Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
01-27-2012, 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
ok so why not?
The thing in Trek V was a one-off. It was later expanded on in a non-canon book (it was like an evil Q).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
they both live at the centre of the galaxy, they are both giant floating heads. they both bring people to them.

im not saying they are, but is there some reason to rule the possibility out?
Yes. There are no canonical links between the two. Now, if you want to think they're related for some non-canon story you're writing, that's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelchall
That does equate to between warp 7 and 8, if each integer increase from warp 1 is ten times faster than the number before it.

Warp 1 = 26,000 years
Warp 2 = 2,600 years
Warp 3 = 260 years
Warp 4 = 26 years
Warp 5 = 2.6 years
Warp 6 = .26 years (94.9 days)
Warp 7 = .026 years (9.49 days)
Warp 8 = .0026 years (.949 days)
Except this isn't how the warp scale works. Based on the scale they used for Trek V (the TNG revamped scale)

Warp 1 = 1 cochrane = c (the speed of light)
Warp 2 = 10 cochrane = 10c
Warp 3 = 39 cochrane = 39c
Warp 4 = 102 cochranes = 102c
Warp 5 = 214 cochranes = 214c
Warp 6 = 392 cochranes = 392c
Warp 7 = 656 cochranes = 656c
Warp 8 = 1024 cochranes = 1024c
Warp 9 = 1516 cochranes = 1516c

The Enterprise-A was limited to Warp 7. At warp 7, using the scale above, it would take 39.6 years to travel from Earth to the center of the galaxy. In other words, all those old fogeys on the Enterprise would have been dead, except Spock and Sybok.


As for Voyager...

70,000 light years at warp 9 should take 46.17 years based on the TNG warp scale. It's not the warp scales that are inconsistent, it's the writers. The Warp scale was redone for TNG and supposedly hasn't changed. It's the writers who keep ignoring it that cause problems.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
01-27-2012, 12:04 PM
If they're smart, both barriers are involved in the Iconian plotline. We'll see how far ahead they've looked as that progresses.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
01-27-2012, 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarnin View Post
The barrier that we saw in Trek V, the one at the center of the galaxy? Yeah, that was ~26,000 light years from Earth. And the Enterprise made it there in the span of a day or two.
Well lets not forgetting that when they traveled to the Galactic Barrier in TOS, it was in a short time too. So these are times where Hollywood skips out on reality for the sake of action.


Never know, maybe there was a wormhole involved?


I gotta finish this Galactic STO map, you be surprised on certan things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
remember the TNG ep where they made barclay super smart and they went off to the centre of the galaxy.

they met those other giant floating head things. was that meant to be the same creature as 'god'
Technically, no.

But you do bring up a every interesting possibility. Cryptic very could rewrite it that "god" could've been a rogue Cytherian. If you think about it, how did Sybok get the visions in the first place? Maybe he encountered the Rogue Cytherian's probe and it pointed him to Sha-Ka-Ree.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
01-27-2012, 12:12 PM
We have Transwarp and Quantum Slipstream drive. The Galactic Barrier should be no problem!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
01-27-2012, 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarnin View Post
70,000 light years at warp 9 should take 46.17 years based on the TNG warp scale. It's not the warp scales that are inconsistent, it's the writers. The Warp scale was redone for TNG and supposedly hasn't changed. It's the writers who keep ignoring it that cause problems.
I disagree and agree in some odd ways.

I agree that the conflict is between the writers and their technical documents. But I think the problem is the degree to which Star Trek pushed its technical documents in terms of detail and that they started hinging story premises around technical documents rather than character emotions and philosophical ideas.

Trek is a franchise full of new age crystals and telepathy. Adherence to technical accuracy is a self-defeating proposition. You should have the illusion of accuracy formed by competent technicians and engineers but the problem was always with getting so specific with it that plots could be validated or invalidated based on their adherence to technical details.

Things like stardates and warpdrive were designed to give writers a quasi-plausible handwave for the technical details of reality, not constrain them to reality.

I'm not saying Trek is pure fantasy like Star Wars. It should allude to science or pseudoscience but it never should have become so reliant on its own fantasy rules that its situations or plots become governed by it.

This also goes back to a major flaw in the Voyager premise and one of the first nails in the coffin of Berman Trek: they never should have had a series based on a technical problem. Being lost could have become an interesting emotional problem (and did on occasion) but they shied away from that in favor of technical problems and that's one reason why a guy like Ron Moore wound up wasted on Voyager and then went on to create the superior (if, geez, way too gloomy) Battlestar with a lot of his rejected ideas.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
01-27-2012, 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
But you do bring up a every interesting possibility. Cryptic very could rewrite it that "god" could've been a rogue Cytherian. If you think about it, how did Sybok get the visions in the first place? Maybe he encountered the Rogue Cytherian's probe and it pointed him to Sha-Ka-Ree.
I think Sybok presents fun and interesting story challenges. I kinda hate that people's reaction to a "bad" Star Trek movie is to handwave it away.

And, c'mon, really, STV was more like TOS than any of the other movies. Any of the other movies with that crew were very different in tone from TOS. STV was like a two hour TOS episode. Maybe not a great episode in all respects but like an episode.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
01-27-2012, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I disagree and agree in some odd ways.

I agree that the conflict is between the writers and their technical documents. But I think the problem is the degree to which Star Trek pushed its technical documents in terms of detail and that they started hinging story premises around technical documents rather than character emotions and philosophical ideas.

Trek is a franchise full of new age crystals and telepathy. Adherence to technical accuracy is a self-defeating proposition. You should have the illusion of accuracy formed by competent technicians and engineers but the problem was always with getting so specific with it that plots could be validated or invalidated based on their adherence to technical details.

Things like stardates and warpdrive were designed to give writers a quasi-plausible handwave for the technical details of reality, not constrain them to reality.

I'm not saying Trek is pure fantasy like Star Wars. It should allude to science or pseudoscience but it never should have become so reliant on its own fantasy rules that its situations or plots become governed by it.

This also goes back to a major flaw in the Voyager premise and one of the first nails in the coffin of Berman Trek: they never should have had a series based on a technical problem. Being lost could have become an interesting emotional problem (and did on occasion) but they shied away from that in favor of technical problems and that's one reason why a guy like Ron Moore wound up wasted on Voyager and then went on to create the superior (if, geez, way too gloomy) Battlestar with a lot of his rejected ideas.
Science Fiction is supposed to follow technical and scientific knowledge. In other words, it's supposed to follow established rules. Once you start allowing writers to bend and break rules, it ceases to be science fiction and gets lumped into the generalized category of "speculative fiction", which includes fantasy, horror, space opera, alternative history and a bunch of others.

Trek is science fiction. They have technical writers that spend hundred or even thousands of hours coming up with realistic rules for the writers to follow. However, most writers don't like to be constrained by other people's rules, and a lot of writers simply don't care. That's what producers are for. They're the ones who OK a story based on it's content.
Trek had a lot of episodes that blatantly broke their own rules, and it's because the producers stopped caring about them and only cared about pushing out more episodes. I think the Voyager episode "Threshold" is the perfect example of this, but I can rattle off half a dozen other examples from other series off the top of my head.

The point is, science fiction is supposed to follow rules, and those rules are generally based on real-world science and/or modified futuristic science that is based on modern science. Once you throw this simple concept out the window, you're no longer writing science fiction. It's still speculative fiction, but it is not science fiction.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
01-27-2012, 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarnin View Post
Science Fiction is supposed to follow technical and scientific knowledge. In other words, it's supposed to follow established rules. Once you start allowing writers to bend and break rules, it ceases to be science fiction and gets lumped into the generalized category of "speculative fiction", which includes fantasy, horror, space opera, alternative history and a bunch of others.

Trek is science fiction. They have technical writers that spend hundred or even thousands of hours coming up with realistic rules for the writers to follow. However, most writers don't like to be constrained by other people's rules, and a lot of writers simply don't care. That's what producers are for. They're the ones who OK a story based on it's content.
Trek had a lot of episodes that blatantly broke their own rules, and it's because the producers stopped caring about them and only cared about pushing out more episodes. I think the Voyager episode "Threshold" is the perfect example of this, but I can rattle off half a dozen other examples from other series off the top of my head.

The point is, science fiction is supposed to follow rules, and those rules are generally based on real-world science and/or modified futuristic science that is based on modern science. Once you throw this simple concept out the window, you're no longer writing science fiction. It's still speculative fiction, but it is not science fiction.
I don't think being science fiction is important if it takes away from the story.

And I'm not suggesting total abandon.

I'm saying adhere to rules, yes, absolutely. But don't keep proposing new ones to fence your writers in.

I say this as a Bradbury guy who thinks the Assimov wing of sci-fi is entertaining but goes a bit too far... and I don't think you can be a pop culture icon while operating at Assmovian levels of adherence.

Sci-fi is a spectrum. Star Trek isn't exactly at the deep end of that spectrum.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
01-27-2012, 12:40 PM
There's more than enough "Galactic Barriers" in-game already with the sector walls. :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
01-27-2012, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
Sci-fi is a spectrum. Star Trek isn't exactly at the deep end of that spectrum.
I totally agree. There is such a thing as "hard" and "soft" science fiction. Trek usually falls into the category of "soft" science fiction because the writers in the 60's and 80's, in particular, were a bunch of new age hippies that, like you said, believed in crystal power and all sorts of pseudoscience.

I tend to enjoy hard science fiction more than soft, but soft science fiction exists to get people interested in the genre. It's less stringent on rules, which is OK! StarGate is another franchise that is soft science fiction, and I loved those series (except for Universe).

But when I see people calling Star Wars science fiction, it drives me nuts. That is, in no way, science fiction. It's space opera, which is basically high fantasy that takes place in a futuristic setting.



But we should probably get back on topic...
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 PM.