• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Trek Tech FAQ

Why is the bridge situated atop the ship instead of more safely imbedded within the ship itself?
I could be putting myself in trouble here but I believe this is cannon. The bridge located on top of the ship has special shield parameters to protect it from incoming and from other parts of the ship. The engineers eventually deduce the fact that it makes little difference if the area is multy shielded and the enemy would get it anyway if it located more internally.
Kirks fight with Khan nothing was mentioned about less security of the bridge. If Khan got the edge, though, that was the last of Enterprise.
To see where one is going may have some viability but starships rely on sensors. Today the astronauts will be completely blind with their capsule in space and must rely on sensors.
 
Yeah, the human eye looking out a window is really only good for extreme close up work such as docking. Normal operations deal with things much farther out than a window would be useful for.
 
After some thought, I have decided to get a FAQ post started. We can revise this as time goes along, and suggestions are welcome.

1] What is chi/the Cochrane Factor? The Cochrane Factor (chi) is a variable added to the basic warp formula, increasing the accuracy of warp calculations. In the 1970s, various fans observed that the "classical" warp formula was entirely too slow to allow for the speeds and distances covered in TOS. Based on time-and-distance numbers in the episode "That Which Survives", the idea of a "fudge-factor" was created, and discussed in some detail in the Star Trek Maps (Bantam, 1980). The basic concept is an additional factor in the warp formula derived from the amount of matter in a given area of space, and thus any additional gravitational curvature in space-time, which can, in effect, create an increase in actual velocity for any given warp factor. Thus, the "corrected" formulae are:

V = WF**3 x chi x c (from warp 1-17, with the exponent hypothesized to spike up above warp 17) (ENT/TOS)

and

V = WF**3.33333333 x chi x c (from warp 1-9, with the exponent spiking up above warp 9) (TNG/DS9/VOY)

(The scale-change takes place in 2312, as originally cited by Andre Bormanis in an article in ST: The Magazine {Issue 6, October 1999, p. 44} and subsequently used in Starship Spotter.)

chi itself ranges from 1 in deep intergalactic space (where there is almost no free-floating matter) to 1,500 in dense star clusters. A commonly-cited "average" figure for UFP-held space is 129.27, although it should be emphasized that this is only an average, and there can be significant variations even within that area. The "subspace corridors" mentioned in Star Charts (Pocket, 2002) can be considered vectors through areas with a known high chi value.

------------
2] What source materials will be used in this forum? Because Trek Tech, as a genre, exists as much in the minds of fandom as anything explicated strictly on-screen, a wide variety of sources will be considered worthy of consideration. Since there is a diversity of viewpoints and ideas in play, source citations should be included wherever possible, to allow for an objective analysis of the content of a discussion.

Note, however, that screaming "non-canon!" by itself shouldn't carry extra weight, unless a canonical source contradicts a non-canonical one. The vast majority of what we "know", Treknology-wise, is non-canon, so we merely need to accept that reality. While licensed materials may be given some "preference", it should be noted that none of the licensed materials are free from error, and all have been on-screen contradicted from time to time, so take them for what they are: one way of looking at the Trek Universe. (In short, read Mike and Rick's disclaimers, and take them to heart! ;) )

------------
3] Must Starfleet starships have even numbers of nacelles? This has been a matter of some debate, but the historical record suggests not. The Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical Manual showed several single-nacelled vessel classes, and some of that art appeared in the early Star Trek features. Some years after the publication of the book, FJ and Gene Roddenberry had a falling-out, and Mr. Roddenberry released his "rules of ship design", which required even numbers of nacelles and no hull structures directly between those nacelles. These rules seemed to briefly govern Star Trek design work at the beginning of TNG, but by the time of "Best of Both Worlds", were already being contradicted, and now seem to be largely a "historical curiosity" in the tale of the Treknology genre. The short answer, therefore, is, "No."

------------
4] If I want to ask a particular person a question in the forum, what should I do? In the header, use the person's name and the topic of the question you'd like to ask. Don't just put the person's name. Also, remember that if you're going to address someone specifically, please be courteous and respectful. No one is required to be here or to answer questions, but a polite approach will go further in getting a friendly and informative answer than will an insulting or hostile one.

------------
5] Where can I find some Star Trek chronologies/timelines on-line? There are a number of different Trek chronologies/timelines out there, which look at the topic from a number of different points-of-view. The following is a brief sampling of what's available. It should not be taken as comprehensive, and suggestions for additional resources are welcome, of course.

A] James Dixon's Fandom Chronology can be found here: http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files.html

B] Alex Rosenzweig's Timeline of Star Trek History can be found here: http://www.pcisys.net/~biff/TIMELINE5.pdf

C] Jason Bogguess' A Short History of Galactic Civilization (adapted from James Dixon's Chronology) can be found here: http://www.uss-atlantis.org/page8.html

D] Win Scott Eckert's Star Trek Annotated Timeline can be found here: http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Startrek.htm

------------

Once again, please feel free to offer suggestions for additional questions/answers. :)

Best,
Alex
Thanks for the info
 
Why is completely made up Cochrane factor in this FAQ? It has absolutely zero canon support.
 
Because some of the best stuff related to Trek-based technology hasn't appeared onscreen in canonical formats, but has existed in fan works and other things over the years. The Cochrane factor was a way to reconcile how warp is thought to work (based on canon dialogue and non-canon sources like tech manuals) and how we should be able to calculate speeds and distances that make a degree of sense, as mentioned in the original post.
 
The people of that channel imho don't have much of a grasp on technology or engineering in general. Typical fans like anywhere else.
As to the FAQ I've my own answers like everyone else here.
 
Does anyone know of a website, a book, an article or some other source of information that would conatin diagrams, charts and illustrations, of the various sections and locations on board the Enterprise-D? I am curious to know where so many things are located, like the holodecks, the transporter rooms, the brig, main engineering, sick bay, torpedo room, etc. Any information that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
 
Does anyone know of a website, a book, an article or some other source of information that would conatin diagrams, charts and illustrations, of the various sections and locations on board the Enterprise-D? I am curious to know where so many things are located, like the holodecks, the transporter rooms, the brig, main engineering, sick bay, torpedo room, etc. Any information that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
There's the published E-D blueprints by Rick Sternbach, but you may need to find a physical copy of those. There's also the blueprints by Ed Whitefire, which actually was created first, but was unable to be published due to various circumstances. The two sets are similar but different in various details, but are pretty much the same for the major locations. The Next Generation Technical Manual would be a great companion to both.
 
According to Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, the configuration of the Warp nacelles are the most efficient use of generating Warp fields. Any design is acceptable but less practical for deep space travel.

An interview held with FJ, you'll need to Google it, iterated that GR preferred classical physics to quantum physics. TOS uses classical physics while +TNG uses quantum physics. The two mix like Oil and Vinager. Hence the change in Warp scales.

Stardates are based on the number of days that Light would need to travel from current position. So, Stardate 47569.9 would be the number of "Light-days" from current position of the vessel.

.. from various interviews with set designers, screen-writers, on-set physics consultants and GR himself.
 
Stardates are based on the number of days that Light would need to travel from current position. So, Stardate 47569.9 would be the number of "Light-days" from current position of the vessel.
Number of light days of the vessel from where?
 
Triangulated from Galactic center, Betelgeuse and current position. The reason Stardates can change even when approaching Earth is because the Sol system rotates and bobs-and-weaves up and down while circling the galactic core. GR round-tabled with several physicists and astronomers before starting the Series.
 
But 47569 light days would only be 130 light years!
Worse, a TOS style star date (such as 5916) would be a scant 16 light years!

I thought it was fairly well established that Stardates were merely a convenient way to show the passage of time without tying the series down to a specific year?
 
You're calculating from Earth. Stardates, from what I can infer, are only a necessity for the Federation to have an indication of where the vessel is as the time of the Log or events. I don't believe that Stardates are used as a calendar.
 
So, when the TOS Enterprise was approaching the galactic barrier (SD 1312) it was only 3.6 light years from Earth?
When the Enterprise-D was in orbit of Earth following the Borg incident (SD 44012) it was in fact 120 light years away?
What about the fact that the SD increases by 1,000 units by every season of TNG, which almost perfectly matches the years passing for the characters (according to their dialogue)

In addition, I've seen quotes from GR stating that Stardates were calculated based on the vessel's "location in the galaxy, velocity of travel, and other factors" in order to account for the required "fudge factor" and apparent inconsistencies in their usage.

The round table GR held with several physicists and astronomers with regard to Stardates sounds interesting - do you have a source?
 
TOS: Relative to galactic center
TNG: From galactic center, Betelguese and vessel; relative to all three's galactic position at the time.

The Universe is dynamic not static .. I don't have the information on this laptop. I'll dig up the links. Not sure if I can find transcripts but rather a reference to the conversation(s).
 
@Mytran ..

Not sure how to PM on this Forum. My ranking may still be too low. Have a few links but don't want to flood this Thread with multiple Posts. So, I tried to PM you but No-Go .. or I can't figure it out, anyway.
 
There are limitations for new members - it's probably just that. Keep posting! ;-)
 
These are a few from memory. They show a collaboration with scientists for accuracy purposes, especially the Scientific American article.

Consults with Asimov:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/06/getting-star-trek-on-air-was-impossible.html

.. pay attention to #7:
http://hotnerdgirl.com/tag/16-facts-you-never-knew-about-gene-roddenberry/

Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-sticklers-who-kept-star-trek-in-line/

I have a few .pdf's, aswell but can't upload them ..
 
[ "This time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S.Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The stardates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading."] - Roddenberry

Stardates are not 'Dates, per se rather a relative position in the galaxy at the time of Log.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top