Warp Speeds List

[Mike DiCenso]

The E-D is shown at impulse just before the screencap of the readout display:



No statement made either about dropping from warp.
-Mike

[Iscander]

Regarding "The Defector", are we sure the ship was ever at warp when observed? I thought it was at impulse the whole time we saw it or had scan display of it.

If you are referring to the scoutship, it appears to be at impulse by the time it was in visual range, no streaking stars. No mention other than the image of the sensor display before that.

Additionally I was incorrect, the scoutship was not yet under fire when shown on the display. The Warbird decloaks at the end of the scene, the attack begins after the commercial break. Just re-watched the intro to the episode to confirm.

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/thumbnails.p ... =66&page=2

[359]

ENT: "Demons":

Tucker: "You're going to warp?"
Paxton: "A five second burst."
T'Pol: "Inside the system?"
...
Greaves: "We're in Mars orbit. All systems functioning."

Here we have a rather odd example of an old mining station fitted for flight warping from Earth lunar orbit to Mars orbit. The trip is stated to take 5 seconds, and the distance between Earth and Mars varies between 54.6 million kilometers and 401 million kilometers for an average of 225 million kilometers. Using 225 Gm in 5 s and scaling up to ly/yr results in a travel speed of 9,000c. Using 225 Gm in 5 s and scaling up to ly/yr results in a travel speed of 150c.

This is quite the expedient trip given the technology of the era. Enterprise is the first warp 5 vessel, and in ENT: "Fortunate Son" we learn that most "modern" human trade ships use a warp 3+ engine with older models using warp 1.8. Given this is an ad-hoc vessel, and that it was built a generation ago by Paxton's father for the purpose of relocating to new mining sites and not to make cargo runs, it seems likely that the ship would at most be making warp 1.8 for the journey.

Interestingly this would make a 80 ly round-trip trade route (a handful of systems away) take about 3 days, so it seems to be definitely on the high end.

Warp: Unknown (1.8?); Distance: ≈225 million kilometers; Time: 5 seconds

Edit: Tired brain makes math mistakes :P

[2046]

Nicely done, as always! We can even enhance it a tad with Celestia. Plugging in January 20, 2155 gives an Earth-Mars distance of 1.03 AU, or about 154,000,000 kilometers.

Additionally, they may have executed a five second burst of warp power, but the actual on-screen warp flight time was about 20 seconds.

That's 7,700,000 km/s, which brings it down to a much more consistent 25.68c.

(Obviously the top speed would be a bit higher given the burst-and-coast flight plan, but as shaky as that thing was I wouldn't suggest a long haul in it.)

[359]

Indeed the total screen time is much longer, however the bulk of that is on Enterprise. The actual screen time of the facility while it is at warp is approximately 5 seconds. Because of this, and because it seems unlikely they could successfully warp coast with such limited tech, I chose to interpret those scenes as being simultaneous. This allows both the video and dialog to match.

However, I now notice my tired late-night brain did make a conversion mistake: the value is 60 times too high as I converted from seconds to minutes an extra time. Editing.

[2046]

Hmm . . . usually events aren't considered as simultaneous, but you're correct that the argument could be made here. I don't know that coasting is a tech issue, though . . . just cutting off the engines should produce the effect, as in the case of saucer sep (e.g. "Brothers", IIRC).

In any case, that's 154,000,000km in either 5s or 20s, the latter being 30,800,000km/s or 102.7c versus the 25.7c 20s figure . . . readily rounded / sigfigged to 25 to 100c.

Neato.

[359]

I was thinking of the saucer separation in TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint" where saucer separation at warp was considered hazardous. Additionally in TNG: "Force of Nature" Riker implies warp "coasting" is not a common practice, and Data states that they must pre saturate the warp nacelles to do so, presumably to maintain their warp field even if not to propel the ship forwards. Given these limitations on a Galaxy class starship I would argue the technology available to a mining station almost 300 years prior probably would not be able to accomplish such a maneuver.

Indeed, either way we end up with a surprisingly nice 25c - 100c figure for low warp.

[2046]

Ah, I think we're using the same word for different things, which is okay because the word means either one.

I was referring to the idea of coasting as in "coast to a stop", rather than "coast and maintain velocity". (One can also coast and accelerate, e.g. down a hill, but neither of us meant that.)

Translated to warp engines, the newly-detached saucer exits the warp field thanks to a touch of slowdown/reversal of the stardrive section and then coasts (decelerating) to sublight. This is what I was envisoning for the Terra Prime facility-ship . . . a five-second burst of warp power then fifteen seconds of coasting down to sublight (rather than a reversal of engine power to drop out of warp). Given that the saucer was to take two minutes to drop out of high warp in "Brothers" (IIRC) then fifteen seconds sounds fine, time-wise, for a low-warp coasting deceleration.

The "Force of Nature" coasting involved maintaining velocity without the engines technically engaged, which I presume to refer to something like maintaining a superconducting magnet's magnetic field after power is disengaged . . . or maybe keeping a light working via residual DC current once you've removed alternating current power that damages subspace. Either way it was weird.

The latter is most certainly a greater technical accomplishment that I wouldn't expect from the facility-ship, so you're right about that.

[359]

DIS: "Such Sweet Sorrow":

As we are treated to a wonderful shot of the reimagined Constitution Class bridge we are also treated to a sweat technical candy. After Captain Pike orders Enterprise to a safe distance we get to se Number One's hands entering the command on a very legible panel helm panel. It currently reads "Warp Factor" with a large numeral "6.25" beneath it. After hitting engage this changes to a readout of multiples of c, climbing up to "244c".

However, things are more complicated than just this. I wish I could grab a screenshot but I can't get the image, maybe after a bit of poking around later. Sufficed to say this is on a control pad labeled "PRT-N," which I presume to mean Port Nacelle as there is a similar interface cluster to the right labeled "STR-N." Above the display text is also added: "6.25 impulse." Additionally the Port Nacelle is listed as active while the Starboard Nacelle is listed as inactive.

Regardless, a simple interpretation of this is warp 6.25 TOS scale is 244c. However, arguments could be made that those two numbers do not directly relate to each other as one is in a clearly impulse configuration.

[Mike DiCenso]

The reimagined Enterprise/Constitution-class bridge looks amazing. It's much like what some of the old guard fans wanted for Discovery's bridge, updated but still very familiar to the original design with things like touchpads replacing the old jellybean colored buttons and analog switches. I myself like that different ship classes have a strong difference. As an old poster here Nowhereman10 pointed out on Discus, even as far back as TAS, ships like the USS Huron had a basic similar layout, but were very different at the same time. So I'm happy and it makes the Connies more special among all the other ship classes.

We should have a separate thread to discuss this from this point on.

As for the warp speeds. We knew from the ENT episode "Twilight" that starships can make warp speed on a single nacelle, but at very reduced speed. So if the Connies can do 225c on one nacelle, I would have to wonder what sort of efficiency multiplier they get for the tandem nacelles. Probably the benefit that the twin nacelle configuration of the Klingons, Federation, and Romulans.

Oh, and we also know now from DISC that Starbase 11 is 2 light years from Talos IV. ("If Memory Serves")

Given this, we can come up with some warp speed calculations. It seems to only take about a day or two at unspecified warp to get to Talos IV from Starbase 11 in "The Menagerie" or about 730 c on average despite early in the first part where Spock tells Pike it's only "six days away at maximum warp". And we can't necessarily assume the ship was going full speed or too slow since the shuttlecraft with Kirk and Mendez had to be able to overtake the Enterprise so he could get on board and then allow enough time for the faux court martial so Spock could explain why they needed to take Pike to Talos IV.

So 122 c minimum speed at anywhere from warp 6 to warp 8 and 730 c given that despite what Spock tells Pike, 730 c since only a day or two actually seems to go by.
-Mike

[2046]

So Memory Alpha has a fairly extensive-looking chart of speed references. It isn't laid out like the one I'm working on and I see a few figures I disagree with or otherwise need to confirm, but it's an interesting chart all the same.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor

[MarkusTay]

Just to keep things in perspective...

I've been working on a galaxy map of my own, and I kept running into problems regarding Star trek maps (I'm doing a mash-up galaxy with different franchises). After several tries with existing maps, I finally had to bite the bullet and first figure out EXACTLY what kinds of scale I am working with. The Star Trek maps I found that showed the ST 'powers' were showing them way to huge. I mean, crazy huge. Going that route I wound up with Vulcan almost a 1000 LY from Earth! So I made my own map, and to do so I had to create two intermediary maps just to be able to get something large enough I could use on the one, and a small enough unit of measurement on the other, and each map layer had its own scale (kind of how in Google Maps you can 'scroll in' for greater definition). My map also uses a well-known ST map you can find all over online, and even if its not accurate it gives you a good idea of scale, and the parts I needed were accurate - Vulcan is based in the very real star system 40-Eridani, and its placement on ST star charts is pretty consistent. That game me a base of 16.5 LY in real world measurements, to insert into a Galaxy map that had real world measurements. Now we can finally appreciate what Voyager went through.

Original Star Trek Map

My map after plugging-in the above map.

[2046]

Welcome!

The map you found is reeeeeally small in scale. I know there are some who want to confine the Federation core to like a hundred light-years, and I'm sure that this is partially true, to a point, insofar as the primary members (e.g. Vulcan at 16 LY, Andor nearby, Tellar somewhere, et cetera). They then adjust speeds to match, or start with the far-too-slow Tech Manual speeds and then do the tiny-core thing from there. However, Picard was pretty explicit about the 8,000 LY (not cubic, like in that map's legend) and we've seen other indications of great distances (e.g. Picard's archaeology mentor and similar maps). While people like to assume warp highways that somehow allow for ludicrous speed, that's a pretty sketchy place to hang the hat and much worse if you're trying to explain greater and greater velocity disparities with it. How many multiples is too many? How many orders of magnitude?

When Q gave Janeway navigational info or when Voyager's Borgified stellar cartography came online and they recalculated the course home, they were only shaving off single-digit percentage points . . . so I don't personally think warp highways should allow for much more than a handful of multiples of velocity, and even then it should be rather short distances.

In any case, summarizing my view of the evidence in this thread and elsewhere, Enterprise NX-01 was able to pull 4 LY/day pretty consistently (~1500c) at high (for her) factors, and higher warp vessels in later generations seem able to pull around 25-60 LY/day (9000 - 21400c) more or less on the regular, at high to max warp. Needless to say, on a map that tiny, there's never really an excuse for any ship being stuck alone and out of comm range for days. Forty ships at Wolf 359, for instance, out of a fleet of 10,000ish? Even the NX could get there from Earth in a couple of days!

YMMV, of course, but yeah, I hate that map.

[2046]

So I still want to do a proper charting of every example with error ranges and indications of whether it's a computer-specified value versus someone's head math and all that sort of jazz, then draw out a best-fit to get the most reliable estimate of warp speeds ever.

However, that day's not today.

Because reasons, I really wanted to have a chart laid out, so I decided to make one. This is not a holistic approach . . . just some main examples, feelings, and the desire for a somewhat comprehensible curve. It doesn't (and can't) satisfy all examples, but I tried to keep to the most consistent examples, for the most part. Additionally, this tries to keep the 9000c from "Where No Man" as the Enterprise-D 2364 red line, and I tried like hell to keep some of the relative values kinda half-ass right (e.g. 7 being 50 times 2, 9.6 being 4 times 9, et cetera), but that was kind of impossible to do.

Somewhat by accident, I ended up creating an explanation for why warp five was so important, why warp six was the usual cruising speed, and a bit more. Basically, I have a minor slowed-increase after warp six, and warp five is finally near the higher values after the much smaller warp four and below values. So, high warp-four values really make spaceflight worthwhile, thus the import of the warp five engine. Additionally, you can do 7 or 8 if you really need the speed, but it generally isn't enough of an increase to be worth it from an efficiency standpoint.



Thoughts? Complaints? Mockery? Fire at Will. (Duck, Riker!)

[2046]

Huh . . . apparently we managed to miss this little bit from "Fortunate Son"[ENT1]. No solid speeds, here, just a comparative reference:

RYAN: Thanks. I've already seen most of the ship.
TUCKER: You missed the best part. The only warp five engine in the fleet.
RYAN: I've heard about it.
TUCKER: Once they get installed in the next generation of freighters it'll change a whole lot of things.
TRAVIS: Even with a warp three engine you'd be able to cut a five year cargo run down to six months.
RYAN: Warp one point eight works just fine for us. Any faster and there'd be no time to enjoy the trip.

Five years is sixty months, so the idea here is that warp three is ten times faster than warp 1.8, which doesn't really fit any other datapoint I'm aware of.

(The TNG TM speed list has warp 1 as 1c, warp 2 as 10c, and warp 3 as 39c, the latter having been used in "The Most Toys"[TNG3]. There's also the "First Flight"[ENT2] warp field dynamics graphic, where warp 2 drops to 8c and warp 3 drops to 28c. Neither of those really allow for the "ten times faster" figure . . . warp 1.8 should be reasonably close to warp 2, not half as fast (or worse).)

Warp factor: 3
Comparative: 10x warp 1.8