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.