Talk:Warp drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Star Trek Portal This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archive 1

---

Contents 1 Transwarp 2 Warp Speed Actually Told 3 9.999... = 10 4 I'd suggest simply redirecting this. 5 Relativity 6 Battery 7 Asymptotic peristaltic field manipulation 8 Question 9 The Borg and other aliens 10 Citations needed 11 Non-Trek Warp 12 The actual units of warp factor 13 What about the Traveler? 14 Zefram Cochrane using antimatter? 15 Warp drive vs. hyperdrive (non-adversarial discussions only) 16 Error 17 Coaxial Drive? 18 Requested move 18.1 Survey 18.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 18.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 18.2 Discussion 19 Massive cleanup needed 20 Fair use rationale for Image:Ent Warp.jpg 21 Infinite improbability drive 22 Warp drive damages space 23 Error of preposition 24 Real warp drive invented 25 Error 26 NASA Link

[edit] Transwarp

Should there be some mention here of the transwarp drive from the Original Series movies? What was the difference between that and conventional warp travel? Do the Next Generation-era ships all have "transwarp" drives and over time the distinction was ommited? (How often do we specify color television these days, for example? In a couple of years, we'll probably stop being specific about HDTV, also.) JRP 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Star Trek website says that transwarp drive was tested on the USS Excelsior in the 2280's but failed and the idea was abandoned. The Next Generation ships use conventional warp drive.

---

[edit] Warp Speed Actually Told

The article says that the speed of warp is never told, in an epsiode it has.

In Voyager, Episode Name "The 37'S" Tom Paris tells the speed of Warp 9.9 at approximately 4,000,000,000 (4 Billion) Miles per Second.

So, Warp 1 would then in theory be: 400,400,400 (4,000,000,000 / 9.99) (400 Million, 400 Thousand, 400) Miles per Second.

Someone may want to write this into the article.

No, those warp speed numbers in Star Trek are logarithmic, I believe.

Warp 1 can't be 400,400,400 miles per second because warp 1 is exactly the speed of light, which is 186,000,000 miles per second.

No, that's impossible. In the star treck universe, they still can't achieve the speed of light. Maximum warp sill isn't light speed.--Image:Nuvola apps kcmmemory.pngMac Lover ^Talk 17:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

mac lover, the whole idea of warp drive is that it goes faster than light. That's why faster than light travel is considered a benchmark for first contact.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed some pretty obvious pseudoscientific crap (which didn't even have anything to do with the warp engines of the Star Trek universe) from the page. 130.233.243.228 07:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it:

First, the "warp core" is not the "warp engines." The warp core powers the warp engines, as well as the rest of the ship. Sometimes its referred to as "the mains," or main power. When the warp core fails, they go to batteries, which cannot power the warp engines. It's like an automobile; the motor creates the power (which also powers the accessories), but the transmission, driveshaft, and differential put that power to the pavement.

Second, the "warp field" is described elsewhere as a "bubble" and that "spacetime is contracted in front of the ship and expanded behind it." Well, that's not entirely correct. The ship can't move if all you're doing is contracting/expanding space. Warp drive creates a warp field such that it takes the space in front of the ship, "warps" it around the ship, and puts it behind the ship, thereby employing some sort of movement, completely without Newtonian propulsion. Plus, if it were constantly contracting/expanding, imaging how much power it would have to generate if it was a constant warping of space at both ends (the same space) for your entire journey? Meaning, if you wanted to travel from here to Alpha Centauri, the warp drive as originally explained would be warping all the space between here and there constantly for the entire trip. That doesn't even make fictional sense. Why not, then, just "fold space" and get to your destination instantly?

And third, a starship isn't like a diesel-powered boat, it doesn't "run out" of "fuel" in the conventional sense. It's more like a nuclear-powered ship. It doesn't have to "gas up" at every starbase. Star Trek fans have to dump everything they've learned from "First Contact" and "Enterprise," starting with the idea that Zefram Cochrane was from Earth. Brannon Braga decided to just toss out established Star Trek canon and create it all anew. And no, any and all books, games, comics, etc., are not canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9.999... = 10

Warp 10 is impossible but "The producers indicated that vessels could only reach warp 9.x with an infinite number of 9s" ... but 9.999... with an infinite number of 9s is equal to 10, isn't it? wr 18-oct-2005

See Limit (mathematics). No, 9.99999 is not equal to 10. -- Ec5618 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find anything useful about that question on the Limit page. The sequence 9.9, 9.99, 9.999, ... approaches 10, ok, but how about the (definitely existing) real number that already has an infinite number of 9s after the dot? What's 10 minus 9.999...? The difference is smaller than any real number > 0, but it's >=0 (since 9.999... most certainly isn't > 10), so it must be 0. Also consider this: 1/9 is 0.111... (infite number of 1s), so 0.999... = 9 * 0.111... = 9 * 1/9 = 9/9 = 1, and 9.999... = 9 + 0.999... = 9+1 = 10. Also, for more advanced reasoning, check out http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html and http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/sci-math-faq.0.999999/msg00000.html ... am I doing something wrong here? wr 19-oct-2005

We could argue all day about whether 9.999..... = 10 (which, incidentally, it does, since real numbers are formally defined as limits of sequences of rationals), but it's just as easy to change the phrasing and save the debate for math articles. --Ian Maxwell 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In an episode or movie of TNG, the crew finds a singularity of anti-time while Picard (tormented by Q) travels into his past and future. In the future, they use warp 20...

No ,they use Warp 13. But the scaling system is different ,because of a futuristic new ninth's level of sub space that these drives can reach. Reagrding the 9.99... thing ,ONLY if there is an INFINITE amount of 9's is it 10. much like 1/x not ever reaching infinty when x-->0. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 9.9... with an infinite number of 9s does equal 10. A recurring decimal is considered equal to the limit of that series, and the limit here is 10. Also see Proof that 0.999... equals 1. But I see the article's been changed to something which makes more sense now anyway. Mdwh 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 9.99... with an infinite number of '9's does equal ten. However, since one can never reach an infinite number of nines, then one can never reach ten. It would be like trying to count to infinity; it's imposable, unless you're Chuck Norris.

By the way, where can I find where that new scaling works, the one with Warp 13? It has to be different, because in VOY they (impossibly) reach Warp 10, which is infinite speed, and the pilot was at every point in the universe at the same time. I don't understand how one can be faster than infinity.

It wouldn't be faster than infinity if the system has been scaled differently. For instance, in TOS, I think they get to warp 15 or something when that Jackson Roykirk thingy which wipes Uhura's memory comes aboard. It's not that they;re going faster than infinity, it's that sometime the warp scale was shifted to make 10 the maximum in some sort of inverse relation, possibly something like where f is the warp factor. In TOS, maybe infinite speed was considered to be 100 or something. The point is it that it is just a transformation from one closed interval to what is (probably) another closed interval. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I agree that in a mathematical sense 9.9 with an ifinite number of 9s will equal 10, only because the difference is not significant in our existence. But can we also agree that 10 is greater than 9.9 with an infinite number of 9s? Even if you don't agree with that, let me put this out there. According to Einstein, if you are travelling in a spacecraft at 99% the speed of light, light will still pass you as though you were standing still. Even if you were going 99.9999999999% the speed of light, light will still zoom past you as though you were standing still. And so on. So I guess my point is that Warp 10 may be impossible, but going faster than Warp 9.999999999999 is possible. Of course, though the concept of "folding space" isn't addressed in Star Trek, it would be a mode of transportation faster than any warp-driven starships could go because it would be infinitely close to instantaneous. Also, how does "Q" travel instantly from one galaxy to the next? Something to ponder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'd suggest simply redirecting this.

This article is neither well written, nor particularly informative. A simple redirect to warp drive, or a possible disambiguation to warp drive and antimatter reactor would be more useful.

Also, yes, 9.999...=10. They are simply different representations for the same number.

Yes I would also second this motion. Any information needed on the warp core can be easierly obtained from warp drive section. Tenchi Muyo 19:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

I agree with the merging, but think the warp core should at least get a specific mention as it has become a common plot device in a number of episodes of the various shows and novels. Smeggysmeg 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- But a warp core is a power center, it creates power for the ship, the warp drive only works to power the nacelles and create a warp bubble, the systems are not the same.

Well perheaps having a small section within the warp drive section for the warp core artical will comphensate. (Not for my spelling though!) Tenchi Muyo 17:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

Agree. The warp core can be adequately detailed in the warp drive article. It doesn't really need an article of its own. Regarding the issue with warpcore and warp drive: warp drive is powered by the warpcore. Why else would it be called a warpcore? ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging. Much of the material on the "Warp Core" page (history and much of notable events) have to do with warp drive in general, and not the warp core in particular. The remaining material could easily be included in the warp drive article in a special section, and doesn't really merit its own page. Althai 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did the merge from Warp core, but this article could still probably use some cleaning up, especially the parts about how fast a warp factor isLisamh 04:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relativity

I'd like to read some more about warp-speed/FTL-travel and relativity described by Einstein. The Startrek-series ignore the physical laws about relativity (for [obvious reasons]), but has there ever been an explanation, canocical or not?

- FB

This explains it perfectly --The reverend 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverend, the reason for using a warp drive is that it gets around the speed limit of light/relativity. As said in the movie "Event Horizon" (in which they employ folding space), you can't break the law of relativity but you can get around it. Traditional Newtonian propulsion will only propel you so fast (almost the speed of light), and create all sorts of time problems, but warping space gets around that because you're side-stepping the laws of physics, using a loop-hole in a way.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battery

The artical suggests that the warp core only powers the Warp Drive... I don't know about the show and movies, but as seen in Star Trek - Bridge Commender, the Warp Core acts as a reactor for the entire ship - all systems run on it. It is different to a warp drive. 202.173.161.135 11:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Bridge Commander Cannon anyway? If not, remember that in Insurrection, the Enterprise was able to fuction without one, also, in First Contact, the Phoenix actually had to "turn on" its warp core prior to engageing warp.

The warp core I belive is the most powerful "battery" on a starship. Ythey often redirect the warp core to the shields to boost them. Normally they dont do this becuase it would use up the warp power. This is why they cannot sustain high warp factors becuase they would run out of warp power. Chikensr0ck 20:58, 25 March 2006

Guys, the batteries are just that, batteries. We never see them in Star Trek, but they're regularly referred to. They are a temporary power source. There's the "mains" or main power (the warp core), there's "auxilliary power" which we're never told what that is, then there are the batteries as a last resort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asymptotic peristaltic field manipulation

Jargon? Treknobabble? Peristalsis offers little insight into how this might work. I've linked to Longitudinal wave, but this might not be right. ~ UrbaneLegend 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I have a question. In Star Trek The Next Generation they are supposed to be exploring the universe and going light years away from earth yet they are able to get back to earth within about 3 hours. So i ask how did they manage that?

there's something even faster than Warp Speed, it is called plot speed. :) Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In "The Paradise Syndrome", I was shocked at how much time McCoy said had passed - two weeks in what I thought must have been hours. May be similar in other episodes. --The reverend 06:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

yes in Enterprise they encounter stranded ships that will take months to get home at warp 2.5 but they can go warp 4.2 to get them home in hours...

that very tech manual pic of the new stadard warp speed shows warp and power required. it says picards enterprise can maintain warp 9 for 12 hours Then he runs out of gas. so if there are 4 starbases between here and alpha centuari we can make it at warp 9 in 3 days with 4 pit stops.

but the warp 4.2 enterprise can get from vulcan worlds to klingon worlds to earth and back within a few hours.

picards ship you see out the windows and see stars going by.. perhaps in the center of the galaxy where stars are a lot closer than 4 light years apart you may see 1-2 stars go by every day or so.

the science of startrek is about as advanced as zeno's paradox where he didnt know the difference between velocity and distance.

2000 years or so later Newton came up with acceleration and integration and calculus.

startrek writers musnt know distance and velocity any better than Zeno.

72.49.255.19 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Regarding getting back to Earth in hours while 'exploring the universe,' remember that the Enterprise was not on an exploration mission on the far edges of the Federation. They had a patrol area. Sometimes that patrol area is changed. Granted the writers never made anything specific, and granted if they were encountering Cardassians they couldn't, according to "DS9" get back to Earth in less than a few weeks, but consider also that every .1 gain in warp speed is a speed 10 times faster.

2. The idea that the ship "runs out of gas" after a certain amount of time is bunk. The idea that the engines can hold a certain max speed for a certain amount of time is about the engine's ability to sustain max power, not the amount of fuel it has. If your exceed that recommended time at max speed you burn out the engine and it will fail and require repair or even replacement.

3. Regarding time passing in an episode, it's called a "story." Time passes in stories. One hour of television time does not necessarily equal one hour in story time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 09:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Borg and other aliens

The idle speculation here is uncalled for, and ignores previous cases of the Borg collective being able to withstand viral memes. Including impossible geometries and sense fo self (Hugh) in TNG.

--belg4mit 71.192.58.23 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

Most of what is said in this article can be attributed to one of the many technical manuals that has been published over the years, such as Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. I think it is safe to say that such references are acceptable. Please add citations and make it clear to the reader that this is where the information was collected. Said book also has subtextual commentary on why the producers 'designed' the science and technology the way they did and why they generally expect writers to use its 'rules' (but sometimes not) - basically for dramatical purposes. More on this subject would be good for the article.

[edit] Non-Trek Warp

It is usually forgotten that term "warp" for faster-than-life predates Trek. Maybe this should be covered.

Seeing as the title makes it explicit that this is in regards to the Star Trek device, I don't see why --The reverend 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article does not need to be merely about Trek warp in the Trek fictional universe. Where the writers got their ideas is very much on-topic. Trek is not some kind of "island" in isolation from the rest of fiction and the rest of society. Trek used ideas that existed prior to Trek. And ideas in Trek have themselves been used elsewhere. And the article already includes non-Trek stuff by having a section on whether or not "warp" is possible. There are also issues of why the writers used warp, transporters, etc. This is all fair game for Trek articles. MichaelSH 00:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If a producer, creator, or writer directly referenced an inspiration, then sure, yes, but this is (Star Trek) right in the title, so let's not go about making this a list of all references to "warp" in all sci-fi ever, just because it might have POSSIBLY inspired some part of the star trek device. --The reverend 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The actual units of warp factor

"Warp factors must measure something for which our SI system does not have a unit" (from [1] )

(s is speed, w is warp factor, c is Speed of light)

s = w^(10/3) * c

for simplcity let x=w^(10/3), therefore:

s = xc

Since s and c are both speeds and have the same units, x must be unitless.

And since a unitless quanity to the power of a unitless number is still unitless, warp factor does NOT have any unit.

The stuff about the units "cochranes" is true, they mention it onscreen, but it doesn't refer to the actual warp factor in the true sense of the term.

--Stuart Morrow 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cochranes, as I understand it, are measurements of how many warp particles the ship is outputting. You could accurately calculate the warp factor of a ship if you knew its cochrane output and its mass, but for larger ships more cochranes are required to achive higher warp speeds. NOTE: this is my interpretation as I have seen it on screen, there is no solid canonical evidence.

Also, it's clear that the measurements for calculating warp factors change over time. The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 often cruised at Warp Factor 1, when in reality that would be the speed of light and completely useless for interplanetary speeds. Scotty also occaisonaly claimed the ship had exceeded Warp 10, which was considered very high, but still not fast enough to make them all morph into amphibians. Also, it's clear breaking the Warp 10 "barrier" is extremely detrimental to biological systems (see: Tom Paris turning into a salamander) while Beverley Crusher ordered her ship in "All Good Things" to hit Warp 12. Some may argue this is because in the future of "All Good Things" they have found some counteractive measure to the massive warp factor damage, but that doesn't really account for the fact that Crusher's ship seemed to get from Earth to the Romulan neuteral zone in no amazing feat of time - nor does it have any bearing in the odd use of Warp Speed in the Original Series.

My own personal theory on why this shift in the unit of measurement for warp drive is sociopolitical shift. WARNING: total conjecture follows. It would appear to me that in the Original Series they measured it using some kind of human system, seeing as humans were the dominant species, with the only alien on board being half human anyway. This vs the system used on TNG would be akin to American Standard vs Metric - the first really makes no sense. The speed of light is put at some random number, as well as the speed limit. The "Metric" warp factor measure has warp one at speed of light and warp ten as the limit. This is probably a Vulcan system, because they're smarter than Humans, really. Now let's assume some Species X is accepted into the Federation later, and they have extremely efficient warp core designs, for very little money (resources, whatever). So they begin manufacturing all the warp cores for the Federation, but they have always had their own measurement for warp factors. All their cores have this measurement system in their processors and instruction booklets (but these are FUTURISTIC and easy to read! just kidding, they still read like the Wall Street Journal) so it's easier for Starfleet to reset its ships to this new measurement than to reset the hardwired processors in the Warp Cores. --The reverend 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understood it, "Cochranes" is a measurement of warp field power, not particles. I don't really know what particles they would be. It's like measuring electrical power in terms of wattage, which is a product of amps & volts. Or maybe it can be compared to an automobile. In an automobile, horsepower and speed are two different things. The motor provides power to everything, not just to the transmission. So more than just horsepower determines your speed. Warp field power (how much power your warp core is creating) is measured in Cochranes, speed/velocity is in Warp Factors. From many episodes, warp power is diverted from one system to another for various reasons, so your warp core can be creating a certain level of power, but not all of that power is going to creating velocity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about the Traveler?

He, along with Weasley made a massive improvement to the warp engines that, upon the first try hurled them 3 galaxies away in onnly a few minutes (with a reletivly small ammount of power being used) and to the begining/end of the universe/another demention/whatever the second time, again, not using as much energy as they could. So what about that kind of warp? Is it some sort of Hyper-warp? 72.66.78.220 01:05, October 5, 2006 (UTC)

But it wasn't the warp drive that made that travel possible. It was the Traveler that did it. He let the "scientist" think that he did it so that he could tag along and observe. Wesley noticed that the warp drive modifications shouldn't have been doing anything and that it was really the Traveler that was making the fast travel possible. The Traveler said that Wesley had a talent for warp drive physics like Mozart had for music. In a later season, the Traveler was able to help Wesley to become like the Traveler. Val42 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Weasley" Crusher, LMAO. Stuart Morrow 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understood it, the Traveller didn't actually make any improvement to the ship's warp drive to hurl them to another galaxy or dimension. It was his mind/spirit/will that made them jump those distances or dimensional shifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zefram Cochrane using antimatter?

In Star Trek: First Contact there is no evidence that Cochrane's warpship is matter/antimatter powered. From which source comes the information mentioned in article then? I personaly think Zefram used "simple" fusion reactor. 18:36, 30 October 2006 (GMT)

I believe the dialogue refers to an "intermix chamber", which is generally considered to be the bit where the antimatter and the matter go asplode. Not entirely conclusive, mind. Morwen - Talk 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warp drive vs. hyperdrive (non-adversarial discussions only)

Is there any conversion rate for Warp Factors and Hyperdrive Classes? It would take Star Trek's Voyager something like 75 years to get a quarter of the way across the galaxy, while the Millennium Falcon can cross Star Wars' galaxy in about a month. Unless our galaxy is a HELL of a lot bigger than theirs, that translates into a huge imbalance in technological aptitude.

The creators of Star Trek can't agree on what speeds correspond to warp factors. In the original series, the Enterprise reached Warp 13. In TNG (and later series), Warp 10 is a maximum imposed by the "laws of physics" in the Star Trek universe. Even so, the first episode with the Traveller (an alien that can manipulate space/time), they greatly exceeded even Warp 10. Voyager exceeded Warp 10 by using transwarp corridors. If Star Trek can't agree on what a warp factor means, then how can we establish a correspondance between warp and a different technology. Val42 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, putting a standard speed on anything in Star Wars or Star Trek is meaningless. Everything moves at the speed of plot. If the script says they can travel 9 million lightyears by the end of an episode, by God they'll do it. Cyberia23 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. It's easy to point out, though, that there's a lot more 'fantasy' than 'science' in Star Wars 'science fiction.' For example, in EpV the Falcon is dumped as garbage, then Solo starts looking for "systems" he can safely go to for repairs to the hyperdrive. Well, "systems" means "star systems" or "solar systems." A journey to any of them would require.....a hyperdrive. Without it, interstellar travel without it would be impossible in one lifetime. Regarding a comparison, no movie or TV series that employed a "hyperdrive" or "hyperspeed" has ever explained it's methodology. All we do know is that it's a faster than light system. And I think that's where the similarities end, and so, cannot be compared in an informed way. There's also the methodology of "folding space." It's used in "Dune" and "Event Horizon." It is by far a faster method that either "warp drive" or "hyperdrive" and makes the "warp factor" meaningless becuase it is almost instantaneous travel to anywhere in the galaxy. It's also very close, or the same as, what is used in the new "Battlestar Galactica" series. They just call it a "jump" rather than "folding."Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The "Broken Bow" episode of Star Trek: Enterprise did NOT say it was a "four DAY" voyage to the Klingon homeworld, they said a "four WEEK" voyage, which would be appropriate to what Warp 5 was supposed to be.

[edit] Coaxial Drive?

coaxial warp drive, a technology previously thought to be only hypothetical. A vessel equipped with such a system would be able to leap great distances almost instantaneously.

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from Warp drive (Star Trek) to Warp drive as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)k

[edit] Massive cleanup needed

Sorry to say it, but this article needs a massive pruning and cleanup to bring it to Wikipedia standards. There's a lot of non-scientific material, and a whole lot of original research (the calculations etc.) that really have no place here. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be stubified and built upon from there... might be drastic, but it works much better in the long run to create a quality article. Matthew 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've begun the cleanup. Might take a while, though, as I'll be doing it on a section-by-section basis. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ent Warp.jpg

Image:Ent Warp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite improbability drive

Should this be here ? The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is ScFi parodie after all :)

parody? at least it makes a bit more sense getting between stars in less than weeks of travel time.

rodenbury said he got the idea from wagon train.. i never remember wagontrain gettin cross country in under 3 months or so. but there was new people formin up every few weeks for another journey.

rodenburry said somethin about running outa galaxy if he made warpspeed too fast. with warp 10 max it takes about 20 hours to get between close stars this IS very like loveboat, or wagon train but only new york to paris or new york to la, not new york to philly to cincinnati to stlouis to salt lake to la theres no stops along the wagon train...

72.49.255.19 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warp drive damages space

Something should probably be added about this as per TNG cannon (Can't remember the episode name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.174.216 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What a B.S. episode that was! Oohhh, pollution of open space! Give me a break. Then they break all accepted science regarding warp drive and make the ship "coast" by turning off the warp engines after getting going. HELLO!! Warp drive is NOT Newtonian propulsion! Are any of you science-impaired TNG/DS9/VOY writers listening??? Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error of preposition

I have changed the following: travel from the Earth to its Moon in July, 1969.

To the following: travel from the Earth to the Moon in July, 1969.

The Moon is not "Earth's Moon", it is the "Moon". It is Earth's "natural satellite", that happens to be named "Moon". Using the term "Moon" as a catch-all for natural satellites promotes ignorance and scientific inaccuracy. No one would call other planets "Earths", so why should other natural satellites be referred to "Moons"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.225 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when referring to Human space travel, it's perfectly acceptable to write "travel to the Moon" or "travel to Earth's moon." They are both scientifically accurate. "The Moon" is the colloquial name and everyone knows what you mean. If you were standing on another planet that had only one moon, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "let's go to the moon." Every moon-like natural sattelite of any planet is called "a" moon regardless of how many there are. The formal name for Earth's moon is "Luna." When in a scenario of interstellar travel & settlements and you mention a moon or even "the" moon, you would confuse people and would be asked for which moon you're talking about. Beginning with "TNG" and/or "DS9," Earth's moon is referred to as "Luna" when in regards to a specific place, such as "I'm from the Luna colony." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A few tweaks to the above... the Moon's proper name, in English, is "Moon" (capital-M). "Luna" is the Latin word, not the proper English name - although it is frequently used as a name in science fiction. Lower-case "moon" can mean any natural satellite, although prior to the mid-1600s it referred exclusively to ours. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth's moon is not named "Moon." It is "a" moon, "the" moon, or "our" moon, but it's formal name is "Luna." Latin words are used frequently in science to provide formal names for things, even if we call them something else in English during everyday conversation. Just like our sun is not named "Sun," it's "Sol." Even though no English speaking people refer to it that way in everyday conversation. When speaking of the moons of our solar system, we don't list them as Titan, Io, Miranda, Moon, Calisto, etc. That's ridiculous.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with regards to the Earth's satellite, it is named "Moon" (capital-M) in the English language. Luna is the Latin name, not the formal name. Similarly, the name of the Sun is the "Sun", capital-S. "Sol" is the Latin name, not the formal name. This question comes up frequently, but can be verified through NASA and the IAU (among others). ("Sol" and "Luna" are used in science fiction, not science; "moon" (small-m) refers to a natural satellite, and "sun" (small-s) isn't used as "Sun" refers only to the star Earth orbits. Likewise, "Solar System" or "solar system" refers only to the Sun and associated planets; it is not a generic term.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So again, you're suggesting that, when listing the natural sattelites of our solar system, the list would go Metis, Mimas, Miranda, Moon, Naiad...? No, I don't think so. "Moon" may be the official English language name, but when considering this scenario, I'd say most scientists, and those working in science fiction, would agree that Luna is the default proper name.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you'd say Metis, Mimas, Miranda, the Moon, Naiad. Honestly, we could discuss this forever, but the Astronomy pages resolved it a long time ago and we sourced it to NASA and the IAU. "Luna" and "Sol" are used primarily in science fiction, not science fact. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real warp drive invented

In reference to the paragraph: The concept of using spatial warping... no concrete technological approach has ever been proposed, nor is there any known way of inducing the effect described by Alcubierre.

A warp drive exists, but it is not proposed to be a FTL device.

This is by Roger Shawyer and his emdrive, using the relativistic effects of bouncing microwaves around a closed waveguide, amplified by a resonating effect, as reported in NewsScientist:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.400

http://emdrive.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.169.179 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a "warp drive." It's more like an ion engine, which was launched a few years ago. They both employ Newtonian propulsion; action/reaction, thrust this way, movement the other. A "warp drive" is a system that bends space to move an object without any Newtonian propulsion.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The Enterprise NX-01 didn't go to warp 5 until the episode "Fallen Hero". The highest stated speed they went in "Broken Bow" was 4.4 (4.5 in a deleted scene). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.15.247 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NASA Link

The NASA link in the External Link section - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html - no longer exists. I searched the NASA site but did not find a valid url to point at, can someone please remove ? Scotthan (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Scotthan (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)