PDA

View Full Version : Bad FTL travel on Enterprise



Duane534
2003-Aug-18, 03:01 AM
Here's the scenario. Two ships are traveling at warp ?, faster than light. The first ship comes out of warp. A few seconds later, the second ship comes out of warp. The second ship was "at warp" for several seconds longer than the first. Shouldn't the second ship "drop out of warp" thousands of kilometers (or millions of miles) past the first ship?

SpaceTrekkie
2003-Aug-18, 03:09 AM
My first thought would be yes...and another question about warp travel with two ships...if "warp" means to warp space around you in order to bring the two distances closer and there by traveling FTL then how come a ship right next to you when u jump into warp cant take advantage of your warp field and travel at the same Warp Factor as you?

Duane534
2003-Aug-18, 03:17 AM
Well, I'd assume that you'd have to increase the size of a warp field to carry something else along. Also, you'd have precise calculations to manipulate the field for your ship and it's mass. So, it would probably be POSSIBLE, but difficult.

wedgebert
2003-Aug-18, 03:49 AM
Well, I'd assume that you'd have to increase the size of a warp field to carry something else along. Also, you'd have precise calculations to manipulate the field for your ship and it's mass. So, it would probably be POSSIBLE, but difficult.

Not in Star Trek Land. All you have to do tell the writers your new "discovery" and within a few episodes it'll happen.

That's the beauty in a show that has less continuity than South Park but tries to take itself seriously.

Doodler
2003-Aug-18, 06:22 PM
its possible to extend warp fields around other ships, on more than a few occassions crippled ships have been towed at warp speeds. The war game episode with the Ferengi was one case, there was a threat to use it against the USS Pheonix during its one ship invasion of Cardassian space.
The Rule of THTT applies here.

Aodoi
2003-Aug-18, 07:48 PM
Yeah, every time that one ship was chasing another and they dropped out of warp... one right next to one another. Given the apparent need for all navigational commands to be entered by a half dozen hand movements it's fairly impressive that they always manage to drop out of warp when required by the script. They finally got around the excessive hand gestures for maneuvering bit by using macros (execute Picard Alpha 1 or whatever), but aside from one of the movies apparently they apparently determined that joysticks weren't in the ST universe. :)

I also rather enjoy the image of them firing at each other at warp speed. So one ship, with it's little bubble fires it's phasors at a second ship. This beam exits it's warp bubble, goes through real space, then impacts on the other ship. Save the minor issue that as soon as it left the warp bubble it's traveling at a fraction of the speed of either it's target or the ship that fired it. So firing straight ahead would be the ST equivalent of a jet firing it's guns while supersonic and shooting itself down as it overtakes the bullets. :D

(anybody know the canonical explanation for the second part? Does the phasor stay at warp somehow?)

daver
2003-Aug-18, 07:58 PM
Yeah, every time that one ship was chasing another and they dropped out of warp... one right next to one another. Given the apparent need for all navigational commands to be entered by a half dozen hand movements it's fairly impressive that they always manage to drop out of warp when required by the script. They finally got around the excessive hand gestures for maneuvering bit by using macros (execute Picard Alpha 1 or whatever), but aside from one of the movies apparently they apparently determined that joysticks weren't in the ST universe. :)

I also rather enjoy the image of them firing at each other at warp speed. So one ship, with it's little bubble fires it's phasors at a second ship. This beam exits it's warp bubble, goes through real space, then impacts on the other ship. Save the minor issue that as soon as it left the warp bubble it's traveling at a fraction of the speed of either it's target or the ship that fired it. So firing straight ahead would be the ST equivalent of a jet firing it's guns while supersonic and shooting itself down as it overtakes the bullets. :D

(anybody know the canonical explanation for the second part? Does the phasor stay at warp somehow?)

Well, with a few exceptions, in TOS they used phasers for sublight and photon torpedoes at Warp. In another TOS episode, accelerated people DODGE phaser beams (they could obviously outrun them). If i were trying to make trek consistent, i'd have photon torpedoes travel at high warp factors and phasers travel at light speed.

TimH
2003-Aug-18, 08:47 PM
Here's the scenario. Two ships are traveling at warp ?, faster than light. The first ship comes out of warp. A few seconds later, the second ship comes out of warp. The second ship was "at warp" for several seconds longer than the first. Shouldn't the second ship "drop out of warp" thousands of kilometers (or millions of miles) past the first ship?


Wouldn't that depend on when the ships entered warp? If ship A enters warp, lets say 3 seconds ahead of ship B, they travel at the same speed and the ships drop out of warp 3 seconds apart (ship A leading the way), they should be at about the same distance they were just before ship A entered warp.

tracer
2003-Aug-20, 08:12 PM
That's the beauty in a show that has less continuity than South Park but tries to take itself seriously.
Oh my God, they killed Tasha Yar! (You b*stards!)

Stuart
2003-Aug-21, 05:11 PM
I also rather enjoy the image of them firing at each other at warp speed. So one ship, with it's little bubble fires it's phasors at a second ship. This beam exits it's warp bubble, goes through real space, then impacts on the other ship. Save the minor issue that as soon as it left the warp bubble it's traveling at a fraction of the speed of either it's target or the ship that fired it.

Whoa there. Starships don't fire from warp. They drop out of warp to impulse speed then fire. The "bubble" you're quoting is the shields. I know warp-strafing is a common trekkie belief but there's no evidence I can find to sustain it. Look at the following.


NG Season 2, Ep# 47: "Peak Performance"
BURKE: Captain, sensors picking up a Ferengi warship closing at warp five.
PICARD: Did you input that new code?
BURKE: Yes, sir!
PICARD: Mister Worf -- I didn't give you enough credit, continue the simulation.
(the Ferengi ship drops out of warp and starts pounding the Enterprise)
PICARD: Divert all power to shields!
DATA: Sever modified beams, engage phasers and target!
PICARD: Stay between the Hathaway and the Ferengi! Where are my weapons?
BURKE: Unavailable, sir! We cannot disengage the modified beams -- the connections have been fused!
.DATA: Captain, the Ferengi have broken off their attack. Drop shields. Transport the away team aboard.
BURKE: Transporter functions gone, sir!
DATA: Shields reduced to one-fifth intensity. Our shields will not withstand another assault.

Note how the Ferengi attack is identical to the way the simulated Romulan attack was unfolding; the ship approaches at warp speed, drops to impulse, and then opens fire.

We have the same thing here.


TNG Season 1, Ep# 10: "The Battle"
PICARD: I improvised. With the other ship coming in for the kill, I ordered a sensor bearing, and when it went into its return arc...
DATA: You performed what Starfleet textbooks now call "The Picard Maneuver."
PICARD: What any good helmsman could have done. I dropped into high warp, then stopped right off the target vessel's bow, and fired everything I had.
RIKER: By blowing into warp speed, you appeared for an instant to be in two places at once...
PICARD: And our attacker fired on the wrong one.

Ahh, the infamous Picard Maneuver. Known to the civilized military community as deception jamming. Note that the Stargazer had to drop out of warp before firing, rather than performing what Trekkies uniformly describe as "warp strafing".

Plenty of other examples - basically, no shooties from warp.


So firing straight ahead would be the ST equivalent of a jet firing it's guns while supersonic and shooting itself down as it overtakes the bullets.
Not funny. Been done; a Grumman F-11F1 Tiger shot itself down that way in 1961. Pilot killed.

QuagmaPhage
2003-Aug-21, 06:15 PM
Plenty of other examples - basically, no shooties from warp.
Didn't the Enterprise fire photon torpedoes at Q when they where fleeing at warp speed from Q in Encounter at Farpoint?

So it should be no shooties forewards from warp.

Stuart
2003-Aug-21, 06:35 PM
Didn't the Enterprise fire photon torpedoes at Q when they where fleeing at warp speed from Q in Encounter at Farpoint?
I don't have that point indexed but IIRC they fired while at maximum impulse then went to warp. I'll check that one out and get back to you.

daver
2003-Aug-21, 10:17 PM
So if you can't fire from warp you shouldn't be able to be hit while at warp. It's been a long time since i've watched an episode, but in TOS Journey to Babel, it'd seem that all the Enterprise has to do is to maintain warp speed to prevent itself from being attacked by the pirates. And pirates should only be able to strike in-system, when the cargo vessels have dropped sublight.

We know that the Romulan plasma weapon travels at warp speed, and is apparently a homing weapon. Once the Romulans purchased warp technology from the Klingons, they should have been able to wipe out the Federation pretty handily (they have a weapon which is effective at warp speeds--the Federation has no ability to defend or to fight back) (i suppose it's possible that the weapon can hit targets at warp but can't be fired from warp; that doesn't seem reasonable to me, but whoever claimed that Trek was reasonable?).

wedgebert
2003-Aug-22, 12:56 AM
So if you can't fire from warp you shouldn't be able to be hit while at warp. It's been a long time since i've watched an episode, but in TOS Journey to Babel, it'd seem that all the Enterprise has to do is to maintain warp speed to prevent itself from being attacked by the pirates. And pirates should only be able to strike in-system, when the cargo vessels have dropped sublight.

We know that the Romulan plasma weapon travels at warp speed, and is apparently a homing weapon. Once the Romulans purchased warp technology from the Klingons, they should have been able to wipe out the Federation pretty handily (they have a weapon which is effective at warp speeds--the Federation has no ability to defend or to fight back) (i suppose it's possible that the weapon can hit targets at warp but can't be fired from warp; that doesn't seem reasonable to me, but whoever claimed that Trek was reasonable?).

Well, photon torpedoes are warp-capable.

I don't think you should cite TOS as an example of anything though. Just look at their phaser technology. Some days it was a beam, other days it just made the screen change colors. The stun setting was the same way.

daver
2003-Aug-22, 01:19 AM
Well, photon torpedoes are warp-capable.

I don't think you should cite TOS as an example of anything though. Just look at their phaser technology. Some days it was a beam, other days it just made the screen change colors. The stun setting was the same way.

Hmm. What's the point of having a warp capable weapon that can't be fired from warp? We know that Star Trek weapons have pathetic ranges; if a weapon with an effective range of less than a light millisecond can't be fired at warp speeds then warp capability in the weapon is useless.

Up to you if you don't want to consider TOS as canon. I've seen most of TOS episodes (multiple times), many TNG episodes (once), a few DS9 episodes (once) and maybe three hours of V'ger if you add up all the snippets. 0 hours so far as i know of Enterprise, 15 minutes maybe of Andromeda. So most of my input is going to be from TOS, with the occassional disparaging remark about the others.

QuagmaPhage
2003-Aug-22, 04:04 PM
I have tried searching for a transcript of Encounter at Farpoint but the closest was this link (http://www.planetspace.de/startrek/shows/show.php?show=tng101) which unfortunately is in german.


Das Schiff dreht um und geht auf Warp. Das Energiegitter formt sich zu einer Kugel und fliegt hinterher. Man feuert Torpedos aber die nutzen nichts. Picard, Data, Troi und Yar gehen auf die Kampfbrücke. Man bereitet sich auf die Abtrennung vor.


Roughly translated to english


The ship turns and goes to warp. The energy net turns into a ball and follows. Torpedoes are fired but with no effect. Picard, Data, Troi and Yar goes to the battlebridge. They prepare for separation [of the saucersection]

And when the Enterprise is able to separate the saucersection during warp it should also be able to fire torpedoes IMO. I can understand why some people oppose to the idea of warp-strafing because it would be a huge tactical advantage against unsuspecting and stationary tagets. I suspect that the writers had not thougt this idea through when they first developed the idea.

I also found this page (http://st-v-sw.net/STSWwarpturn.html#Combat) which advocates strongly for warp-strafing. It lists several examples from TOS, TNG and ENT. The site's author is apparently one of those Star Trek vs. Star Wars zealots.

Alan
2003-Aug-25, 03:43 PM
So if you can't fire from warp you shouldn't be able to be hit while at warp. It's been a long time since i've watched an episode, but in TOS Journey to Babel, it'd seem that all the Enterprise has to do is to maintain warp speed to prevent itself from being attacked by the pirates. And pirates should only be able to strike in-system, when the cargo vessels have dropped sublight.

IIRC in Journey to Babel, the Enterprise was traveling at impulse to give Kirk enough time to teach the Princess manners prior to her wedding. They were attacked in hopes that the Enterprise would go to Warp to avoid being shot at since the dilithium crystals were sabotaged to make the Enterprise blow up. Why they never kept a spare set of dilithum crystals around, I could never figure out.

Hamlet
2003-Aug-25, 04:28 PM
So if you can't fire from warp you shouldn't be able to be hit while at warp. It's been a long time since i've watched an episode, but in TOS Journey to Babel, it'd seem that all the Enterprise has to do is to maintain warp speed to prevent itself from being attacked by the pirates. And pirates should only be able to strike in-system, when the cargo vessels have dropped sublight.

IIRC in Journey to Babel, the Enterprise was traveling at impulse to give Kirk enough time to teach the Princess manners prior to her wedding. They were attacked in hopes that the Enterprise would go to Warp to avoid being shot at since the dilithium crystals were sabotaged to make the Enterprise blow up. Why they never kept a spare set of dilithum crystals around, I could never figure out.

The episode with the Princess was "Elaan of Troius".

Oh No! I just exposed myself as a Star Trek geek. :)

Donnie B.
2003-Aug-25, 07:17 PM
Watch out, you can be banned for exposing yourself on this board! :o

Alan
2003-Aug-26, 01:53 PM
The episode with the Princess was "Elaan of Troius".

Oh No! I just exposed myself as a Star Trek geek. :)

That's right, I got them confused since I haven't seen them for many years. In Journey To Babel we meet Spock's parents and they have the blood transfusion during the battle.

MightyMoo
2003-Aug-27, 01:18 AM
I can't answer many questions, but I can say for sure that the NX-01 has fired a phase cannon while travelling at warp speeds.

To make myself feel good for saying something on topic:

I always hoped some aspiring Ensign would warp and decelerate again and again to frustrate pursuers. It seemed to make some kind of sense to me to force the pursuing ship to overshoot you by millions of kilometers, giving you enough time to turn and go another direction, wait for them to catch up so you can stop and wash, rinse repeat as necessary.

CaptGlenn
2003-Aug-31, 05:12 PM
daver wrote:

Hmm. What's the point of having a warp capable weapon that can't be fired from warp? We know that Star Trek weapons have pathetic ranges; if a weapon with an effective range of less than a light millisecond can't be fired at warp speeds then warp capability in the weapon is useless.
My understanding was that the weapon was not fired from warp, but rather could travel at warp. I have never heard about the effective range you mention, but I'm no Trekkie either. How it would generate its own warp field is another problem.

tmosher
2003-Aug-31, 07:27 PM
Not funny. Been done; a Grumman F-11F1 Tiger shot itself down that way in 1961. Pilot killed.

1956 - pilot not killed.

http://www.aircraft-used.com/Listings/feature8.htm

Stuart
2003-Sep-02, 01:02 PM
1956 - pilot not killed.
Have a hunch that may be a different incident; the one I was thinking of took place where a modified F-11F was being offered to Japan as a rival for to the F-104. I think there have been a few other cases of aircraft damaging themselves the same way.

Stuart
2003-Sep-02, 02:45 PM
I can't answer many questions, but I can say for sure that the NX-01 has fired a phase cannon while travelling at warp speeds.

The problem here is that there isn't a single case in any of the later shows of firing from warp. In every case, the pattern is to drop out of warp, fire and then return to warp. I could do my usual trick of quoting script examples here - there are plenty of them. TOS is a little more ambiguous but only a little - the website quoted is long on assumptions, very short on actual script-derived fact. Wherever the script is specific, its also definitive - no shooties from warpies. Use warp to position then drop out, shoot and scoot.

As for Enterprise, I think its fairly obvious by now that the show is on a totally different timeline from the rest. Probably in a different universe. It may be that the show is actually Federation propaganda and history-rewriting (Marxist regimes do that). Its unbelievable to claim that ST-E and TOS demonstrate capabilities that are lost in TNG, DS9 and VOY.

By the way, think on the maths. Speed of light is 2.997 x10^8 meters/second (say 3 x 10^5 km/sec). Warp 3 is 39C or 117 x 10^5 km/sec. The maximum range of a phaser is 10 km so the window of fire is 20 km. That means a starship attempting a "warp strafe" has to aim and fire in 5.85 x 10^-5 seconds. Canna be duuun laddie.

Glom
2003-Sep-02, 03:15 PM
Enterprise could be marxist proganda? Sorry, Stuart, that doesn't wash. The purpose of a regime releasing propaganda about their own history would be to make them look good. Enterprise makes the regime look as stupid as can be.

In a sense it is. B&B want to rewrite Trek history in their own image and make us forget The Original Series that we loved. Hence you get Romulan ships painted all green instead of as a Bird of Prey. You get away teams instead of landing parties. You get rank insignia based on the pattern used throughout TNG, DS9 and VOY rather than something either completely different or something along the lines of the gold braids used in Classic. You get Klingons and Andorians done to their liking rather than as we remember them from Classic. You get Starfleet instead of UESPA.

Stuart
2003-Sep-02, 03:24 PM
Enterprise could be marxist proganda? Sorry, Stuart, that doesn't wash. The purpose of a regime releasing propaganda about their own history would be to make them look good. Enterprise makes the regime look as stupid as can be.

Hey, did I say smart Marxists??????


In a sense it is. B&B want to rewrite Trek history in their own image and make us forget The Original Series that we loved. Hence you get Romulan ships painted all green instead of as a Bird of Prey. You get away teams instead of landing parties. You get rank insignia based on the pattern used throughout TNG, DS9 and VOY rather than something either completely different or something along the lines of the gold braids used in Classic. You get Klingons and Andorians done to their liking rather than as we remember them from Classic. You get Starfleet instead of UESPA.

I think that's absolutely right. It really shows the utter dishonesty of B&B - their original pitch for Enterprise was that it would set the scene for the ToS we know and love when in reality their intention was to bury it and replace it with their own "vision".

Grim thought; I wonder how long it will be before ToS vanishes from television.

Glom
2003-Sep-02, 06:23 PM
Hey, did I say smart Marxists??????

You did say it's the kind of thing marxist regimes do and it has been established that the Federation is communist.


It really shows the utter dishonesty of B&B - their original pitch for Enterprise was that it would set the scene for the ToS we know and love when in reality their intention was to bury it and replace it with their own "vision".

Since B&B aren't Classic fans and Braga apparently prides himself on having never watched Classic, they have no idea what scene they're trying to set. All they know are a few key words: Klingons, Vulcans, Andorians, Tribbles, Regulan Bloodworms, and use them equally randomly.

Since Voyager B&B have decided the show is best targetted at 12 year old boys who might get off on beanpoles in catsuits so they figure it's irrelevant anyway.

QuagmaPhage
2003-Sep-02, 07:00 PM
I can't answer many questions, but I can say for sure that the NX-01 has fired a phase cannon while travelling at warp speeds.

The problem here is that there isn't a single case in any of the later shows of firing from warp. In every case, the pattern is to drop out of warp, fire and then return to warp. I could do my usual trick of quoting script examples here - there are plenty of them. TOS is a little more ambiguous but only a little - the website quoted is long on assumptions, very short on actual script-derived fact. Wherever the script is specific, its also definitive - no shooties from warpies. Use warp to position then drop out, shoot and scoot.

As for Enterprise, I think its fairly obvious by now that the show is on a totally different timeline from the rest. Probably in a different universe. It may be that the show is actually Federation propaganda and history-rewriting (Marxist regimes do that). Its unbelievable to claim that ST-E and TOS demonstrate capabilities that are lost in TNG, DS9 and VOY.

By the way, think on the maths. Speed of light is 2.997 x10^8 meters/second (say 3 x 10^5 km/sec). Warp 3 is 39C or 117 x 10^5 km/sec. The maximum range of a phaser is 10 km so the window of fire is 20 km. That means a starship attempting a "warp strafe" has to aim and fire in 5.85 x 10^-5 seconds. Canna be duuun laddie.

Why do you think that phasers have a maximum range of only 10 km? I remember a couple of occasions where the Enterprise fires phasers at a planet from orbit. According to TNG:TM (Technical Manual), phasers have an "effective" range of around one light second (300,000km). In the TNG episode "The Wounded" a phaser is used successfully at ranges well in excess of 200,000km

I found my 10+ years old VHS tape of Encounter at Farpoint, TNG and there can be no doubt that at stardate 41153,7 the Enterprise is fleeing from Q at warp speed 9.5. Q accelerates to warp 9.9 when Picard decides to separate the saucersection during warp and he takes some of his crew to the battlebridge, where Yar fires 8 torpedoes at Q just prior to separation. At no time is it indicated that the Enterprise drop out of warp during this sequence. So please do some script quoting where a starship drops out of warp, fires its weapons and return to warp. In the examples you have so far qouted the starships don't return to warp.

I found another site here: Warp Strafing, (http://www.angelfire.com/empire/blueyard/warps.html) which firmly concludes with references to TOS, TNG, ENT, VOY, TNG:TM and DS9:TM that warp to warp attacks are possible and that warp strafing (warp to impulse) must be possible.

Stuart
2003-Sep-02, 08:22 PM
Why do you think that phasers have a maximum range of only 10 km? I remember a couple of occasions where the Enterprise fires phasers at a planet from orbit. According to TNG:TM (Technical Manual), phasers have an "effective" range of around one light second (300,000km). In the TNG episode "The Wounded" a phaser is used successfully at ranges well in excess of 200,000km

The Technical manuals are not Canon; they don't count. Lets look at some Canon Data. Firstly, the section in "The Wounded" actually goes:-


TNG Season 4, Ep# 86: "The Wounded"
(watching tactical display)
DATA: The warship is three hundred thousand kilometers from the Phoenix. (watching tactical display) Pause

It is opening fire. The Phoenix has taken a direct hit ... the Phoenix is beginning evasive maneuvers ... it has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship ... the Phoenix has powered up with both phasers and photon torpedoes ... the Phoenix is firing photon torpedoes.
(little blips move toward other little blips on the screen, indicating the destruction of the Cardassian warship)
MACET: He has destroyed our warship ... the warship carried a crew of six hundred... the supply ship... fifty.

In short, initial contact is made at 300,000 kilometers but the fighting takes place over a significant period as the range closes. So we don't actually know what the firing ranges were here. Lets look ata bit more positive evidence.


TNG Season 1, Ep# 21: "Arsenal of Freedom"

GEORDI: Keep those shields at full power. It'll be on us any moment.
WORF: Shields holding.
GEORDI: Ahead one-quarter, heading two-five mark three-zero-zero.
LIAN: That heading will take us further into the planet's atmosphere.
GEORDI: That's correct. We're going to lose some maneuverability, so keep a firm hand on the helm.
LIAN: Aye, sir.
WORF: You want our attacker to follow us into the atmosphere.
GEORDI: That's what I'm hoping. Scan for any air disruption or vortex -- cloak or no cloak, we'll spot it by its turbulence.

Note that the effectiveness of this tactic is proof that the attacker's weapons are similar to Federation weapons, with an effective combat range of a few dozen kilometres at most. Otherwise, it wouldn't have to follow the Enterprise into the atmosphere in order to fire on it. If its effective combat range were thousands or tens of thousands of kilometres, it could have easily fired on the Enterprise without entering the atmosphere itself, even if the Enterprise went so deep into the atmosphere that it was skimming treetops. An examination of other actions (for example the seige of DS9 reveals that ships hovering 10 km out) are considered to be out of range. This is repeated in the various scenes featuring the "wall of ships tactic".


TNG Season 4, Ep# 100: "Redemption Part 1"

WORF: Disruptors on-line!
GOWRON: Lock on target.
WORF: No! Their sensors will detect the weapons lock. If they think we're helpless, they'll try to board the ship. I can aim and fire disruptors manually when they drop their shields.
...
(the plan works, and Worf's first salvo hits one of the two attacking BOP's and destroys it)

In this case, starship combat occured at such close range that Worf could reliably hit enemy ships with manual targeting. The ranges were typical of all starship combat seen on screen, and as usual, the visuals sharply contradict the usual Trekkie claims of weapon ranges of many hundreds of thousands of kilometres. We know that transporters have a range of many tens of thousands of kilometres, because they can transport someone from synchronous orbit to the surface of a planet. However, in this scene, the enemy ships chose to approach to a range of only a few kilometres before initiating their boarding operation. If the commonly quoted weapon ranges of 300,000km are to be believed, then this makes no logical sense whatsoever; at 40,000 km, they would have a lot more reaction time than they do at 5 km.

The fact is that every time we actually see starship combat in the TNG era and beyond, the weapons are consistently fired at ranges of less than 10 km. If the 300,000 km range figures are to be believed, this would be analogous to a modern infantryman approaching his target to within a range of 10 centimetres before opening fire! How many direct observations are necessary in order to show that a single line of dialogue cannot be interpreted simplistically, at face value? Five? Ten? Twenty? In real life, it only takes one.


I found my 10+ years old VHS tape of Encounter at Farpoint, TNG and there can be no doubt that at stardate 41153,7 the Enterprise is fleeing from Q at warp speed 9.5. Q accelerates to warp 9.9 when Picard decides to separate the saucersection during warp and he takes some of his crew to the battlebridge, where Yar fires 8 torpedoes at Q just prior to separation. At no time is it indicated that the Enterprise drop out of warp during this sequence.

Possibly the key here is that both platform and target are at warp and therefore the relative motion between them is zero. That is a far different situation from one where the target is moving slowly and the platform is at warp


So please do some script quoting where a starship drops out of warp, fires its weapons and return to warp. In the examples you have so far qouted the starships don't return to warp.

Why? Returning to warp is an irrelevent detail - a tactical convenience after firing a shot. Its a simple means of getting some distance after a close-range shot. We have a plethora of quotes of ships dropping out of warp to fire and that's the important bit.


I found another site here: Warp Strafing, (http://www.angelfire.com/empire/blueyard/warps.html) which firmly concludes with references to TOS, TNG, ENT, VOY, TNG:TM and DS9:TM that warp to warp attacks are possible and that warp strafing (warp to impulse) must be possible.

And I firmly conclude that it is not. My opinion is based on the scripts. not on special pleading based on the tech manuals which are not Canon (and are disowned by the producing company). I've studied the "evidence there and it is actually either very tenuous or highly distorted. In the end, their argument boils down to their comment "there is no evidence in any of the series, or any of the movies, that says that ships cannot attack impulse targets from warp." This is a very familiar and very tired old argument usually encountered in wargaming groups (see the rules don't say the Japanese can't use nuclear weapons at Midway). The constructors of the website really have no credibility from that point onwards.

(note edit to finish off a comment that got chronologically truncated last night)

captain swoop
2003-Sep-03, 08:26 AM
snip

The fact is that every time we actually see starship combat in the TNG era and beyond, the weapons are consistently fired at ranges of less than 10 km. If the 300,000 km range figures are to be believed, this would be analogous to a modern infantryman approaching his target to within a range of 10 centimetres before opening fire! How many direct observations are necessary in order to show that a single line of dialogue cannot be interpreted simplistically, at face value? Five? Ten? Twenty? In real life, it only takes one.



These rangesa are obviously for cinematic effect, we are used to seeing close in dog fights in movies about fighter pilots, or two sailing ships slugging it out at close range. Where would the dramatic action be if we couldn't see the two ships wheeling around each other slugging it out?

Think of Naval action films like Battle of the River Plate or Sink the Bismark, we never see the antagonists in the same shot as they are fighting at ranges of up to 20 or 30 thousand yarda and are only visible with optical devices or radar.In Battle of the River Plate the action scenes showed guns firing then cut to the fall of shot via shots of the crew in the Director or the Plot room, it convayed the drama and power of the action but was part of a longer film about one battle. In a 50 minute TV show where the action only occupies a short section it's easier to show the atagonists blasting away with both pof them in shot.

That's why films about modern or WWII infantry usualy show them all huddled together within yards of each other blasting away with machine guns.

Stuart
2003-Sep-03, 02:14 PM
These rangesa are obviously for cinematic effect, we are used to seeing close in dog fights in movies about fighter pilots, or two sailing ships slugging it out at close range. Where would the dramatic action be if we couldn't see the two ships wheeling around each other slugging it out?

Sorry doesn't wash. Like the "dramatic tension" argument, its just a poor excuse for bad scriptwriting and incompetent dircetion/production. The fact is that we do see ships in the Startrek universe battles exchanging shots at very close range only and the structures of the stories support that concept. Do some investigations into sensor ranges - the results will startle you.

In fact, as we've discussed before, the combat ranges in Star Trek are so short that its a good question why energy weapons are used at all. Good old-fashioned naval rifles would be far more effective.


That's why films about modern or WWII infantry usualy show them all huddled together within yards of each other blasting away with machine guns.

Actually the good ones don't. Watch "Tears of the Sun". Its not a comfortable film to watch though; its depiction of what's happening in Africa is horrifying - and understated.

captain swoop
2003-Sep-03, 02:27 PM
snip


That's why films about modern or WWII infantry usualy show them all huddled together within yards of each other blasting away with machine guns.

Actually the good ones don't. Watch "Tears of the Sun". Its not a comfortable film to watch though; its depiction of what's happening in Africa is horrifying - and understated.

I didn't say good ones :wink:

As for Star trek, I hate it all apart from TOS, I'm a Dr Who and Blakes 7 type.

Stuart
2003-Sep-03, 02:50 PM
As for Star trek, I hate it all apart from TOS, I'm a Dr Who and Blakes 7 type.

I don't hate Star Trek (and actively love the original series) but the way the original has been methodically destroyed by B&B makes me unhappy. What grates with me is that its perfectly possible to do a reasonably consistent and well-put together science fiction series (the BBC did an extremely good one once called Star Cops) but the B&B are so swept up with their own egos they can't be bothered.

Also, I don't like the adulation thats poured on the "utopian" Star Trek society when the reality of what is being described is actually very ugly. There are hints (especially in DS9) that at least some of the writers actually realize what an oppressive and tyrannical society is actually being depicted and slip some sly references in.

Dr Who and Blake's Seven (especially Dayna) are fond memories. There are rumbles that Blake's Seven may come back I understand Paul Darrow has bought the rights with that in mind.

Glom
2003-Sep-03, 02:58 PM
Odo said to Shakaar that the Federation has a tendancy to be arrogant in 'Crossfire'.

Eddington said the Federation was imperialist but in a more sly way in 'For the Cause'.

The Essentialists were saying that the Federation is full of babies in 'Let He Who Is Without Sin...'.

captain swoop
2003-Sep-03, 03:53 PM
As for Star trek, I hate it all apart from TOS, I'm a Dr Who and Blakes 7 type.

I don't hate Star Trek (and actively love the original series) but the way the original has been methodically destroyed by B&B makes me unhappy. What grates with me is that its perfectly possible to do a reasonably consistent and well-put together science fiction series (the BBC did an extremely good one once called Star Cops) but the B&B are so swept up with their own egos they can't be bothered.

Also, I don't like the adulation thats poured on the "utopian" Star Trek society when the reality of what is being described is actually very ugly. There are hints (especially in DS9) that at least some of the writers actually realize what an oppressive and tyrannical society is actually being depicted and slip some sly references in.

Dr Who and Blake's Seven (especially Dayna) are fond memories. There are rumbles that Blake's Seven may come back I understand Paul Merrow has bought the rights with that in mind.


I liked Star Cops, gosh, someone who rememebrs it.

As for the Star Trek society, in TOS it was utopian, and also for much of STNG, we only see narrow slices of it and it gets mucked around by script writers for their own ends. Also our own personal politics and philosophy come into it.

I would have been proud to be part of Star Fleet in TOS, I wouldn't have wanted to go to the Academy of TNG though. I think that has more to do with the way the show was developed rather than the original concept of TOS.

Blakes 7 is coming back as a TV 'Movie' special, the widow of Terry Nation has signed over the rights and Paul Darrow is heavily involved and will appear in the new prog.

it's set 20 years after the events of B7TOS (new acronym anyone? :) )

http://www.avon-paul-darrow.co.uk/

Glom
2003-Sep-03, 05:37 PM
Hey, did I say smart Marxists??????

You did say it's the kind of thing marxist regimes do and it has been established that the Federation is communist.

Must remember to read more closely. Damn my short attention span! I missed the smart bit out.