Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist From: alcmist@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick Wamsley) Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Re: What's a warp? Message-ID: <166@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 21-Oct-84 16:43:46 EDT Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.166 Posted: Sun Oct 21 16:43:46 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Oct-84 00:43:10 EDT References: <221@wjvax.UUCP> <389@wlcrjs.UUCP> Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA Lines: 29 Even c times the cube of the warp factor is too slow for interstellar distances. Besides, we have some data from the series that proves the Enterprise travels faster than that. In "That Which Survives", the Enterprise is thrown 990.7 light years from the planetoid being explored by the landing party. During the trip back to the planetoid, the ship reached a maximum speed of warp 14.1 (the engine controls were sabotaged, remember). 14.1 cubed is 2803.221. Even if the Enterprise had made the entire trip at this speed, it would have taken 128.93 days to reach Kirk and company. In fact the ship got there overnight (after coming within seconds of blowing up from the engine overload). In "By Any Other Name", the Kelvans rebuilt the engines to cruise at warp 11, and expected to reach the Andromeda galaxy in only 300 years. This doesn't add up either, unless warp speed slows down time on board the ship. I don't know what the actual relation is between warp factors and speed -- would anyone who finds out please let me know? :-) Fred Wamsley -- UUCP:{ihnp4,tektronix}!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist ARPA:ssc-vax!alcmist@uw-beaver I am not speaking as a representative of the Boeing Company or any of its divisions. Opinions expressed are solely my own (if that) and have nothing to do with company policy or with the opinions of my coworkers, or those of the staff of the Software Support Center VAX.