Fleetyards: how many is enough?

[Vagabond Elf]

Tada, problem solved. I know fans would like to believe that every ship ever would get its own unique number, and I have no idea if that is being done in actual navies around the world. But if a future made-up navy wants to reuse numbers because it's easier, why not? It fixes a lot of issues if there actually are over a 100.000 ships.

It depends on the navy, but they all have some method of making sure each ship's number is unique. During World War 2, the RCN had to integrate with the RN, and so our ships used their system for pennant numbers: an arbitrary letter indicating the ship's class (for example, Flower-class corvettes used K whilst Tribal-class destroyers used H or I) followed by a two or three digit number. Nominally that number was just incremented by 1 when a new ship was laid down, but the Dominion navies were usually assigned blocks of numbers to use and the RN proper would sometimes skip numbers to obfuscate the total fleet strength.

With this system no two ships had exactly the same pennant number, but you might have a K100 and an H100.

The USN used a system whereby they combine the ship's classification code (two or three letters that describe what class ship it is) with the actual hull number. Thus you have CV-6 or CV-65, but you can also have CA-65 and FFG-65. To my knowledge, the USN doesn't reuse numbers.

Post World War 2, the RCN shifted to a system that made intuitive sense to the USN but is really just a 3 digit number, with the hundreds digit indicating the ship type. So frigates are 3XX, and HMCS Halifax is pennant number 330. This can also be written as FFH 330, which makes interoperability with the USN easier, but there's no hyphen because the "FFH" part isn't actually part of the number, and there will never be another ship with "330" painted on the side.

Unless, of course, we use up all the numbers; I doubt that will happen anytime soon but they'll need to change the system if it does. Though I suspect it'll be like license plates and just add another digit to the end.


As for the original question, I'd solve it in more or less the same way as another poster suggested but from a different angle:

First, I'd remember that this is fiction. In the real world, this would be solved by logistical and engineering factors that can't really be changed. In my headcanon, or your headcanon, or the official canon, because it's fiction, the authors decide what those constraints are, and can adjust them to suit their story and setting.

Next: decide how many ships are active in your Starfleet, and what percentage of them are undergoing refit at any given moment. You could average this across the fleet, or you could do a dive into individual ship classes. Whatever makes you happy. In the real world, the USN tries to have 67% of its carrier groups ready for sea at all times, but only 50% of the ballistic missile submarines are. In World War 2, the RN tried to have 75% of the fleet ready for sea. Whatever fraction you pick - though I think somewhere between 25 and 35% of the fleet being "in refit" or undergoing repair at any given moment feels about right - you need that many slipways in your shipyards just to maintain the fleet.

Then: decide how many ships per year are being built. You've said you like 700-1,000 new ships per year. Now, multiply that by the number of years you need to build a ship. (Again, you could average this, or you could go deep on individual classes.) If it takes, on average, two years to build a ship, then to build 1,000 ships per year you need 2,000 slipways. If it only takes half a year then you need 500 slipways.

Now decide how many "extra" slipways there are in case of emergency. This number depends on how risk tolerant and resource wealthy your Starfleet is. A fleet with lots of resources can have slipways sitting idle. A fleet with comparatively little resources cannot. (This has nothing to do with money, per se - even in Star Trek, it takes materials and energy to build ships and bases and the Fleet could have lots of those materials, or not quite enough, whichever fits your setting.)

Add all this up and you know how many slipways you need. Now, just decide how many slipways are in each yard. Again, you could simply average it across the Federation, or you could make a really deep dive into individual yards. Either way, divide the number of slipways by the number of slipways per yard, and you now have a number for how many yards you need.

You can go one step further, if you like: determine how many ships Starfleet retires each year so you know how much the fleet is growing by each year, and now you know how many new slipways you need to add each year just to keep up.

Me personally, I like to play in the between TOS and TMP period, and I believe in a "small" fleet of perhaps 100 ships, with a construction rate of 4 to 6 per year, an average build time of three years, and a slowly expanding fleet (at the rate of 2 to 3 ships per year). If 1/3 of the fleet is in refit at any given time, then I need 33 slipways for refits, plus 12 to 18 for new construction, giving me 45 to 48 slipways. Plus two to three per year. I like a resource-constrained Starfleet, so there's only going to be one or two slipways sitting idle - in an emergency, an under-construction or under-refit ship would be delayed to free up the slipway. No idea how many slipways per yard, though, but you see how the math sorts out.

 

[Deks]

A few thoughts:

Warp 9.9 has varying speed estimates, to go back to an earlier post here. 3048 times the speed of light is the lowest quoted figure (somewhat at odds with some of Tom Paris' statements, in contrast)

Starfleet does probably have a reserve force of vessels, and some may be directly assigned to UESPA instead of the main fleet. That may be where prefixes like NAR and NSP come in. It seems unlikely there was a full 6000 fully commissioned starships all with full registries by 2258, but it is also not impossible, meanwhile (Besides the registry issues)

And the climb in registries from around 2350-70 does seem to be an average of 450 a year, before flattening steeply out to less than 300, meantime. Surely it was much higher thirty years prior, however.

No hard numbers for the number of worlds in the Federation exist, meanwhile - but the old Star Charts book does suggest 7312, by 2379. Spread perhaps over more than 2000 sectors.

Warp 9.9 was actually stated by Tom Paris on-screen to be 4 billion miles per second, which translates to 21,473 x LS.

Warp 9.75 however is something that Voy was able to sustain for only 12 hrs. (9.975 was utterly unattainable) - this was actually mentioned in 'The Swarm' episode.

Warp 9.975 was mentioned as a cruising speed for VOY, but this was NEVER actually seen on-screen. Voy predominantly cruised at Warp 6 (which would translate to about 1,000 x LS).

The ENT-D was mostly limited to a maximum of Warp 9.6 for 12 hrs.
So Voy having 9.975 for 12 hrs seems like a reasonable progression based on the premise its about 7 to 10 years more advanced design (though the Galaxy class would also benefit from similar tech improvements once it undergoes refits).

Although, if VOY cruising speed was actually Warp 9.975, the speeds would be utterly ridiculous since Warp speeds double in velocity with every increment past Warp 9.9 (and similarly power expenditure).

9.9 = 21,473 x LS
9.91 = 42,946 x LS
9.92 = 85,892 x LS
9.93 = 171,784 x LS
9.94 = 343,568 x LS
9.95 = 687,136 x LS
9.96 = 1,374,272 x LS
9.97 = 2,748,544 x LS

Heck, at 9.97, Voy would cross through 7,530 Ly's per DAY... meaning that the ship would at that speed return to Federation space in just 10 days (9.975 would return the ship in about a week to UFP space).

By those numbers, Voy should have been pushed about 206,133,750 ly's away to get back to the Milky Way and UFP space at a CRUISING speed of Warp 9.97 (and arguably a MUCH more interesting twist to the Voy story, because it would illustrate a MASSIVE progression in SF Warp propulsion for which the Intrepid could have been a test bed for).

Anyway, I still maintain that 74,000 odd ships in the 24th century for an organisation spanning 8,000 Lys that has almost 1 Trillion beings living in it is too small.

You'd need millions of ships to effectively defend this space given the average cruising speeds (despite that sensors go on for ly's) or even if ships were travelling at Warp 9 frequently (warp 9 would translate to about 3,000 times LS - whereas 9.6 would be about 10,000 to 15,000 x LS) - sensors are fine, but you need speed to be able to react appropriately for this, and anything below Warp 9.9 simply won't cut it probably.
With 7 million ships staying closer to home (inside UFP space), while 3 million are out exploring, you can actually dedicate significant fleet efforts and rotate ships from one part of space to another to give them a change in scenery, crew rotations. etc.)

If you want a more average Warp 9 speed (because most ships in TNG era wouldn't go much past Warp 9 anyway), it would still take a ship 2.6 years (approximately) to cross through about 8,000 Ly's

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Heck, at 9.97, Voy would cross through 7,530 Ly's per DAY... meaning that the ship would at that speed return to Federation space in just 10 days (9.975 would return the ship in about a week to UFP space).

Energy Consumption just to Power the Warp Drive / Power the M/A-M Reactor is a problem.

Remember, the normal power consumption goes up exponentially as well with huge spikes at the beginning of each Warp Factor as well.

Spoiler: Warp Factor relative to Power Consumption Spikes needed

Spoiler: Warp Factor Scale w/ Power Consumption taken from ST:TNG Technical Manual w/ my annotations.

Spoiler: Clean Version of the Warp Factor to Power Usage Scale

Spoiler: TNG Era Warp Factor Scale w/ my annotations using my WF Scale 3.0, no hand drawn curve to infinity.

You can start to see why the Galaxy Class was starting to run out of Energy to go faster and why the ProtoStar needed so much energy just to "Go Fast".

They didn't figure out how to lower the basic fundamental Power Consumption like Soliton Wave Driver did by using Soliton Energy to Power the Soliton Wave Rider's Warp Nacelles.
That sucker had a 98% Energy Efficiency when converted from Soliton Wave Energy to power the Soliton Wave Rider's Warp Nacelles.

ST:TNG - New Ground

"La Forge reports that the power efficiency of the wave is 98 percent. Data remarks that is 450% more efficient than their own warp engines."

The Galaxy Class Warp Engines are 21.778% energy efficient in converting Electro-Plasma to a Warp Field and going FTL
One of the main reasons in my 26th Century Head Canon that they can go faster, is that StarFleet figures out how to convert EPS to Soliton Energy to Power the Warp Nacelles for a 99% overall EPS -> Soliton Energy -> Warp Nacelle -> Energy Efficient Warp Flight
That's about 131 years to work out the kinks, and deploy the end result across the all StarFleet ships to allow it to travel faster, with more energy efficiency, at higher Warp Speeds, and with out having to up-size the reactor by a crazy amount.
But make a more energy efficient reactor for the size of the vessel and converting that energy efficiently in all aspects of life.

StarFleet in the 24th century has a huge "Energy Conversion Efficiency" problem similar to how we can't seem to maximize Petrol -> make efficient Work compared to what's Theoretically Possible via the Carnot Theorem.

But that's another debate for a different subject.

But anyways, I agree with Deks that the current Fleet size of Thousands isn't enough to cover all of UFP Territory.

I've already posted what I think is necessary, but I'm of a different opinion than many others.

 

[Deks]

Energy Consumption just to Power the Warp Drive / Power the M/A-M Reactor is a problem.

Remember, the normal power consumption goes up exponentially as well with huge spikes at the beginning of each Warp Factor as well.

Spoiler: Warp Factor relative to Power Consumption Spikes needed

Spoiler: Warp Factor Scale w/ Power Consumption taken from ST:TNG Technical Manual w/ my annotations.

Spoiler: Clean Version of the Warp Factor to Power Usage Scale

Spoiler: TNG Era Warp Factor Scale w/ my annotations using my WF Scale 3.0, no hand drawn curve to infinity.

You can start to see why the Galaxy Class was starting to run out of Energy to go faster and why the ProtoStar needed so much energy just to "Go Fast".

They didn't figure out how to lower the basic fundamental Power Consumption like Soliton Wave Driver did by using Soliton Energy to Power the Soliton Wave Rider's Warp Nacelles.
That sucker had a 98% Energy Efficiency when converted from Soliton Wave Energy to power the Soliton Wave Rider's Warp Nacelles.

ST:TNG - New Ground

I'm aware that much like speed, power consumption increases exponentially past Warp 9.9 ...
That's why I said that if the Voyager was thrown about 206 million odd Ly's away from Earth instead, Warp 9.975 as a cruising speed and taking 75 years to return would actually make a lot more sense - that and the fact that the Intrepid could have signalled something really remarkable in starship propulsion - but the premise didn't go that far.

Hence why 9.975 as a 'cruising speed' (which was mentioned a few times in dialogue but never actually seen in practice) doesn't really work for VOY which was pushed into the DQ 75,000 LY's away (I mean, I can definitely see UFP/SF making a massive breakthrough in speeds and power generation in a decade, but obviously, the show never showed us UFP advancing that much - even though it 'technically' has the ability to do so).

9.75 being sustained for 12 hours is more in line with an incremental upgrade that you would expect for the Intrepid class seeing how the ENT-D was able to sustain 9.6 for 12 hrs (and these mods would likely find their way into the Galaxy class too in its next upgrade cycle).

The Galaxy Class Warp Engines are 21.778% energy efficient in converting Electro-Plasma to a Warp Field and going FTL
One of the main reasons in my 26th Century Head Canon that they can go faster, is that StarFleet figures out how to convert EPS to Soliton Energy to Power the Warp Nacelles for a 99% overall EPS -> Soliton Energy -> Warp Nacelle -> Energy Efficient Warp Flight
That's about 131 years to work out the kinks, and deploy the end result across the all StarFleet ships to allow it to travel faster, with more energy efficiency, at higher Warp Speeds, and with out having to up-size the reactor by a crazy amount.
But make a more energy efficient reactor for the size of the vessel and converting that energy efficiently in all aspects of life.

131 years is too long though if you ask me.
With incremental improvements being done once every 7 odd years it would take about 108 years for SF to achieve 99% efficiency, which IS close to your own estimate... but this timeline could be otherwise drastically reduced.

SF really needs to start using their computer cores for these breakthroughs, because they could be achieved in a fraction of the time.

Heck, with a single computer core of USS VOY specs SF can leverage its 575 trillion calculations per nanosecond and 47 million data channels to rapidly iterate and test designs in a sandboxed virtual environment, factoring in ship-specific modifications and mission data. With these conditions, the computer could develop new scientific breakthroughs and customize efficiency upgrades across Starfleet (accounting for all their ship designs) in about 3 to 6 months of continuous computations (especially if you plug in the test data from the Soliton Waves research into the mix and what happened in TNG).

That's without using dozens or hundreds of these cores networked together in a parallelized fashion which would further reduce the time frames (and would actually represent a more realistic usage if you want to emulate larger data centres we have today).

The accuracy of these designs working as intended can be massively increased by leveraging SF's own database, mission reports, ships working in different environments, in nebulae, gravitational distortions, unexpected problems that arose during different missions, etc. so that the upgrades would basically have a guarantee of 99% working as intended if the computer is instructed to achieve that (and still within the same time frame as above).

Even practical tests being done on unmanned craft first would take an additional 2 months.
With upgrades being done on only a few crewed ships... another 3 months.

So, you're looking at 11 months total (or lets round it up to 1 year) for this to be done properly and until SF is ready to roll out these efficiency upgrades throughout the fleet.


The actual implementation of these changes would maybe take 2-3 weeks for something the size of a Galaxy class (software and hw).
Whereas for the Intrepid, 1-2 weeks.

This is without them using replicators and transporters wherever possible for actual hw changes (software is the easiest and quickest and could technically be done in the field). If they did, the timeline drops to about a half of that.


I think Trek needs to get with the times and actually make use of the advanced computing it has to make proper breakthroughs in realistically much shorter time frames.

What can otherwise be done in a century, can be done in just 1 year.
If they use more than 1 computer core for R&D, in a networked fashion, the R&D phase can again be reduced drastically but still maintain 99% accuracy for success integration (aka, that it works as proposed - after which you proceed with non manned tests etc.).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

SF really needs to start using their computer cores for these breakthroughs, because they could be achieved in a fraction of the time.

Heck, with a single computer core of USS VOY specs SF can leverage its 575 trillion calculations per nanosecond and 47 million data channels to rapidly iterate and test designs in a sandboxed virtual environment, factoring in ship-specific modifications and mission data. With these conditions, the computer could develop new scientific breakthroughs and customize efficiency upgrades across Starfleet (accounting for all their ship designs) in about 3 to 6 months of continuous computations (especially if you plug in the test data from the Soliton Waves research into the mix and what happened in TNG).

That's without using dozens or hundreds of these cores networked together in a parallelized fashion which would further reduce the time frames (and would actually represent a more realistic usage if you want to emulate larger data centres we have today).

The accuracy of these designs working as intended can be massively increased by leveraging SF's own database, mission reports, ships working in different environments, in nebulae, gravitational distortions, unexpected problems that arose during different missions, etc. so that the upgrades would basically have a guarantee of 99% working as intended if the computer is instructed to achieve that (and still within the same time frame as above).

Even practical tests being done on unmanned craft first would take an additional 2 months.
With upgrades being done on only a few crewed ships... another 3 months.

So, you're looking at 11 months total (or lets round it up to 1 year) for this to be done properly and until SF is ready to roll out these efficiency upgrades throughout the fleet.


The actual implementation of these changes would maybe take 2-3 weeks for something the size of a Galaxy class (software and hw).
Whereas for the Intrepid, 1-2 weeks.

This is without them using replicators and transporters wherever possible for actual hw changes (software is the easiest and quickest and could technically be done in the field). If they did, the timeline drops to about a half of that.


I think Trek needs to get with the times and actually make use of the advanced computing it has to make proper breakthroughs in realistically much shorter time frames.

What can otherwise be done in a century, can be done in just 1 year.
If they use more than 1 computer core for R&D, in a networked fashion, the R&D phase can again be reduced drastically but still maintain 99% accuracy for success integration (aka, that it works as proposed - after which you proceed with non manned tests etc.).

You're assuming linear progression of improvements, I'm not.

Real world isn't what you think it is, especially when it comes time to validate IRL and feed back real world data to then re-iterate, test, and validate again.

Simulations can only get you so far, especially since many of the simulations can only simulate a chunk of what needs to be simulated or don't have accurate physics models for what you're simulating.

Given how wide / diverse a population gets, I'm not counting on that kind of improvement rate for most things.

Otherwise, we wouldn't even need StarShips in the future, and you'd just teleport between everywhere you want like a Q.

At that point, we're not even watching the same show anymore.

 

[Deks]

You're assuming linear progression of improvements, I'm not.

Real world isn't what you think it is, especially when it comes time to validate IRL and feed back real world data to then re-iterate, test, and validate again.

Simulations can only get you so far, especially since many of the simulations can only simulate a chunk of what needs to be simulated or don't have accurate physics models for what you're simulating.

Given how wide / diverse a population gets, I'm not counting on that kind of improvement rate for most things.

Otherwise, we wouldn't even need StarShips in the future, and you'd just teleport between everywhere you want like a Q.

At that point, we're not even watching the same show anymore.

With the kind of processing capability that exists in Trek and their working understanding on Warp propulsion and tests conducted in regards to Soliton energy (not to mention SF/UFP database containing massive knowledge), the theoretical framework for simulations and testing greatly expands.

And I accounted for unmanned testing (which would allow real life tests on these designs).
All this process does is REDUCES the R&D stage. 2 months is more than enough for initial practical tests on unmanned craft, followed by usage in actual crewed ships (especially if the R&D accounts for existing starship designs and mods the crews have done to it in the field).

Oh and lets not forget that Warp drive is not reliable at all times either.
It works in normal space most of the time, and is arguably 'more reliable' vs other technologies, but even occasional hiccups can result in massive problems down the line... so Warp is hardly fool proof.
Also, the 'viability' of Warp drive was only established for in-universe story telling purposes and drama... its a pathetic excuse when we know that other forms of power generation and propulsion (far more powerful and efficient) exist and work reliably in universe (we both acknowledged that in the 32nd century Disco too easily dismissed these alternatives mainly for the purpose of drama and nothing else).

The fact that even in real life over 300,000 viable different materials were created by pairing current day LLM with just a robot is an indication how automated R&D can actually assist things and lead to reliable results far quicker (And that's just 1 example - there are others)... our main limitations today are mainly processing capabilities (which limit the number of simulations), and energy generation - but even we will overcome those deficiencies over time with better efficiencies and better power generation, and besides, our progress accelerates even faster because of these developments (even if we don't use it all the time).

We are more or less on the verge of quantum computing as is, and are using what could be termed 'primitive quantum computers' (if you can call them that) in real life for highly specific tasks.

In Trek, nothing is stopping SF from using their computers in pretty much the same ways but in a general sense.
While there will be limits to what can be done in simulations, you are assuming the knowledge base is staying the same and not expanding while R&D is conducted... and we know this isn't the case because even in real life automated R&D results in NEW scientific understanding and knowledge being created.

The principle would apply in Trek as well, especially when we factor in the fact that their computers can extrapolate things with relatively high precision from shockingly small data.

Also its not that starships would become obsolete. You can only use long range transportation to other viable locations that support humanoid life... to actually explore other regions such as nebulae, anomalies, etc... and to bring people there safely, you'd need very powerful ships capable of surviving such areas.


The problem I see here is that you think it would create a situation where too much progress was made in too short of a time and no viable story telling would be left to be told.
I disagree.

Quantum leaps in tech can occur, with SF retaining that level for a time and then make other large leaps further down the line. They probably wouldn't be using this all the time anyway - just often enough to push the limits further and easier when needed.

The writers would simply have to think harder on creating engaging stories for Trek in a more technologically evolved setting - but so what?
We know compelling stories can be told in a technologically advanced settings where conditions are laid out in advance to know what technology and knowledge you're working with.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

With the kind of processing capability that exists in Trek and their working understanding on Warp propulsion and tests conducted in regards to Soliton energy (not to mention SF/UFP database containing massive knowledge), the theoretical framework for simulations and testing greatly expands.

But you know how slow bureaucracy & safety protocols for testing goes, IRL testing also is a very time consuming task that can take years to validate just one aspect.

And I accounted for unmanned testing (which would allow real life tests on these designs).
All this process does is REDUCES the R&D stage. 2 months is more than enough for initial practical tests on unmanned craft, followed by usage in actual crewed ships (especially if the R&D accounts for existing starship designs and mods the crews have done to it in the field).

Have you seen how NASA & FAA goes about testing to make sure everything is accounted for, it's FAR slower once you get to the IRL validation phase.

Oh and lets not forget that Warp drive is not reliable at all times either.

I concur, that's why we should embrace all the various forms of FTL travel and use as appropriate.

It works in normal space most of the time, and is arguably 'more reliable' vs other technologies, but even occasional hiccups can result in massive problems down the line... so Warp is hardly fool proof.
Also, the 'viability' of Warp drive was only established for in-universe story telling purposes and drama... its a pathetic excuse when we know that other forms of power generation and propulsion (far more powerful and efficient) exist and work reliably in universe (we both acknowledged that in the 32nd century Disco too easily dismissed these alternatives mainly for the purpose of drama and nothing else).

That's why we should use them, in my 26th century head canon, we have a smorgasbord of FTL drives including the Spore Drive w/ proper limitations in place to account for everything.

The fact that even in real life over 300,000 viable different materials were created by pairing current day LLM with just a robot is an indication how automated R&D can actually assist things and lead to reliable results far quicker (And that's just 1 example - there are others)... our main limitations today are mainly processing capabilities (which limit the number of simulations), and energy generation - but even we will overcome those deficiencies over time with better efficiencies and better power generation, and besides, our progress accelerates even faster because of these developments (even if we don't use it all the time).

You still have to take the simulations, and try to implement them IRL.

Going from Simulation -> Lab Validation -> Mass Production are the hardest of stages.

Just because a simulation claims it's possible, doesn't mean it's actually possible.

Simulations can also miss things as well.

We are more or less on the verge of quantum computing as is, and are using what could be termed 'primitive quantum computers' (if you can call them that) in real life for highly specific tasks.

We'll see if Quantum Computing actually amounts to something, there are alot of skepticism behind it right now.

In Trek, nothing is stopping SF from using their computers in pretty much the same ways but in a general sense.
While there will be limits to what can be done in simulations, you are assuming the knowledge base is staying the same and not expanding while R&D is conducted... and we know this isn't the case because even in real life automated R&D results in NEW scientific understanding and knowledge being created.

It results in NEW "Potential Paths" to do IRL testing / research with.
It's not guranteed that anything the simulations point to is valid or that you gained any real Scientific Understanding from just running the simulation.

The principle would apply in Trek as well, especially when we factor in the fact that their computers can extrapolate things with relatively high precision from shockingly small data.

That's arguable, you have WAY too much faith in computer simulations.
Simulations are a starting point, but nothing compares to doing IRL validation & testing to compare with the potential simulation predictions.

Also its not that starships would become obsolete. You can only use long range transportation to other viable locations that support humanoid life... to actually explore other regions such as nebulae, anomalies, etc... and to bring people there safely, you'd need very powerful ships capable of surviving such areas.

True, but that's why we have progression in tech.

The problem I see here is that you think it would create a situation where too much progress was made in too short of a time and no viable story telling would be left to be told.
I disagree.

I'm more conservative about tech advancement given how much of it I've lived through and can see where things are going.

You're far more optimistic about it than I am & think it can go so far, really fast.

Quantum leaps in tech can occur, with SF retaining that level for a time and then make other large leaps further down the line. They probably wouldn't be using this all the time anyway - just often enough to push the limits further and easier when needed.

It's not as frequent as you would desire it to be.

The writers would simply have to think harder on creating engaging stories for Trek in a more technologically evolved setting - but so what?

You've seen the quality of "Hollywood Writers" in this day and age, tell me, what do you really think about them given the New Trek shows we've encountered?

We know compelling stories can be told in a technologically advanced settings where conditions are laid out in advance to know what technology and knowledge you're working with.

That takes somebody who can understand technology and know how to write with it in mind.

 

[Ithekro]

After hundreds of years, half of these other FTL designs would be forgotten about or lost in mountains of files and archives throughout the Federation. By the time of the Burn how many people would have heard about some random FTL experimental system designed seven hundred years prior to their existence? It is like any number of advanced concept designs from centuries past that couldn't work back then but came to work in the 19th or 20th century. How many of those were know by the people trying to get something working, and how many of them were dug up after something was working and a historian produced an old record saying it has been thought of before, even if the modern inventor was completely unaware of the centuries old concept?

 

[Tomalak]

Star Trek isn't about extrapolating a view of what the future might be like, and never has been. It's not that kind of sci-fi.

It was always about creating a relatable group of characters and settings to tell stories that are relevant to viewers. It was the WWII American navy crossed with 19th century exploration and Cold War politics.

And now it's gone on for so long that it's mainly about telling Star Trek stories - crews on ships meeting the aliens and characters we are familiar with.

This is why Disco's future setting was basically no different to the 23rd/24th century shows. Aside from some fancy window-dressing and lip service with "programmable matter", it was still a crew on a ship meeting familiar aliens with warp drive and transporters, telling relatable stories.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Star Trek isn't about extrapolating a view of what the future might be like, and never has been. It's not that kind of sci-fi.

It was always about creating a relatable group of characters and settings to tell stories that are relevant to viewers. It was the WWII American navy crossed with 19th century exploration and Cold War politics.

And now it's gone on for so long that it's mainly about telling Star Trek stories - crews on ships meeting the aliens and characters we are familiar with.

This is why Disco's future setting was basically no different to the 23rd/24th century shows. Aside from some fancy window-dressing and lip service with "programmable matter", it was still a crew on a ship meeting familiar aliens with warp drive and transporters, telling relatable stories.

Wasn't that always the same MO for the people side of the story?

The technological side-story that sits in the background is a diffrent thing.

It's usually about becoming better, able to do more, getting new features, functions, etc.

 

[Tomalak]

Wasn't that always the same MO for the people side of the story?

The technological side-story that sits in the background is a diffrent thing.

It's usually about becoming better, able to do more, getting new features, functions, etc.

Sure, but functionally in story terms it doesn't matter if you upgrade from warp drive to transwarp drive and get from Planet X to Planet Y in three days instead of three minutes, it's still just 30 seconds or the other side of an ad break for the TV viewer.

The Spore Drive was the extreme example of that, but it was still primarily a way of getting from A to B to help the plot along.

Could you get rid of the ship entirely? Probably. There's plenty of Portal tech in Star Trek, and we've seen long range transporters and transwarp beaming. But as a writer that's probably a different show, because the ships are part of what makes Star Trek tick.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Sure, but functionally in story terms it doesn't matter if you upgrade from warp drive to transwarp drive and get from Planet X to Planet Y in three days instead of three minutes, it's still just 30 seconds or the other side of an ad break for the TV viewer.

True

The Spore Drive was the extreme example of that, but it was still primarily a way of getting from A to B to help the plot along.

Yeah, I don't have nearly as many issues with the Spore Drive as some other Trekkies seem to have with it.

I've seen enough "Limitations" based on how it works in-universe that I can literally write around it.

Could you get rid of the ship entirely? Probably. There's plenty of Portal tech in Star Trek, and we've seen long range transporters and transwarp beaming. But as a writer that's probably a different show, because the ships are part of what makes Star Trek tick.

That would make the show closer to StarGate SG-1 in setup.

Even in later StarGate series, they went to a StarBase like setup with Atlantis & eventually got a StarShip.

 

[Tomalak]

True



That would make the show closer to StarGate SG-1 in setup.

Even in later StarGate series, they went to a StarBase like setup with Atlantis & eventually got a StarShip.

Which probably tells you something about the limitations of the portal approach.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Which probably tells you something about the limitations of the portal approach.

It's good enough for a Movie & Many Seasons of a TV show, but a StarBase or StarShip is still prefered =D

 

[Unicron]

The Protoss in StarCraft, at least in the first game (before they lost a good chunk of their technology base to the Zerg) have some advanced transporter/teleportation abilities, although it's never clearly defined what the range of it is. The arbiter vessels have the ability to move allied units around the map in addition to their cloaking benefits, but the main use seems to have been how the automated probes construct buildings by planting the equivalent of transporter beacons. The factories seem to work on this principle as well, warping in existing units rather than traditionally building them like Terran factories.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The Protoss in StarCraft, at least in the first game (before they lost a good chunk of their technology base to the Zerg) have some advanced transporter/teleportation abilities, although it's never clearly defined what the range of it is. The arbiter vessels have the ability to move allied units around the map in addition to their cloaking benefits, but the main use seems to have been how the automated probes construct buildings by planting the equivalent of transporter beacons. The factories seem to work on this principle as well, warping in existing units rather than traditionally building them like Terran factories.

It's sad how RTSes in general have fallen out of popularity.

 

[CaptChris42]

Warp 9.9 was actually stated by Tom Paris on-screen to be 4 billion miles per second, which translates to 21,473 x LS.

Warp 9.75 however is something that Voy was able to sustain for only 12 hrs. (9.975 was utterly unattainable) - this was actually mentioned in 'The Swarm' episode.

Warp 9.975 was mentioned as a cruising speed for VOY, but this was NEVER actually seen on-screen. Voy predominantly cruised at Warp 6 (which would translate to about 1,000 x LS).

The ENT-D was mostly limited to a maximum of Warp 9.6 for 12 hrs.
So Voy having 9.975 for 12 hrs seems like a reasonable progression based on the premise its about 7 to 10 years more advanced design (though the Galaxy class would also benefit from similar tech improvements once it undergoes refits).

Although, if VOY cruising speed was actually Warp 9.975, the speeds would be utterly ridiculous since Warp speeds double in velocity with every increment past Warp 9.9 (and similarly power expenditure).

9.9 = 21,473 x LS
9.91 = 42,946 x LS
9.92 = 85,892 x LS
9.93 = 171,784 x LS
9.94 = 343,568 x LS
9.95 = 687,136 x LS
9.96 = 1,374,272 x LS
9.97 = 2,748,544 x LS

Heck, at 9.97, Voy would cross through 7,530 Ly's per DAY... meaning that the ship would at that speed return to Federation space in just 10 days (9.975 would return the ship in about a week to UFP space).

By those numbers, Voy should have been pushed about 206,133,750 ly's away to get back to the Milky Way and UFP space at a CRUISING speed of Warp 9.97 (and arguably a MUCH more interesting twist to the Voy story, because it would illustrate a MASSIVE progression in SF Warp propulsion for which the Intrepid could have been a test bed for).

Anyway, I still maintain that 74,000 odd ships in the 24th century for an organisation spanning 8,000 Lys that has almost 1 Trillion beings living in it is too small.

You'd need millions of ships to effectively defend this space given the average cruising speeds (despite that sensors go on for ly's) or even if ships were travelling at Warp 9 frequently (warp 9 would translate to about 3,000 times LS - whereas 9.6 would be about 10,000 to 15,000 x LS) - sensors are fine, but you need speed to be able to react appropriately for this, and anything below Warp 9.9 simply won't cut it probably.
With 7 million ships staying closer to home (inside UFP space), while 3 million are out exploring, you can actually dedicate significant fleet efforts and rotate ships from one part of space to another to give them a change in scenery, crew rotations. etc.)

If you want a more average Warp 9 speed (because most ships in TNG era wouldn't go much past Warp 9 anyway), it would still take a ship 2.6 years (approximately) to cross through about 8,000 Ly's

All that seems pretty solid, but it's also well outside what Berman and even Roddenberry usually implied for warp speeds. I'm tempted to think at very least that Tom misspoke, and may have mean't warp 9.99 even, for that velocity, considering (or at very least, 9.975) but your mileage (almost literally) will vary.

 

[Deks]

All that seems pretty solid, but it's also well outside what Berman and even Roddenberry usually implied for warp speeds. I'm tempted to think at very least that Tom misspoke, and may have mean't warp 9.99 even, for that velocity, considering (or at very least, 9.975) but your mileage (almost literally) will vary.

One would think that, but the dialogue from the Swarm episode also supports the idea that 9.75 was something VOY could sustain for only 12 hrs (its actually been mentioned).

Warp 9.9 was quoted as a maximum speed for VOY, and in Threshold, when the ship approached 9.9 the computer warned that structural collapse was imminent (this was when Tom's shuttle was chased).
When Paris first attempted to break the TW threshold (initial flight), the dialogue indicated he went past 9.9, at which point Tuvok said 'he is exceeding our maximum velocity - switching to long range sensors' (Tom then continued to narrate his speed increases such as Warp 9.95 - this was clearly unattainable for VOY itself).

Had Warp propulsion technology went parabolic (aka, quantum leap style - which mind you would have certainly been in line with UFP capabilities at the time), then 9.975 being a cruising speed for VOY would make sense.
However, this didn't happen, especially because ENT-D was able to maintain a speed of 9.6 for about 12 hr.
So, VOY being able to maintain 9.75 for 12 hrs seems more like a reasonable extrapolation.

9.975 was only mentioned in dialogue, but never actually seen on-screen as something that was used... so, in the context of what we know from TNG, DS9 and VOY, 9.75 being sustainable for 12 hrs for VOY seems more like a reasonable approach (which is also actually seen in the series), and 9.9 as being the 'absolute maximum' (which the ship can't really maintain for more than 30 seconds, possibly a minute).