Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

"Quadrant" means something different depending on which Star Trek series. In TOS, there were many many quadrants in the galaxy, but in STNG there are only four: Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma.

The linear warp speed scale of TOS made more sense than the warp-10 maximum scale later on. With the 10-maximum scale, it's hard to say how fast one warp factor is compared to another. For example, how much faster is warp 9.9 compared to warp 9.8? Is it just 1% faster, or is more like 10 times faster? How do you calculate the actual speed?

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

I have it on DVD. (Of course he would) They were attacked by some race on some planet and suffored a lot of casualities.

I saw the original B&W version when I was a kid. I thought to myself... they made this in the 60's, what visionaries.

They lost that visionary aspect of the show when they turned to treknobable.

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

I'd go for exhausts myself, there seems no reason for Tachyons other than they're a sci-fi standard. Everyone uses them when they need a clever particle.

Exhausts at least give you clever options and more to work with story wise, whereas if you start being consistent with tachyons cloaks are either easy to penetrate or very very hard to.

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

Warp 9.9 is quite a bit faster than 9.8. I have never been able to find an exact formula, but I haven't tried since 8th grade or so. Here's the approximate breakdown of the interger warp speeds:
Warp 1 - 1 times the speed of light
2 - 10
3 - 39
4 - 102
5 - 214
6 - 392
7 - 656
8 - 1024
9 - 1516
They used an Excel spreadsheet to calculate them.

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

Suggestion: I make an ongoing list of stuff, then make polls every now and then.

Current list: Linear or exponential warp. Tachyons or exhaust to penatrate cloak or tachyons and exhaust. Many quadrants or four quadrants. Artificial gravity or no artificial gravity. Time travel or no time travel. Q or no Q. Borg or no Borg.

Comments?

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

Sounds like a plan. Maybe throw in neither for the cloak qustion.

Don't know why I didn't think of google earlier, but here is a link to a warp factor calculator.

http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_warpcalc.html

Seems fairly acurate for TNG, I don't know TOS warp factors.
9.8 = 4472 times the speed of light
9.9 = 6555
approximately

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

Warp should be exponential. Otherwise, at the really high speeds, you get odd situations with slightly fluctuating warp speeds (say, between 276 and 280 or so), it seems kinda awkward when synchronizing speeds (and especially acceleration), moreover, it just sounds wierd.

Tachyons are supposed to be FTL particles according to ST lore. Me, I believe in "tachyons" in RL, but I think they have little place in sci-fi, even if it would be just because of the fact that IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CAPTURE AND UTILIZE A TACHYON. Exhaust, temperature, seems right but what makes more sense to me; gravitic distortions. Each object emits gravity, and in the near-vacuum of space, the gravity emitted by a cloaked ship would be almost laughably easy to find. However, you might get interference from such things as dark matter clumps, but that aside..... I say go with gravitic sensors to detect cloaked ships.

Look at the word; "quadrant". Look at the first four letters; "quad". Exactly. Sure, you'll have smaller dividers (like Sections, Regions, Sectors, Vicinities (i.e. Badlands vicinity), Systems, Orbits), but "quadrant" implies "one of four sections".

Maybe TNG featured a gravity generator (like that abomination Enterprise does), DS9 features gravity plating. Trust me, I have the DS9 Technical Manual so I guess that counts as canon. Gravity plating consists of a large net of gravity generators..... each about the length of a US football. I say either a gravity (well) generator, or zero-G, mag-boots and a warp core which emits a gravity well allowing people to walk on it.

No time travel. Reasons? Well, for one it is physically impossible and plainly stupid. Time travel is generally stupid, except in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, and perhaps some other sources I don't know about.

Q = God. ST = science. Q =/= ST.

Borg..... well, possibly. Only then A.) they use nanoprobes for a heck of a lot more tasks than just assimilation, or B.) their ships are (partially) organic. No Borg Queen, no Locutus. Both are plainly stupid.

*****

Also, for purposes of avoiding fits of rage, Enterprise (shudder) is considered to be absolutely non-canon. I mean, they made First Contact with the Ferengi, the Romulans and the Xindi. The Romulans were only first encountered in TOS, the Ferengi in TNG and the Xindi weren't encountered at all in later series. Enterprise = biggest [censored section is five pages long] to ever have been broadcast under the Star Trek moniker. And don't give me that "Enterprise isn't ST 'cause there's no ST in the title" sh***, Enterprise has warp drives, Zephram Cochrane, and the Vulcans. Hence, Enterprise is ST. Enterprise is NOT canon. [/rant]

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

The TNG manual has gravity generators in it. Enterprise-D uses 1200 total, 800 in the saucer, split into two sections and 400 in the Battle/Engineering section also split into two sections. They are also tied to the Inertial Dampeners. They are only 25cm high and 50cm in diameter, and apperently effective to 30 meters.

Sounds like these, or a smaller version, make up the gravity plating for DS9. I don't think it matters too much which way we go.

Do we want to change things in the ST universe, or just get rid of the things that contradict each other?

I second the motion for no time travel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

Exciting stuff.

But instead of revising Star Trek, why don't you just create your own sci-fi universe based on your discussions here and populate it with your own 'plausible' technologies, races, etc?

Re: OT: Revised Edition Star Trek
 

Well, I want a rational ST that I can like without having to ignore these jarring plot holes.