >"goes faster than the speed of light". Space is warped so that two points
> >in space which are normally several lightyears apart, are in close
> >proximity of each other. What this means is that the Enterprise does not
> >have to move faster than light to cross several light years of space.
> >
> > ["Wrinkle in Time" tesseract deleted]
> 
> Using this rationale, one would only be able to warp between points in
> space which lay close together due to the curvature of space.  Using
> the ant-and-string example borrowed from "A Wrinkle in Time,"
> everything is fine and dandy if the ant wants to go from one hand to
> the other.  But what if the ant wants to go to a point halfway along
> the string?
> 
> The problem is that even given a curved space, not all points lie
> arbitrarily closer to all other points in the hypothesized metaspace.
> There just aren't going to be shortcuts everywhere you look, and we
> see no such limits in Star Trek.
> 
> So one would naturally argue that such a spatial distortion is
> manufactured by the warp engines.  I don't think so.  In order to
> travel between earth and some other star systems, the warp field would
> have to be effectual over a range amounting to light years.  We
> understand that the warp field is a very local phenomenon, thus we can
> hypothesize that the spatial distortion is similarly local in scope.
> If the warp fields were so large, then we would expect fratricidal
> effects of interacting warp fields in starships operating at close
> quarters.
> --------------------------------+---------------------------------------
> Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
> Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
> Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2

Perhaps it just warps space in little pieces?
From: daily@a.cs.okstate.edu (DAILY STEPHEN RICH)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Star Fleet Battles
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:15:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: a.1992Apr14.071525.5000
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater

In article <167C3CE49.HSUSA00@ricevm1.rice.edu> HSUSA00@ricevm1.rice.edu (Susarla, H. Krishna) writes:
>
>
>
>In Star Fleet Battles, if every hex is 10,000 kilometers, and one hex per turn
>is warp one (the speed of light), then I calculate that each turn is is less
>than a tenth of a second...Someone tell me if I'm wrong. I guess this means
>that SF battles is definitely outside the realm of possibility....
>
>
>
>
I believe that the rulebook made some reference to this stating that the
relativity effect made each turn equal to about a minute for those inside
the ships.