HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: WARP SPEED STUFF
Date: 9 Jan 93 14:49:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1993Jan8.122520.1@acad.drake.edu> jsq002@acad.drake.edu writes:
>

Stuff deleted

>     Further, the manual states that although the ship attains a velocity
>     _equivalent_ to the above listed factors, the ship is actually alter-
>     nating between two states of velocity while remaining at neither for
>     longer than the previously mentioned Planck time (1.3 *10^43 s), 
>     having the effect of giving the spacecraft light speed without the
>     infinte energy expenditure that would be required.  Within the para-
>     meters of current physics, of course, this is all unadulterated BS,
>     but STTNG is a television show, and they can do whatever they want,
>     like having the strange existence of _sound_ in a bloody vacuum, one
>     thing that has always bothered the hell out of me about scifi movies
>     and TV.  Oh well...thought I'd put in my US $0.02...
>
>		Jason 


I have seen this said a lot about the tech manual, but I beleive you are
misreading it.  It says that the ORIGINAL design for CDP (warp) engines
"allowed an unmanned flight test vehicle to straddle the speed of light 
'wall,' alternating between two velocity states while remaining at neither
for longer than Plank time."  BUT in the next paragraph, it also states 
that "they continued to pioneer advances in warp physics that would 
eventually jump the wall altogether and explore the mysterious realm of
subspace that lay on the other side." 

So the warp engines of "today's" Trek no longer alternate between two states
while remaining at neither for longer than Plank time.  Instead, they cause
the ship to enter subspace, where physics doesn't work the same way it does
here.  I believe that subspace has a particular frame of reference, and that 
all ships traveling in subspace keep that frame of reference.  This is the
only way it would allow faster than light travel without violating causality.

Does anyone disagree with what I think the tech manual is saying (i.e. that
the stuff about using Plank time is no longer in effect in the ships we see 
on screen)?


-Jay

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: quetzal@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Quetzal)
Subject: Re: why transporters can't work
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:44:05 GMT

In <C0qIC2.Gyo.2@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:

>I just recently realized why Startrek-type transporters cannot work.  It has
>nothing to do with pattern buffers or annular confinement beams; it has to do
>with knowing what to transport and what not to.

I just recently realised why this argument doesn't work - you're using
Riker in every single example!  Now, if you were using Wesley Crusher,
well, there'd be no problem. :)

>Imagine that Riker is standing knee-deep in mud when he asks to be beamed
>up.  What, exactly, gets beamed up?  On the show we'd expect to see Riker,
>all his clothes and equipment, anything he was holding in his hand or in his
>mouth, plus a tiny bit of mud appear on the transporter pad.  But which mud?
>All the mud  that is above the tops of his boots?  What about the mud on the
>ground between his two legs?  How, in general, do you tell mud from boots
>when beaming up Riker?  And what if he's not wearing standard-issue boots;
>suppose he's wearing sandals made from CLAY?  That's just dried mud.

There's that "biofilter" thingy, but it certainly can't handle all this,
and back in TOS they didn't have biofilters . . .

>  Riker:  "Enterprise, one to beam up -- immediately!"
>  O'Brien:  "Do you want the doorknob to come with you, Sir?"
>  Riker:  "No, of course not."
>  O'Brien:  "Then let go of it please.  Sir."
>  Riker:  "Oh, sorry.  Energize."
>  O'Brien:  "Ah, just a minute, Sir.  What's that on your feet?"
>  Riker:  "Altarean bunny slippers."
>  O'Brien:  "Made from live bunnies?  Hmmm.  You want to bring the bunnies?"
>  Riker:  "No.  Leave 'em behind."
>  O'Brien:  "Aye, sir.  One to beam up, hold the bunnies."

You missed:
O'Brien:  "Oh, and sir?"
Riker:  "What is it now, O'Brien?"
O'Brien:  "Make sure you're breathing out at the time."

Tim Pickett.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: knott@sfu.ca (Dave Knott)
Subject: Below absolute zero???
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:20:33 GMT


	I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but I'll mention it  
anyway.
	Last night I was watching the ST:TNG episode "The Royale". You  
know, the one where Riker et al are trapped in the casino. Anyway, when  
they arrive at the planet, LaForge does a scan of the surface, complaining  
about the hostile environment and all that. But he mentions that the  
surface temperature is -291C !!! 
	But how is this possible? Absolute zero (0 Kelvins) has been  
calculated at approximately -273.15C, and it is a known fact that nothing  
may achieve a temperature lower than that. You'd think that the ST  
technical advisors would know better!

Dave Knott
KNOTT@SFU.CA
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero???
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:30:24 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Dave Knott (knott@sfu.ca) wrote:
>	Last night I was watching the ST:TNG episode "The Royale". You  
>know, the one where Riker et al are trapped in the casino. Anyway, when  
>they arrive at the planet, LaForge does a scan of the surface, complaining  
>about the hostile environment and all that. But he mentions that the  
>surface temperature is -291C !!! 

The rationalization that I "used" (:-) when this first hit the net was...

  Well, the captain was looking over Geordi's shoulder, so he could read
  the display, and Geordi knew he could read the display, so Geordi used
  Star Fleet slang to say the planet is is about 20 degrees colder than
  possible (it is a bit of an Academy joke, obviously :O).  The modern
  translation would come out approximately as "It's colder than hell down
  there".

:-) :-) :-)

Mark Runyan  {r.a.s. random rationalizer}
From: labmas@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Andersson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: "Final Mission"
Keywords: radiation, orbit, radiation poisoning
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:42:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1ialijINNbla
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

Hello, out there.  Just saw a re-run of "Final Mission", and I had a
little technical question.

In case you don't remember, this is the ep where an orbiting garbage barge
is emitting radiation and wreaking havoc on the surface.  Oh, yeah...
wonder child goes w/ Picard and they crash... wonder child saves the day...

ANYWAY.  The planet with the garbage barge was a Class M planet (earth-ish
size, right?).  This barge was in orbit (150-20,000 miles over the
surface, right?).  Now, what kind of radiation would cause radiation
poisoning at those distances?

I want to know.  :-)

Mike Andersson <anderss@u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Re: Wormhole displacement (was Re: course of the enterprise?)
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:55:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.210426.10915@samba.oit.unc.edu> Andy.Church@launchpad.unc.edu (Andy Church) writes:
>From: Andy.Church@launchpad.unc.edu (Andy Church)
>Subject: Wormhole displacement (was Re: course of the enterprise?)
>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:04:26 GMT
>Colin J. Wynne (cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu) writes:
>>Umm, in DS9: Emissary, they say that the worm hole carried them either
>>7000 or *70,000* light years from Bajor.  SOmeone might check that,
>>because the latter is truly impossible to swallow.
>
>  I did check, and it is, in fact, 70000 light years.  If I remember
>correctly (which does happen occasionally :-)) the wormhole in TNG
>"The Price" carried Geordi, Worf, and two Ferengi 70000 light years
>away, as well.
>  Funny coincidence, isn't it?  I wonder if all wormholes connect
>two points in space 70000 light years apart?
>  (Please, if I got it wrong, don't flame.)
>

Guess not, as they allready in "Star Trek I: The Motion Picture" encountered 
a wormhole, and I don't recall any comments on displacement then. Hey, wait 
a minute. If a wormhole moved Enterprise 70.000 light years on two separate 
occations, I guess these aren't coincidental, and in STI:TMP scott said that 
it was the warp drives that created the wormhole due to some sort of 
malfunction. A little research on this please. Would be kinda cool if we 
outdated the warp drives by making a wormhole generator that just poofs you 
to any place you want to go. (No further away than 70.000ly, of course).


          /\           | I didn't say this.      | "When there's no 
        /    \         | My supervisor would     |  more room in hell,
      /        \       | kill me if i did.       |  the dead will     
    /    (<>)    \     |_________________________|  walk the earth."
  /                \   |Gunnar Horrigmo          |
/____________________\ |gunnarh@sofus.dhhalden.no|
From: tallman@ailanthus.com (Robert Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Excelsior class ship that was blasted in DS9 (Spoilers)
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:53:30 GMT
Reply-To: tallman@ailanthus.com (Robert Oliver)
Organization: Ailanthus Project

jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:

> In article <93Jan07.212112.22998@acs.ucalgary.ca> I wrote:
> 
> >Spoiler warning, to protect the innocent:
> 
> >
> >The third and fourth ships appear in tandem, in an attack
> >formation, breaking starboard towards the Borg cube. They are an
> 		     ^^^^^^^^^
> 		       port
> 
> >Ambassador-class and a Nebula-class. 
> 
> I hate it when I do that.
> 
> Joshua

The Saratoga is *not* a Soyuz class. They were taken out of service in 
the late 23rd century and while based on the Miranda design do not look 
like the one in "Emissary". 

........
Robert Oliver, tallman@ailanthus.com
via Ailanthus Project +1 207-989-6562 - Brewer, Maine.
........
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Excelsiorclass ship that was blasted in DS9
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:58:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <Ty85wB7w164w@jwt.UUCP> bbs-aphelps@jwt.UUCP writes:
]cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne) writes:
]
]> They never showed a very good view of the Melbourne, so it's possible it
]> wasn't exactly an Excelsior class.  
]
]Wasn't the Melbourne the first one to be blasted? That what it looked 
]like to me.

Wasn't Adm. Hansen on the Melbourne? If so, then his "the battle goes poorly"
message to the Enterprise was really early in the battle.

Hit 'n' now to avoid an obnoxious sig thingie.

Subject: Patrick Chester            | This is your Ship:                       
Age: NOYB                           |                ,,,__________.           
Address: A place                    |          |--/****************\_           
Email:wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    |          |-<###################>        
Political Views: Somewhere in orbit |             ///  ~~~~{}~~~~~'''         
Blackmarks: Politically Incorrect   |            ///        [---              
(hobbies)   Anime/Star Trek Otaku   | <@@@@@@@@@@@@@>                         
            Technophile             |    (not much w/ this sort of text)       
            Netrekker (claypigeon)  |                                         
Recommendation: Ignore              | This is your Ship after fighting the Borg:
   (not worth shoot-on-sight orders)| <*****BOOOOOM*****>   Any questions?    
-- 
<***** INSERT LAWSUIT DEFLECTION TEXT*****> 

I speak (type actually) for myself only. Even if I did decide to 
speak for UT, no one would listen. 

Flame away, I don't bleedin' care...
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: course of the Enterprise?
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:17:44 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

scherrer@mtxinu.COM (Deborah Scherrer) writes:

> It would be great fun to show the kids how far the Enterprise has
> claimed to have traveled.  Has anyone ever charted the various
> "voyages of the Starship Enterprise" to get a feel for where it's
> visited in our galaxy (other than the center of the galaxy in
> Star Trek V and an abortive attempt to get outside the galaxy in "Where

They actually did escape the galaxy and were on their way to Andromeda in 
"By Any Other Name."

If you count The Next Generation, Q through them quite along way in one 
of the episodes; I don't know the figure that was given, but it was 
quite, quite large.

> No Man Has Gone Before)?   Are all the names of stars they use for real,
> or do they generate them just for the occasion?   Anybody collected a
> list of them?

A very few of the starnames are real.  Most of them are mishmashes of 
Greek letter names and neat words.


  ____  Erik Max Francis -- ..!apple!uuwest!max -- max@west.darkside.com   __
  \  /  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1  San Jose, CA  95117  37 20 N 121 53 W  ACGT  /  \
   \/   Like strategic interstellar conquest games?  Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
        Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.   All things that are, are lights.
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: AirForce/Army vs StarFleet
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:38:01 GMT
Organization: UUMEME Public Access Xenix

In article <cboerm48.726520017@ursa> cboerm48@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Boerma) writes:
>adamg@lemming.csd.sgi.com (Adam Ginsberg) writes:
>
>>Would it be safe to assume that in the 23rd century, there
>>would be no Army/AirForce equivalent of Star Fleet (Naval Model)
>
>>Would you suppose there would still be a need for a Land Army
>>and a planetary air-force ?
>
>>If so, could you imagine the inter-service rivalry which could
>>develop?
>
>This post, along with another thread about Battleships vs. Carriers
>brings up a point that I've often wondered: Why are there not fighters in 
>Star Trek?
>
>			CtB

There ARE fighters... they've been mentioned in at least a couple of the novels (butnot, so far, in any of the series or movies)

Basically, they seem to be up-engined, armed & armored shuttlecraft with usable
shields...

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| The above statements are the  | Bruce Maynard  (Da "drac") |
| delirious meanderings of a    | Hoffman Estates            |
| complete moro... er, MANIAC!! | IL 60194                   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: AirForce/Army vs StarFleet
From: killion@eis.calstate.edu (Dave Killion;Pac Bell)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:39:08 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (M. Lee Smallwood) writes:
> No fighters? Remember, these are 'peaceful' people that never
> ever want to fight. They're also incredibly stupid. Fighters
> would have helped a %^&* of a lot more than that stupid science
> vessel.
> 
> ---
> Lee Smallwood	msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu	Tazewell HS
> 
> 		KEEPER OF THE TIDE
>                 (Tazewell and Va-Pen chapters)

I thought that when the Borg passed Saturn on thier way to earth 3 ships
(I assumed fighters) zinged around the planet and promptly became a
permenant part of the rings - dust that is.  Three shots from the Borg
ship and that was all she wrote.  It's difficult gauging sizes by looking
at it on TV - but they looked small enough to be 'fighters'.  

I'm not into this wholly enough to really mess with the small points, so
if I'm incorrect, sorry!  I like the show!

Dave
killion@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: 1701-D Saucer going warp speed
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:41:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

aea@cacs.usl.edu (Edwin Alexander) writes:
>fleckens@plains.NoDak.edu (Clint Fleckenstein) writes:
>: Here's my question.  The 1701-D saucer has no warp drive, and I'm
>: guessing it has no warp field generators.  Yet, when the two ship
>: sections seperate at very high warp speed, it doesn't slow down 
>: like a frisbee released from the window of a moving car.  Why?
>
>Who knows?  Newton said that any body moving in a straight line at constant
>speed will continue to do so unless acted upon by an external force.  There
>are indeed external forces acting upon the saucer; however, for it to lose
>speed that quickly it would have to be in some kind or atmosphere or close to
>an object with a major gravitational pull.  Or at least I would think so, but
>don't take my word for it...
>
>Later,
>Edwin

You are assuming that physics works the same in subspace as it does here.  
Also, for a ship to go faster than light, it must have a warp field around
it keeping it in subspace.  Perhaps after the saucer left, the warp field
around it quickly dies out.  This would force the saucer back into normal
space, and in normal space it must travel slower than the speed of light.  
Also, I would guess that a warp field's effects are felt by everything in
it.  (i.e. If a warp field accelerates the ship, it also accelerates every-
thing in the ship at the same rate.)  So as the warp field dies out, not 
only does the ship slow down, but so do the occupents.  This would mean
that the occupents would not fly across the room or suffer any ill effects
from the showing down, no matter how fast the slowing is.

Others have said that since (from what we understand) the impulse engines
create a low level subspace field, the saucer could somehow keep itself
stable inside subspace.  So it could have continued in subspace at faster
than light speeds.

Finally, let me say that there was an importaint point made to the first
poster by the second poster.  That being (to the first poster) that a 
frisbee slows down when released from the window of a moving car because
of air friction.  If a ship in space were traveling in normal space at 
slower than light velocities, then anything released from that ship will
continue to travel at the same velocity until acted on by an outside 
force.  However, let's not forget that we are talking about warp physics
here where FTL travel can only occure inside a warp field.  How will a ship
continue at FTL velocities without a warp field?


-Jay

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: Warp Speed Info PLEASE!!!!!
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:50:26 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <19354@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca writes:

> >-In "Where no One Has Gone Before," Geordi says the Enterprise will need
> > 300 years to travel 2.7 million light-years. This is supposedly warp 9+
> 
> 2,700,000 / 300 = 9000..
> 
> warp 9 = 9000 times the speed of light

...and probably only a theoretical figure as the Enterprise can't travel for
three centuries at warp 9+. At warp 9.6, the engines have to be stopped after
12 hours continuous use. I thing Geordi didn't even bother to mention the fact
to Picard, the situation was so hopeless there would have been no point in
returning anyway.
 
> >-In "Q Who," the ship would have needed 2 years 7 months to travel from
> > Borg space [7,000 light-years away] back to the Federation [at warp 6?].
> 
> Hmmm, this should have taken 9.3_ months at w9.. no idea why they'd use w6..
> this implies that w9 is 3.3_ times faster than w6... Does this fit with what
> the books say (about w6 * 3 = w9.. if so you can work out a speed for w6)
>
> 7000ly / 2.583_ (2 years 7 months) = 2709.67-ly...therefore w6 = 2709c

See above.
 
> >-During the 1st and 3rd seasons of TNG, the ship visited distant "real"
> > star systems, then returned to Earth later the same year. The episodes
> > were "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Who Watches the Watchers", the star
> > systems were Deneb (1,800ly. away) and Mintaka (2,500ly.), the ship
> > returned home in "Conspiracy" and "Best of Both Worlds pt.II." This
> > translates to a velocity of 2,500-3,000c - presumably warp 6 again.
> 
> 1800 * 2 + 2500 * 2 = 8600

No, just 1800 and 2500. They arrived at the star systems about about a year
before they were back home again. 
 
> The enterprise probably didn't go directly there or back and might not have
> been to Earth between both long trips so we aren't sure of the distance.
> This doesn't work out because they use w3-6 for general travel, w8 and above
> is emergency speed only.
> 
> If we assume w9 = 9000c then this traslates into warp 8.9 or some such.
> 
> Using these numbers you should be able to get a rough idea of the formula
> unfortunately you don't have exact numbers but...
> 
> P.S. I heard x^3 and x^5 for speeds. the first is 729c at w9, the second is
> 59049c...x^4 (the one I haven't heard mentioned) would ALMOST work at 6561c..
> This would assume they'd come back the 2.7 million lys at around w9.5...
> 
> This would put w6 at 1296c.. That wouldn't fit the trip back from Borg space.

2500-3000c seems to work better. Any conflicting information out there?
 
> 
> Oh well, I'd use x^4..That's fits the best for these times/distances they
> give us.
> 
Another possibility would be to add a correction factor to the warp speed in
THE TECHNICAL MANUAL. For example, "real" warp = Sternbach-Okuda warp ^1.3.
This might wary for different starships.

> 
> --
> 
> Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.

MARCU$
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cs922012@ariel.yorku.ca (GEOFFREY MARTIN CARMAN)
Subject: Re: Rio Grande pulling the Cardassians...
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:04:24 GMT

In article <tomcat.726618996@cwis> tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo) writes:
>Okay..I hope this isn't a repeating question...but how can the Rio Grande,
>the Runabout class shuttle, tow a Cardassian warship via tractor beam?
>
>--
>|Jeffrey S. Jo                   | 	         F-14D Tomcat                 |
>|Computer Operations		 |             VF-142 Ghostriders             |
>|University of Nebraska at Omaha |       United States Navy F-14 Tomcat       |
>|tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu         |              Fighter Squadron              |


			SLOWLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

					Geoffrey Carman
From: Eugen.Woiwod@f7050.n153.z1.ship.wimsey.bc.ca (Eugen Woiwod)
Sender: UUCP@ship.wimsey.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: ENTERPRISE D BLUE PRINTS AND/OR
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 13:22:30 -0800


 > A friend of mine would like to know:
 > 
 > Are blueprints of Enterprise-D or a tech manual available on the 
 > market?
 > 
 > Thanks for emailing your answers.  I don't read this group often.

There is a book out called Star Trek, The Next Generation technical manual.
look for it in bookstores.  It has info on every part of the enterprise-d,
from holodecks to engineering, escape pods, etc.

Ttul


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech