Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » Just how fast is Enterprise, really? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Just how fast is Enterprise, really?
Lurker Emeritus
Member
Member # 1888

 - posted      Profile for Lurker Emeritus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Much is made of the warp 5 capability of NX Enterprise in the show, but I think this was misleading. Enterprise doesn't appear to cruise everywhere at a comfortable warp 5. In fact, in the early seasons the ship experiences significant structural vibration at that speed!

People have debated exactly what it meant when a Trek captain orders maximum warp on the way to a distant destination. Given that the sustainable cruise speed is generally not the maximum attainable speed, I always took this to mean that we're going there at the highest speed that we can maintain for as long as it takes to reach this specific destination. Therefore, if you start at Earth and order maximum warp to two different locations, you'll travel at two different sustainable speeds depending on how far you've got to go.

Enterprise, as I understand it, only rarely attains warp 5, and after being forced to steal a replacement warp coil in season 3, couldn't go much beyond warp 3... and yet was cruising at this speed for long durations!

So, first question: what is Enterprises most efficient, maximum sustainable cruise speed?

Second question: what are the cruise and maximum sustainable speeds of the warp delta and Intrepid type half saucers?

Just how much faster is the Enterprise than other ships? Is the warp 5 maximum impressive because the next fastest ship can only do warp 2? Or is it because it's another milestone achieved on the warp ladder (the next fastest ship does warp 4?).

I ask the second question because, if Enterprise only cruises at, say warp 3, and either of the other two types have a maximum speed of warp 3 or 4, then why did they only send one ship into the expanse when it's possible that many ship types cruise at similar speeds, and Enterprise didn't travel at warp 5 all the way to the expanse or through it.

Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343

 - posted      Profile for Shik     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the rest of the fleet was warp 2 or 2.5-capable only; there was some episode where Forrest told Archer that while another ship was closer, it would take like 5 days to get there whereas Enterprise was like 3 LY farther out but could close the gap quicker & be at the destination in about 36 hours. Might've been the one where they go after the Denobulan geologists.

Remember the episode with the Mazarites:

Archer: "We need to go faster, Commander."
Trip: "This is about all i can give you right now, Captain."
Archer: "It's called a warp-5 engine for a reason, Trip..."
Trip: "Yeah, on PAPER...! We've never tried to GO that fast! No idea what might happen!"

Also, just because my car CAN do 130 MPH doesn't mean I GO that fast all the time. (as much as I might want to)

--------------------
"The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"

Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Lurker Emeritus
Member
Member # 1888

 - posted      Profile for Lurker Emeritus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That dialogue implies that Enterprise started out with only a theoretical maximum of warp 5, similar to many existing and past fast jets. Many mach 2 jets in the 70's never actually achieved that speed operationally, mostly because the pilots never pushed them that hard and rarely had good reason to try.

I take your point about the car, but in the case of starships, where speed is everything, does it seem unreasonable to build a vessel which cruises at it's maximum attainable speed?

In fact, there are strong arguments that cruise speed is far more important than maximum speed, as you only "sprint" very rarely. There are engine designs and layouts, mostly combined diesel and gas turbine or just diesel and diesel types which permit a constant, very high cruise speed to be maintained at the expense of being able to travel much faster, or to be able to accelerate very quickly.

Example: a certain nuclear powered cruiser in the USN in the 80's (I cannot recall the name) took part in a traditional race across the pacific with other fleet units. This vessel had a maximum speed of 25 knots only, compared to the 30 or more of it's competitors. However, unlike it's "dirt burner" competitors, this vessel cruised at 25 knots continously thanks to it's nuclear powerplant. So, when the race started, all the other ships rapidly disappeared over the horizon, but after a few hours they all had to slow to 18 or 20 knots. But the nuke cruiser just kept going and going and going at 25 and won the race.

If I had the choice of building a continuous cruise warp 5 or a cruise warp 3 and sprint 6 or 7, give me warp 5.

So, you reckon most other ships can't do more than 2.5? Including the half saucer/Intrepid? I thought she looked faster than that. Maybe at least warp 3 with those big chunky nacelles. Yes, they look antiquated alongside the Enterprise, but such is the march of technology that, where once we needed serious heavy industrial might to achieve a thing, in the future we can do the same or better with smaller and lower powered devices. I imagined that Intrepid "battered" it's way up to the kind of speeds Enterprise just glides along at.

Ok, blithering now. Bed time ;-)

Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timo
Moderator
Member # 245

 - posted      Profile for Timo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One would assume the Boomer ships cruised at their maximum velocity, if that is what the hard mathematics of their style of commerce dictated. After all, they were much slower than the competing alien freighters to begin with, so they might not have the luxury of choosing their speed for optimal fuel consumption.

Military vessels would have more use for separate "cruise" and "dash" settings, and indeed most if not all Trek technofic assumes a clear distinction between those. On the other hand, we know from various alien interventions and harebrained experiments that Starfleet-style warp engines can easily improve their performance by hundreds or thousands of percent, usually simply by feeding more power to the coils. Yet such extreme speeds always give strokes to the engineers...

I would thus surmise that the underlying technology of warp drive favors cruising at certain sustainable speeds and brief excursions to higher speeds, and is thus more analogous to COGAG propulsion than to nuclear propulsion.

Timo Saloniemi

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Several factors regarding the other Starfleet ships- come to bear:

First, Starfleet could not send additional ships into the expanse (regardless of their capibilities) because their first priority was to defend Earth from another attack.
Even at warp 2, a starship can cover a whole planet from a single attacker...starfleet had two for that job.
They likely were upgraded with whatever weapons were available while Enterprise waws out with the olive branch.

Second, the Intrepid and Iceland probably recieved engine upgrades over the span of the show- neither ship would have been able to keep pace with Enterprise until later seasons (and by then, the NX-02 was nearing completion.

As to "cruise speed", it seems that a high cruise speed requires more maintence and downtime at a starbase: the Enterprise D only cruised along at (their warpscale) warp 6 most of the time.
Defiant too as I recall- even during wartime conditions.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ritten
A Terrible & Sick leek
Member # 417

 - posted      Profile for Ritten     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why more maintenance time though, there are not a lot of moving parts like an ICE, the dueterium pumps, but I can not imagine that those are all that big and would need a starbase. The AM is all moved in magnetic suspension, the M/AMRC has adjustable nozzles, but once those are set I don't see them moving much either.

--------------------
"You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus
"Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers
A leek too, pretty much a negi.....

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It just seems a "wear and tear" issue- on Trek, you always see engineers doing "routine maintence" on whatever under normal conditions...pushing the engines constantly would hardly be "normal".
Overloaded systems and not enough power for other powerhog systems might concievably happen.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timo
Moderator
Member # 245

 - posted      Profile for Timo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Phantasms" was pretty explicit about repeated dashes at high warp being exceptional for Starfleet vessels in peacetime. Probably the analogy to WWI or WWII era navies holds to a great degree: if you decide to order flank speed, you better write down a damn good reason for it in the log book or your head will roll.

quote:
They likely were upgraded with whatever weapons were available while Enterprise waws out with the olive branch.
I'd say ships like Intrepid actually got top-notch weaponry before the Enterprise. They already had phase beams in "The Expanse", after all... NX-01 might have been armed from the bottom of the barrel originally, due to the haste by which she was launched, and only caught up with the rest of the fleet when refitted for the Expanse mission.

In contrast, I'd like to think that the likes of Intrepid could not easily be refitted for warp 5 speed, or else one of them would have been used for mounting the original warp 5 engine. NX-01 was similar, but not that similar... The twin booms with their fancy turbochargers apparently were vital for the warp 5 magic. And Starfleet resources at the time probably were stretched to the max just in completing the first two Enterprise class ships, and then perhaps the two more that Archer said were "on the drawing boards".

Timo Saloniemi

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Intresting notions- particularly about the NX-01's armaments.
Archer lamented how he foolishly felt the Enterprise should not have been carrying so much weaponry back when their exploration mission started...maybe there was a faction in Starfleet that agreed with this sentiment for peaceful exploration.
Maybe a holdover from the "no miltary" sentiment after WWIII?

While I dount Intrepid could be "esaily refitted to warp 5", I do think a lot of what was learned by Enterprise's travels would have been hastily incorperated into whatever "home guard" ships Starfleet had at it's disposal.

as to sustained warp speeds, I always figured this was where your three and four nacelled starships come into play- less workload per nacelle allowing for greater duration at a given speed for scouting/exploration.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lurker Emeritus
Member
Member # 1888

 - posted      Profile for Lurker Emeritus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've always had the impression that three and four nacelled ships get a bad press. The various literatures seem to portray them as difficult and problematic in comparison to the reigning twin nacelled ships. I don't know why, particularly. Constitution class snobbery? Anything that doesn't have two nacelles on upward pointing struts ain't proper trek?

For instance, the Cheyenne class, which is very rarely featured anywhere from what I can tell, is often talked down in the fiction as being a poor design with severe limitations.

At least, this is the impression I've had. Personally, I always really liked the general layout of the Constellation (and the name), mostly for it's believable symmetry but also because I was thinking along the same lines as Jason; that there must be real performance advantages of some sort.

btw, in regard to configurations, is there some treknology reason why the ramscoops must be positioned on the nacelles? Many of the very early pre-federation concept designs that have been around since before Enterprise aired don't have them. This seems to free up the designers somewhat. There's one design which is a flattened sphere with two sticks coming out of the back! Unfortunately, I've mislaid the website.

Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timo
Moderator
Member # 245

 - posted      Profile for Timo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Multinacellers might get labeled poor performers because that is a convenient excuse for the fact that they are seldom seen on screen...

I rather like to think of nacelles as near-perfect analogies to propellers. One is enough, but two gives maneuverability and redundancy. Three helps channel more power, but is clumsy. And four is just overdoing it, except when your powerplants have evolved faster than your propellers and have excess power to deliver - but you really want to develop better propellers, too, not just more of the same.

The role of the ramscoops is really fuzzy. How much do they contribute to the ship's fuel supply? A nice-to-have 2% extra? A vital 98% of normal use? Why is this fuel taken in through the nacelles and not through some hull spot closer to the actual fuel tanks - because they are a convenient location for the scoops, or because they directly use up whatever the scoops scoop, or because they directly make possible for the scoops to function?

Originally, those things weren't scoops at all, of course. They were something analogous to jet intakes, perhaps, or to the poles of a bar magnet. They might "suck in spacetime" so that the nacelles could spit it out again from the other end. FJ labeled them "sink/acquisition", to match the nacelle rear ends that were "source/restoration" - using both the bar magnet analogy (sink/source) and the jet engine one (acquire/restore).

Perhaps even modern technobabble ought to treat the ramscoops as jet intakes to some degree. They can suck in hydrogen like the books say, yeah - but somehow it must go directly to the nacelle in order to be useful, thereby justifying the placement.

That spheroid-and-sticks would be Sternbach art for the Spaceflight Chronology cruisers of Mann class. No hint of ramscoops there - but then again, we don't see the bow of that ship. For all we know, the sticks go right through the spheroid, and the front ends are visible in forward view and free to scoop in hydrogen...

Timo Saloniemi

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've always thought the Ramscoops/Bussard Collectors/Red Glowy thinges were useful but not vital by any means to the nacelle's function- indeed a generation or two of starships either dont use the tech at all or use something far more low-key (possibly for stealth purposes in the "cold war" era with the Klingons).

Kinda like having solar panels on a nuclear powered spaceprobe- not vital, but why turn down a free energy source?

On smaller starships (Defiant, Nova, Runabouts etc.) the ramscoops might be more of a vital use than an arbitray one....I suppose the ship might use the intake to constantly analize the surrounding space (that old "follow their ion trail for example).

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Neutrino 123
Member
Member # 1327

 - posted      Profile for Neutrino 123     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I too thought that the four-nacelled ships were better at long-range cruising (though presumably inefficient for most other things, the Galaxy class not having them). Aren't they all long-range explorer class ships, or am I confusing things?

--------------------
Neutrino 123 (pronounced Neutrino One-Two-Three)

Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that's the thing, aside from the Stargazer, we really dont know anything about the role of multi-nacelled starships.
They cant suck designwise, or no one would build something as huge as a Niagara or Chyenne.
Even that "Medusa" would be a huge undertaking in manpower/rescources and would have to serve more than designer's curiosity.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

 - posted      Profile for Sol System     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A Cheyenne is only a little longer than an Intrepid, at least by Bernd's reckoning, and would seem to have less internal volume.
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3