                          WARP AND SUBSPACE MINI-FAQ
                                       
Last modified: Mon Oct 3 21:38:22 1994 
Maintained by: Joshua Bell <jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Archive site (WWW): http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jsbell/star_trek.html
FTP site (text versions): ftp.cc.umanitoba.ca:/startrek/minifaqs/ 

    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   Answers to common questions as theorized by me, and based on canonical
   and quasi-canonical information. 
   
   Comments, additions, suggestions, flames, etc. are welcomed. 
   
   I *strongly* suggest reading Jason Hinson's "Relativity and FTL" FAQ.
   I'll try to avoid dealing with real science in this FAQ, and focus on
   that portrayed in Star Trek (in all its incarnations).  
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   Copyright (C) 1994, Joshua Sean Bell. Not in the public domain.
   Permission to distribute this document, unedited and including this
   copyright notice is granted, provided no fees are charged for access
   beyond charges for downloading or connection time from a commercial
   information service. Publication of this document in a magazine or
   journal (in any media format) must be approved by the author. 
   
   Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space
   Nine are registered trademarks of Paramount Communications.  
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
Contents:

     * 1. Gettin' Nowhere Fast - Speeds and Basics 
     * 2. A Wrench in the Works - Mechanics of Warp Drive 
     * 3. Can We Talk? - Subspace Communication 
     * 4. Nitty Gritty - Non-Warp FTL, Miscellaneous 
     * 5. Contributors 
     * 6. Glossary 
     * 7. References 
       
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
1. Gettin' Nowhere Fast

   
   
   "Warp speed is <insert formula here>!" 
   
   Many things have shown up in that spot. Here's the lowdown on figuring
   out how fast warp travel is. Velocity is always quoted as a multiple
   of the speed of light. 
   
   Tables: (all velocities in terms of c) 
   
   TOS Warp Speeds: 
   

Warp Factor    Velocity   Comment
    1              1      Speed of Light
    2              8
    3             27
    4             64
    5            125
    6            216
    7            343
    8            512
    9            729      
   10           1000
   11           1331
   12           1728
   13           2197
   14.1         2803.221  "That Which Survives"

   TNG Warp Speeds, from the Encyclopedia and Tech Manual: 
   

Warp Factor    Velocity   Comment
    1              1      Speed of Light
    2             10
    3             39
    4            102
    5            214      Federation speed limit (TNG "Force of Nature")
    6            392        
    7            656
    8           1024
    9           1516
    9.2         1649      (From here down c/ Encyc except 9.9997)
    9.6         1909
    9.9         3053      Enterprise-D maximum speed.
    9.99        7912
    9.9997   ~198696      Subspace radio speed (TM)
    9.9999    199516      Maximum boosted subspace radio speed (Encyc)

   
   
   The Tech Manual (on page 111) says that a subspace radio signal
   travels at Warp 9.9997, and takes 45 minutes to reach 17 light years.
   The value above is only approximate, and the value in the Encyclpedia
   may be a mistake, given the similarity. 
   
   Formulas: 
   
   ^ = "to the power of"
   v = velocity 
   c = speed of light in vacuum
   W = Warp factor 
   M = Mike's constant
   
   
   "TOS scale" (TOS/TAS/TFS except ST4): v = (W ^ 3) * c 
   
   This is old, boring, and accepted by almost everyone, even though it
   has never been stated in any episode or movie. It's even in the
   Encyclopedia. 
   
   "TNG scale" (TNG/DS9 & ST4): We haven't a clue. 
   
   Before the Encyclopedia came out we had some pretty good guesses,
   since fewer data points existed. The best formula proposed thus far
   is: 

             /    _______             M  \
        v = |   3|   10    +  (10 - W)    | * c
             \  \|  W                    /

   
   
   Two values have been proposed for the M constant. The first, and most
   often quoted, is (-11/3). This generates a graph which matches the TNG
   Tech Manual almost exactly, and swoops off to infinity quickly after
   that. The second, derived by Sharon Collicutt, has M ~= -1.502. This
   includes the "lost data point" given on page 111 of the Tech Manual,
   the speed of Warp 9.9997. 
   
   The M=-11/3 value works for W <= 9. The M=-1.502 value works for W <=
   9 and W = 9.9997, but misses the other new datapoints by a fair
   margin. 
   
   The TNG Tech Manual indicates that Mike Okuda has an actual formula,
   within an Excel spreadsheet on his Macintosh, but no-one has reported
   seeing it to r.a.st.tech. "Our solution was to redraw the warp curve
   so that the exponent of the warp factor increases gradually, then
   sharply as you approach Warp 10. At Warp 10, the exponent (and the
   speed) would be infinite..." 
   
   Note that none of the proposed formulas have an increasing exponent.
   Given the description, I attempted some simple formulas, on the hunch
   that Rick and Mike wouldn't bother with anything really fancy. v = c *
   (W ^ (3 + 1/(10-W))) is the right shape, but is very off for anything
   above 7 or so. I suspect that the actual formula is something similar
   to this, however. 
   

Here's an ASCII version of a graph from the TNG Tech Manual:

        Warp speed/power graph
      |                                                            :| .- 10^10
      |                                                           : | :=
      |                                                       +  :  | :-
      |                                                       :::  '  :- 10^9
10^4 -|                                                 +    :     |  :=
     =|                                           +     :   :      |  :-
     =|                                     +     :    :::::     ,/   :- 10^8
     -|                               +     :     :  ::     __*-'     :=
1000 -|                               :     :    :::: __*--'  |    ???:-
     =|                         +     :    ::   __*--'  |     |       :- 10^7
     =|                         :    ::   __*--': |     |     |       :=
     -|                   +     :   __*--': |:::  |     |     |       :-
 100 -|                   :    _*--': |::   |     |     |     |       :- 10^6
     =|                   : _-':|  :  |     |     |     |     |       :=
     =|             +    _*'  : |::   |     |     |     |     |       :-
     -|             : _-':|   : |     |     |     |     |     |       :- 10^5
  10 -|             *'   :|  :  |     |     |     |     |     |       :=
     =|       +   ,'|   : |::   |     |     |     |     |     |       :-
     =|       : ,' :|   : |     |     |     |     |     |     |       :- 10^4
     -|       :/   :|  :  |     |     |     |     |     |     |       :=
   1 -|      :*   : |::   |     |     |     |     |     |     |       :-
     =|     :/|   : |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |       :- 10^3
     =|   ::/ |  :  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |       :=
     -|:_:-'  |::   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |       :-
     -| ,-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----. :- 10^2
------' |    1|    2|    3|    4|    5|    6|    7|    8|    9|     | `::::::::
 |                            Warp Factor                                    |
 `--- Velocity in                                          Power usage in ---'
      multiples of c                                  Megajoules/cochrane

                __.---'  Velocity      * Integral Warp Values
                :::::::  Power         + Power Thresholds

   
   
   The part of the graph above the ??? is speculation, and is just to
   show that as W -> 10, velocity and power -> infinity. 
   
   "Future TNG scale" (TNG "All Good Things..."): ?!?!? 
   
   Quoted in this episode is the speed Warp 13, and Riker later indicates
   "maximum warp". While we haven't a clue how fast this are, they're
   presumably faster than Warp 9 on the TNG scale, and necessarily slower
   than Warp 10 on the TNG scale (since TNG Warp 10 is infinite speed). A
   few possibilities present themselves: 
   
     * Warp 10-13+ are shorthand for Warp 9.x. One possibility is that
       9.90 is called Warp 10, 9.91 is called Warp 11, etc. 
     * New warp technologies provide at least 13 power usage minima
       between c and infinite speed, instead of the 9 possible with old
       warp technologies. 
     * Further research revealed that there were more than 9 minima
       accessable with traditional drives, and that they simply required
       more power to attain than had been previously attempted, but less
       power to maintain than 9.x values. 
       
   Unfortunately, there's no way to tell which of the above is correct,
   and all have their pros and cons, and supporters on the newsgroups. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Where has there been support on screen for this?" 
   
   TNG "The Most Toys" gives one set of numbers that verify the Warp 3
   values listed above. 
   
   Ges Seger offers: 

> The numbers I remember were about how far a ship doing 
> warp 3 for 23 hours would travel, and the answer they came
> up with was 0.102 light-years.  I worked the math just now
> and got 0.1022 light-years.

   TNG "Bloodlines" gives another set of numbers for Warp 9, stated by
   Riker after hearing some figures from Data: 300 billion kilometers in
   20 minutes @ Warp 9 
   
   Warp 9 = (300e12 m) / (20 min * 60s/min) = 2.5e11 m/s 
   
   From the chart: Warp 9 = 1516c ~= 4.548e11 m/s 
   
   Discrepancy? Riker did the calculations in his head in about 5 seconds
   given arbitrary numbers. He's within a factor of two, so I won't
   complain. Still, something more accurate would have been nice. Bok's
   ship was "holding position", so it was a simple flight path. 
   
   TNG "Emergence": the Enterprise jumped to Warp 7.3, and travelled 30
   billion kilometers in a couple of minutes. All of the formulas we have
   for warp speeds predict Warp 7.3 to be approximately 746c. Using c =
   3e8 m/s, we get v = 2.24e11 m/s. 30 billion km = 3e13m. So t = 134s,
   or just over two minutes. 
   
   And for the "All Good Things..." warp scale, c/o Tom Bagwell, and
   slightly edited: 

> I timed the interval in AGT between when Data reported
> the second Klingon ship to be disengaging and when Riker's
> helmsman reported it to be a "half a light year away" at 
> about 22 seconds, so I calculated the speed assuming 20 
> seconds to reach 1/2 a light year and assuming 30 seconds 
> to reach 1/2 a light year.

> At 30 seconds, the velocity would be approximately 525,960c
> which equates to roughly Warp 9.97244 on the TNG scale and 
> approx. Warp 81 on the TOS scale.

> At 20 seconds, the velocity would be approximately 788,940c 
> which equates to roughly Warp 9.97535 on the TNG scale and 
> approx. Warp 92.4 on the TOS scale.

   Any further numbers that can be derived from the show would be
   appreciated. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Whats a cochrane?" 
   
   The Tech Manual has this definition: "The cochrane is the unit used to
   measure subspace field stress. Cochranes are also used to measure
   field distortion by other spatial manipulation devices... Fields below
   Warp 1 are measured in millicochranes." 
   
   Basically, it's a new unit of measurement. The Tech Manual says that
   one cochrane of asymmetric subspace distortion roughly corresponds to
   one factor of the speed of light, so a field of Warp 3, 39 times the
   speed of light, is actually a 39 cochrane field. 
   
   .... 
   
   "What does cochrane stand for?" 
   
   The units are named after the scientist credited with the development
   of the warp drive, Zefram Cochrane, known as Zefram Cochrane of Alpha
   Centauri. With a drive capable of Warp 1, his team from earth
   relocated to colonies on Alpha Centauri (established with sublight
   ships). 
   
   In TOS "Metamorphosis", we learn that Cochrane, at age 87, left Alpha
   Centauri and was presumed dead. It turns out he was kept alive by an
   energy entity, and met by Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, although no official
   record of this encounter is made. 
   
   Rumors of Cochrane being native to Alpha Centauri were once spread by
   Klingon sympathizers who wanted to knock Earth down a peg, but
   fortunately this disinformation campaign seems to have ended. (This is
   a joke, BTW, referring to ST:WoF) 
   
   .... 
   
   "Whats this about a Warp 10 barrier?" 
   
   In the TNG scale, Warp 10 is infinite speed. As you approach a
   position on the graph corresponding to Warp 10, your power
   requirements increase astronomically compared to your increase in
   speed. But you can keep speeding up forever, unlike the light barrier,
   which keeps you from getting to the speed of light. 
   
   In other words, keep piling on the 9s. Warp 9.99 is a lot faster than
   Warp 9.9, while Warp 3.99 is only marginally faster than Warp 3.9. The
   barier is only one of energy, not velocity. 
   
   .... 
   
   "But in TOS "Is There in Truth no Beauty?" and TOS "That Which
   Survives", the old Enterprise went over Warp 14!" 
   
   Yes, but that's on the old scale. By the new scale, that translates to
   about Warp 9.7, which the Enterprise-D can do for brief periods (its
   emergency speed is Warp 9.6). The original Enterprise was being shaken
   apart. 
   
   .... 
   
   "But in TNG "Where No One Has Gone Before" they went past Warp 10!" 
   
   Chalk this one up to instrument failure. While Geordi did say they'd
   passed Warp 10, later in the episode they were booting along at some
   outrageously huge speed, while the instruments only read Warp 1.5. So
   there's canonical evidence that the Traveller's tweaking of the warp
   drive and the Enterprise's speedometer don't get along well. 
   
   .... 
   
   "So why'd the Warp scale change between TOS and TNG?" 
   
   Gene Roddenberry himself put Warp 10 at infinite speed, according to
   the TNG Tech Manual. To keep the scale fluid, Okuda and Sternbach made
   it asymptotic, while starting off similar to the TOS scale. 
   
   The best explanation for why it changed internally (from the
   characters' point of view), is that the original scale was established
   before warp was fully understood. 
   
   Looking at the graph, you can see that the energy costs for cruising
   at integral Warp values are much lower than for non-integral Warp
   factors. The first explorers to travel past Warp 1 must have realized
   this. Since for Warp values in the 1-3 range follow the v = (W ^ 3) *
   c formula, it makes sense that a scale based on the formula would come
   into use. 
   
   When ships started cruising at Warp values larger than 5, the
   difference between what v = (W ^ 3) * c predicted to be the most
   energy efficient speeds and what actually were must have become
   noticeable. It may have taken a long time for a new, accurate scale
   based on new observations came into use. (Look at the USA and SI, for
   an example of a large sociopolitical body taking a long time to adopt
   a more useful, universally used scale.) 
   
   Sulu's readings of Warp velocity in Star Trek IV seem to hint that the
   Klingons had moved to an accurate scale by the 2280s, but the
   Federation didn't catch up until much later, even though it must have
   been painfully obvious that the old scale was next to useless.
   Fortunately, some time before TNG, the new, accurate scale was adopted
   by Starfleet. 
   
   Based on evidence in TNG "All Good Things...", it is possible that
   this was later found to be inaccurate, and in fact more integral warp
   values were found beyond 9 (perhaps as a result of a slightly
   different warp technology, perhaps they were there all along),
   allowing for somewhat more efficient warp travel in the Warp 9.9+
   range, and conveniently known as Warp 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. This was
   doubtless a surprise to the theoreticians who thought Warp 9 was the
   last integral value. 
   
   .... 
   
   "What causes fractional warp speeds?" 
   
   As you can see from the above chart, travelling at integral Warp
   factors is much more energy efficient. But there are times when a
   fractional value must be used - for example, staying a certain
   distance from another ship, or keeping pace with some phenomenon.
   Also, beyond Warp 9, only fractional speeds are possible. (Modulo TNG
   "All Good Things...", of course.) .... 
   
   "Why not use impulse drive within the warp field to create a higher
   velocity?" 
   
   There's no reason to think that a Newtonian drive (Impulse) would
   augment a non-Newtonian drive (warp). Also, consider that the maximum
   velocity attainable with a Newtonian drive is c. At Warp 2, which is
   ~= 10c, this gives you a whole 11c at maximum (overloading, fuel
   wasting) impulse. Warp 2.1 is about 12c anyway, so overloading the
   impulse drive doesn't get you much. 
   
   "What about TOS "The Corbomite Maneuver"?" 
   
   Kirk and Sulu use a combination of warp drive and Impulse to break
   free of the First Federation pilot craft. The combination of a tractor
   beam, impulse drive, and warp drive would be very strange, and many
   explanations come to mind, such as the warp field causing the tractor
   effect to "slip" away, while the impulse provides propulsion, or the
   impulse fighting the tractor beam intertially while the warp drive
   provides propulsion, etc. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Whoah! Hold on! They must be moving faster - look at the stars that
   shoot past while they're in warp!" 
   
   Joseph Haller offers: 

> The most extreme ship induced speed discussed ... is 
> W(ST:TNG) = 9.97535, or 788,940c.

> This would give a characteristic angular speed for nearby
> stars of 1578 arcseconds per second or 1 degree every 2.3
> seconds.  This is indeed verified in the simulations.
> Travel at high warp speeds, on the ST:TNG warp scale, does
> not match very well the appearance of the bridge view screen
> on a typical episode.  Indeed, most visible stars are not
> nearby but are further away with correspondingly lower
> angular speeds.  I offer no solutions to this discrepancy
> other than the dramatic necessity that stars go wooshing by
> at high warp speed.

   Or should we give up so easily? 
   
   There's a lot of support on Rec.arts.startrek.tech for the notion that
   those things aren't really stars. For one, as the Enterprise drops out
   of warp (with the camera tagging along for the ride) some of the
   "stars" do some pretty strange things, such as suddenly angling off in
   various directions, disappearing, etc. The predominant theories are: 
    1. What we're seeing are free particles in space interacting with the
       expanding boundaries of the warp field. As they cross the warp
       field, they are repeatedly accelerated to FTL velocities and then
       slowed to STL speeds, and start spewing out something like
       Cherenkov radiation, a (real!) blueish light emitted when
       particles moving faster than the local speed of light (in a dense
       medium) are forced to slow down. If not exactly Cherenkov
       radiation, then something similar. 
       
    2. Those are stars, but we're not seeing them where they really are;
       the warp field distorts our view so that, say, the 0.01 arcseconds
       of the ship's view in a belt around the center of the warp field
       is stretched to surround the ship as a whole and the rest of the
       view is compressed ahead and behind into smaller areas. This also
       accounts for the rainbow-banding sometimes seen, as the field also
       produces a prism effect. 
       
   
   
   Myself, I go for the first one.  
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   
   
2. A Wrench in the Works

   
   
   NOTE: There are *two* distinct problems to be solved when describing
   any FTL drive. The first is that relativity will not permit an object
   to accelerate to speeds greater than or equal to c. The second problem
   is that in a relativistic universe, if you could get from point A to
   point B faster than light could by ANY means (including leaving the
   universe altogether), you have traveled backwards in time from certain
   reference frames. Thus, you could, for example, relay a message to
   yourself before you underwent the FTL travel, and create a paradox.
   Both must be addressed to form a believable FTL system. 
   
   "Warp works by <insert idea here>!" 
   
   Some favorites include: 
   
     * Making space into waves, and skipping between the crests. 
     * Bringing points in space closer together. 
     * Changing the speed of light around the ship. * 
     * The ship's mass is reduced to 0, and it can go any speed.** 
     * Leaving our universe, and going through a hyperspace. 
     * Entering subspace, and taking a bubble of real space with you. 
     * Compressing space around the ship to make the distance shorter. 
       
   All of these attempt to get around the first problem, but ignore the
   second. And none of these match the evidence seen on screen and in the
   Tech Manual, which is that the FTL effect is created by powerful,
   nested subspace (aka warp) fields that push off each other to generate
   FTL speeds. 
   
   Further, without any additional effects, each of these can lead to a
   violation of causality, meaning every time you go into warp you time
   travel, from a certain frame of reference. This is addressed in great
   detail in Jason Hinson's "Relativity and FTL" FAQ. 
   
   Ships in warp interact with things in normal space, one of the reasons
   for the navigational deflector. Things in warp require a subspace
   field to enter and stay in warp, and it takes an enormous amount of
   power to generate this. When the subspace field decays, a ship drops
   out of warp returning to some STL velocity. 
   
   * The point has been made that by constructing a space with a
   hyperbolic geometry the source and destination of two points, you can
   get away with FTL travel without the nasty causality violation effects
   pointed out by Jason's FAQ. However, this involves making changes to
   spacetime along your entire flight path before you travel, and it does
   not appear possible to construct this path faster than c, so you'd
   have to set up a travel network beforehand. This obviously isn't what
   is used in Star Trek. 
   
   ** A subspace field does reduce the inertial mass of an object within
   it, i.e. it appears lighter. But it does not lower the mass to zero,
   nor on its own would this effect allow FTL travel, as massless
   particles in our universe are still restricted to light speed. It
   turns out that this effect isn't even considered for warp travel,
   although it is used for impulse engines - less mass to push around. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Well, so how *does* warp work?" 
   
   A powerful, asymmetric subspace field is established around the ship
   by the warp nacelles. The field is composed of nested layers, each
   pushing against the one beyond it. This drives the ship forward, at a
   super-luminal velocity. 
   
   The nacelles are powered by a tuned plasma stream from the warp core
   Matter/Antimatter Reactor (M/AMR). Injectors feed the plasma into warp
   field coil segments at specific times, causing pulses to run the
   length of the nacelle, front to back. This peristaltic flow causes the
   push of the nested warp fields, and moves the ship forward. 
   
   The warp field wraps around the ship in a two-lobed bubble, with the
   locus at Main Engineering (by design). The shape of the ship
   determines the efficiency of the field, and this explains why the
   Enterprise has such a sleek design. 
   
   Meanwhile, the subspace field reduces the inertial mass of the ship,
   aiding in maneuvering. In fact, a small subspace field is kept around
   the ship at Impulse speeds, so the Impulse drives have less mass to
   push around. However, this is only a side effect and is NOT the
   mechanism used to allow FTL travel. 
   
   .... 
   
   "But, but... that's just what it does! How does it work!!!" 
   
   Alas, there is no canonical answer. The "Relativity and FTL" FAQ
   offers a possibility, that the subspace field forces the ship to take
   on the reference frame of subspace itself, which is a special
   reference frame, circumventing the limits of General Relativity. 
   
   Unfortunately, this *still* isn't an explanation of how it works. The
   Tech Manual offers that each of the nested fields couple and decouple
   from each other at velocities near (but less than) c. It could be that
   the interaction of these fields, combined with the special frame
   subspace provides, causes the ship as a whole to travel at FTL speeds.
   
   
   If two nested fields have their outer edges "locked" into the special
   frame, while the inner edges travel at near-c relative to one another,
   this might cause the FTL effect, as an artifact of the special frame
   trick. This has the added support of being almost exactly what the
   Tech Manual describes, but it doesn't mention the special frame. 
   
   Since this makes for boring drama, it's unlikely we'll ever "really
   know" how warp works in Star Trek. 
   
   .... 
   
   "So what stops the ship from accelerating and getting faster and
   faster?" 
   
   Warp travel is non-Newtonian. Without a constant influx of energy, the
   subspace field will decay, and the ship will drop out of warp. In
   other words, you *must* continue to provide energy to maintain your
   warp velocity. 
   
   Anything which travels at FTL speeds must use a warp field (or some
   other technology) to keep moving at those speeds. 
   
   .... 
   
   "What about "continuum drag" ?" 
   
   This was an idea proposed in the forgotten past to explain the above
   problem. To me, however, it seem that there is no need for such a
   force, since we are not dealing with Newtonian action/reaction drives,
   or force/acceleration systems. 
   
   .... 
   
   "So how'd the Saucer travel at warp speeds (in "Encounter at
   Farpoint") ?" 
   
   The Tech Manual states that the subspace field generators coupled to
   the Impulse drive can be used to maintain a decaying subspace field
   for brief periods of time. The decay is inevitable, but it can be
   drawn out, to allow the saucer section to get out of danger. 
   
   By field-saturating the nacelles (according to TNG "Force of Nature"),
   after a 6 second burst of maximum warp the Enterprise can "coast" at
   warp for 2 minutes 8 seconds before dropping out of warp. This is a
   form of "warp without warp drive", although the effect does not last
   very long. 
   
   This is similar to how photon torpedos can be used at warp speeds.
   They have small "warp sustainer" engines that allow them to cruise at
   their launch velocity (if launched while in warp) for brief periods. 
   
   .... 
   
   "This new Warp 5 speed limit - whats up with that?" 
   
   In TNG "Force of Nature" it is discovered that the Hekaras Corridor, a
   region of space where warp travel is hindered except for a narrow
   path, that the intense use of warp drives in an already sensitive area
   can, over time, cause subspace rifts to form, where subspace manifests
   itself in real space on a macroscopic scale. This is not a good thing.
   
   
   
   
   "Does this take effect everywhere?" 
   
   Yes. In TNG "The Pegasus" an Admiral Blackwell(?) gives Picard
   permission to travel faster than Warp 5 for the duration of the
   mission. The Encyclopedia concurs as well, naming Warp 5 as the new
   cruising speed for starships. Overkill? Probably. Typical bureaucratic
   overcompensation? Yep. 
   
   
   
   "So what about in TNG "All Good Things..." ?" 
   
   It's safe to say that the USS Pasteur and USS Enterprise, cruising at
   Warp 13, were able to ignore the Warp 5 limitation enforced by
   Starfleet. There are a couple of explanations. The first is that
   Starfleet simply repealed the ruling, and is allowing ships to muck up
   subspace. That isn't what we'd expect in the happy Star Trek Universe,
   however. 
   
   The second is that changes to warp mechanics allow warp travel without
   the nasty side effects. The Pasteur had very different nacelle
   designs, the Enterprise had "fins" on the nacelle pylons which would
   affect the shape of the warp fields, and it even had a third nacelle
   which might be used to eliminate the nasty effects of warp drive. 
   
   The third possibility is that these new integral speeds above Warp 9
   just don't hurt subspace the same way that other speeds do.
   Personally, I go for the second option. 
   
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   
   
3. Can We Talk?

   
   
   "What is subspace?" 
   
   According to the Encyclopedia, it is a continuum with different laws
   than our own. That doesn't help much, considering you can makes fields
   of it in our universe. 
   
   The best explanation I can come up with is that subspace is the
   "substrate" within which our universe exists. A subspace field is
   either a forced or natural intrusion of this domain into our own
   space, altering the behavior of things within our spacetime. The
   "subspace barrier" is the albeit flimsy dividing line between the two
   continuums. 
   
   Many things support this: in TNG "Schisms" creatures exist within a
   tertiary subspace manifold, a manifold being a term used to describe
   the form our own universe takes when viewed from a higher
   (theoretical) dimension. This is also called a deeper level of
   subspace; another universe which is connected to ours by subspace. In
   TNG "Remember Me" an entirely new universe was "spawned off" by a
   static warp bubble, and it was only accessable through subspace. The
   protouniverse in DS9 "Playing God" was an intense subspace
   manifestation as well. 
   
   Protrusions of subspace, such as in TNG "Force of Nature", DS9
   "Voretex", or the shockwave in ST6 do nasty things to our spacetime.
   But subspace is also everywhere: sensors can detect subspace
   distortions caused by normal objects (TNG "Descent" ), communications
   work through subspace, and you can create subspace fields. Whenever
   our spacetime is distorted or torn, or large amounts of energy
   released (explosions) there are subspace effects; wormholes and
   Transwarp Conduits are good examples where subspace plays a part in
   the effect, and the presumably material-based explosion of Praxis in
   ST6 generated the subspace shockwave. 
   
   Subspace fields are intentional manifestations of subspace in our
   spacetime, caused by the controlled release of energy in a warp field
   coil. These fields have many effects, often depending on the
   intensity. 
   
     * They leave subspace distortions behind (TNG "Interface", DS9 "The
       Maquis") even when they're gone. 
     * An object placed in a subspace field has a reduced inertial mass
       relative to things outside the field. (TNG "Deja Q") 
     * A symmetrical field (aka "Warp bubble") with enough power can
       create an entirely new universe, but it may not be stable. (TNG
       "Remember Me") 
     * An asymetrical field can propel the generating ship at the speed
       of light; nested fields propel the ship at the speed of light
       relative to the field beyond. (TM) 
     * A subspace Soliton wave can carry a ship at the propagation speed
       of the wave. (TNG "New Ground") 
     * A field can be embedded in an object (TNG "Phantasms") 
     * Overlapping static warp shells can create an artificial subspace
       barrier in a localized region of spacetime (TNG "All Good
       Things...") 
       
   You can think of subspace as being the "medium" in which our spacetime
   exists. The nearest parts (nearest being measured by the energy it
   takes to access them) are tightly coupled to our own universe, and can
   be thought of as being mapped to our spacetime. This is what sensors
   generally read, and what the subspace fields of warp drive are
   interacting with. Slightly deeper parts can connect points in our
   universe to others. Wormholes and Transwarp Conduits are this sort of
   thing. Deeper still are the "untamed wilds" seen in "Force of Nature".
   And even further down are entirely separate universes, all held
   together by subspace. 
   
   Subspace is not in an alternate reality, or "place", or spacetime
   where things go - or at least, they don't go in the world of Star
   Trek. It is not entered by a starship at warp. A ship creates a
   subspace field which acts like another universe very tightly coupled
   to our own. If I was inside such a field and you were outside, we
   could conduct a conversation, shake hands, etc. But when the field is
   powerful enough (1000 millicochranes or more) and asymetric, it is
   propulsive. Nested, decoupling fields magnify the effect considerably.
   But the ship still interacts with everything in our universe, and vice
   versa, as the level of subspace in which the field exists is so
   tightly coupled to our own that it appears no "fancier" than, say, a
   magnetic field, if you're looking closely at it. 
   
   The weakest subspace fields do appear very similar to traditional
   fields, like magnetic fields. They have associated particles (see
   below), can be bound to objects (TNG "Phantasms"), can be used for
   transmissions (subspace radio), and generally unremarkable on their
   own other than as residue from more powerful effects. 
   
   To keep Jason Hinson and General Relativity happy, subspace doesn't
   need to follow the rules of relativity. Subspace might have a unique
   reference frame, and everything enclosed in a subspace field has the
   reference frame of subspace. 
   
   .... 
   
   "What are Tetryons and Verterons?" 
   
   Subatomic particles mentioned in TNG "Force of Nature", and a number
   of other episodes. These seem to be some of the particles associated
   with subspace fields, just as photons are particles associated with
   electomagnetic fields. 
   
   A verteron mine is used to disable the Flemming, a Ferengi ship, and
   the Enterprise in "Force of Nature". Verterons somehow manage to break
   all devices which use subspace. Simplest explanation - they inhibit
   interactions with subspace, causing massive overloads and feedback
   which damages equipment. 
   
   Picard suggests using them to mask a subspace resonance signature in
   TNG "The Pegasus", although Data points out that their artificial
   nature would preclude their use in that circumstance - masking a warp
   core for several hours. 
   
   Verterons also infest the Wormhole near Bajor. In DS9 "Playing God", a
   protouniverse intruding into our own c/o subspace was kept contained
   by an energy field, but verteron pockets in the Wormhole threatened to
   release it, destroying a Runabout and perhaps even the Wormhole.
   Verterons and subspace do not mix well. 
   
   They also allow vessels to travel through the wormhole under impulse
   power (DS9 "In the Hands of the Prophets"), and they appear in a
   display in Keiko's classroom on DS9 as the verteron membrane at the
   outer boundary of one side of the wormhole. 
   
   Tetryons are particles which are stable in subspace but unstable in
   normal space. They appear to be the main mediating particles of
   subspace interactions with normal space. They were introduced in TNG
   "Schisms" but they've shown up in TNG "Force of Nature", and a
   tetryon field is the result of an metaphasic shield interaction in TNG
   "Suspicions". 
   
   .... 
   
   "What is subspace radio?" 
   
   A means of sending a signal through subspace, so that it is not
   limited by the speed of light. This is done by creating a subspace
   distortion which propagates in much the same way as an electromagnetic
   field. A large amount of energy is needed to send a signal any large
   distance, and the more energy that is available, the deeper the signal
   can be forced into subspace. 
   
   However, the signal dissipates over time, eventually releasing the
   energy that is left as an electromagnetic field. A more powerful
   initial signal can travel farther before this happens, but there is a
   limit; too much energy and the level of subspace that is used won't be
   tightly coupled to our own spacetime any more, and the signal will
   probably go awry. 
   
   .... 
   
   "How fast is subspace radio?" 
   
   Under ideal conditions, Warp 9.9997. (TNG TM, page 99) This is "sixty
   times faster than the fastest starship, either existing or predicted"
   - assuming traditional warp technology. 
   
   The Encyclopedia says that with boosters and relays, Warp 9.9999 is
   the speed, but this may be a typo. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Why is it instantaneous in the movies?" 
   
   No ad breaks. 
   
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   
   
4. Nitty Gritty

   
   
   "FASA says the Enterprise-D uses UltraWarp, so nyeah!" 
   
   According to the TNG Tech Manual and Star Trek Chronology, the
   Enterprise-D uses the same old warp technology seen in TOS... just a
   much more advanced version. 
   
   The only hint that TOS, TFS and TNG warp drives might be different is
   in their visual appearance on screen - only the TFS Enterprise "blurs"
   while in warp. We *have* seen the TNG Enterprise do this - in TNG
   "Force of Nature", when it field- saturated its nacelles and ran at
   high warp for 6 seconds. Perhaps the TFS era warp drives used this
   field saturation to generate higher speeds at lower energy, an effect
   which was surpassed by later developments and obselete by TNG? 
   
   .... 
   
   "Some Starfleet ships use 3 nacelles!" 
   
   In 2269, Starfleet attempted ships with 1 and 3 or more warp nacelles
   (TNG TM p65). As previously thought, 2 is the most efficient, but 4 is
   apparently useful in some cases (Constellation Class, Cheyenne Class).
   
   
   You need one nacelle to get anywhere, minimum. However, to yaw you
   need the nacelle to be split vertically (left and right halves) and to
   pitch you need the nacelle to be split horizontally (top and bottom
   halves). By using a split nacelle, you can induce slight timing
   differences, and cause the desired rotational effect (TM p65). This is
   a bit of a problem with one nacelle, since you end up with each warp
   coil divided into four segments. The TM indicates that matching
   *pairs* is difficult and very sensitive. Matching four, and providing
   four plasma injectors for each coil segment is probably difficult. 
   
   Having more than two nacelles (either 3 or 4) allows you to use only a
   single segment per coil. But the warp field itself requires a gap to
   be released! (TM p65) (For anyone who doubts this, in TNG "Eye of the
   Beholder", we see TNG TM fig 5.3.3 reproduced on a large screen
   display with labels.) 
   
   So you've gonna have the warp coils split in two anyway; if you use
   the top/bottom split to provide pitch control, and two nacelles to
   provide yaw control, you're set. 
   
   On some designs, four nacelles may be the way to go; even with the
   required split, being able to tune the warp field discreetly may be
   enough of an advantange to warrant using four nacelles. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Ha! Three nacelle ships are canon!" (TNG "All Good Things...") 
   
   Note that a number of things have changed by the time we see the USS
   Enterprise zipping around with three nacelles in that episode: 
   
     * Warp 13 is a common cruising speed 
     * Warp is no longer damaging spacetime 
     * New nacelle designs are being used on other ships 
       
   My own explanation: new nacelle designs allow ships like the USS
   Pasteur to cruise at Warp 13 without frying spacetime. Older ships,
   like the Enterprise, can be refitted with a third nacelle (and other
   wingdings and widgets) to clean their subspace emissions, so to speak.
   The third nacelle also allows a more powerful field to be generated,
   to drive the ship around at Warp 13, but this goes beyond TNG-era
   knowledge of subspace mechanics. 
   
   So as far as strictly TNG-era ships are concerned, three nacelles are
   still worse than useless. 
   
   .... 
   
   "But the Ferengi/Borg/Klingon Bird of Prey don't have nacelles!" 
   
   The Borg probably have subspace field generators (redundantly)
   scattered throughout their cube; they can then pulse them to generate
   *massive* overlapping, pulsating subspace fields in any direction.
   Same technique, more power, more flexibility. 
   
   As for Ferengi, perhaps they use shielding. One thing is certain; the
   design of Ferengi ships allows for the ship to be contained in a
   single lobed warp field. The Enterprise requires a double lobe. Having
   "inboard" warp drives (like the Bird of Prey) gets you a fast ship for
   less power; likely, shielding can prevent the fields from frying the
   crew. 
   
   A display screen in DS9 "Blood Oath" may show the warp field of the
   Bird of Prey - again, a single lobe. 
   
   Something to consider; most of the small ships (picture the raiding
   ship from TNG "Gambit") don't have outboard drives. They probably make
   the single-lobe/shielding tradeoff to keep their ships small, fast and
   cheap. Ditto for shuttles with warp. 
   
   .... 
   
   "What's TransWarp?" 
   
   According to the Star Trek Chronology, the Excelsior was commissioned
   as NX-2000 in 2284 as a test bed for the new TransWarp technology. By
   2287, the TransWarp Development Project was deemed unsuccessful by
   Starfleet Command, and experiments were halted. 
   
   TNG Tech Manual, p 14: "...The attempt to surpass the primary warp
   field efficiency barrier with the TransWarp Development Project in the
   early 2280s proved unsuccessful...." 
   
   It seems as though the designers were trying to get around the energy
   limits traditional warp entailed, after passing Warp 9. 
   
   A few sources offer speculation on what TransWarp might be.
   Unfortunately, when we finally saw TransWarp in action, they were
   blown out of the water. 
   
   TNG "Descent" portrays the Borg using TransWarp Conduits. They are
   still an artifact of subspace, but appear to be artificial. Transfer
   through the conduits is 200 times faster than the fastest warp
   available to Federation science (Warp 9.7 or 9.8), covering lightyears
   in a matter of seconds rather than hours. 
   
   It *may* be that a TransWarp drive attempts to tunnel through
   subspace, bypassing the limitations of warp entirely. If this is the
   case, then it is no wonder Starfleet was forced to give up - the
   energy requirements are beyond what the Borg have. Instead, they use
   semi-stable conduits, accessed via a tachyon interaction with a
   subspace distortion. 
   
   .... 
   
   "Besides TransWarp Conduits, what other alternate forms of FTL travel
   have we seen?" 
   
   TNG "Where No One Has Gone Before" 
          The Traveller propells the Enterprise to the Andromeda Galaxy,
          using more advanced warp equations. 
          
   TNG "The Nth Degree" 
          The Cytherians bring the Enterprise to the center of the galaxy
          via graviton mediated subspace folding. 
          
   TNG "New Ground" 
          Soliton waves are used to move a ship at warp speeds; "Warp
          without warp drive." 
          
   TNG "When the Bough Breaks" 
          The Aldeans shove the Enterprise away at some immense speed. (Q
          does this too, often.) 
          
   TNG "The Price", and DS9 
          Wormholes, stable and unstable, connect remote parts of the
          galaxy. 
          
   TNG "Interface" 
          Geordi proposes an artificially created subspace "funnel"
          connecting points 300 light years apart. 
          
   
   
   (I'm missing lots, please let me know.) 
   
   .... 
   
   "Why do ships always meet the same way up?" 
   
   I know it's been proposed as a joke, but the idea that warp travel
   requires a universal "up" isn't as silly as you might think. We know
   that things in normal space affect subspace. What if the mass and
   orientation of the entire galaxy, which is nothing to sneeze at,
   affect subspace in such a way as to make travel more efficient if your
   warp fields are generated parallel to the plane of the galaxy? 
   
   It's then more efficient for ships to align their warp drives with the
   plane of the galaxy, so flying "up" and "down" in the galactic plane
   (which is relatively thin, about 1/10th to 1/40th the diameter of the
   galaxy) would take more energy. This also explains the banking into
   turns and such. 
   
   If you have galactic-up and galactic-down to choose from, why always
   the same way up? Probably a matter of protocol. Only "loser" races
   don't adhere to the standard. You'll also note that many small ships
   are vertically symmetrical, perhaps as their designers aren't quite up
   to snuff when it comes to designing warp drives. 
   
   The second is that the subspace field of the galaxy would do really
   weird things at the edge and at the center. Remember the Great Barrier
   of TOS fame ("Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "By Any Other Name")
   does nasty things to the Enterprise, and the one near the center of
   the galaxy (if you believe in Star Trek V) was pretty scary too. 
   
   Kirk made a number of references in TOS "By Any Other Name" about warp
   drive not working outside the galaxy, or something to that effect.
   While the Kelvans of Andromeda had got that licked, this does give the
   theory a little bit of support. 
   
   Another note: the subspace shockwave seen in Star Trek VI was both
   planar and aligned with the direction of the Excelsior's vertical
   axis, and shockwaves within the subspace rift of TNG "Force of Nature"
   were also aligned coplanar to the ship. 
   
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   
   
5. Contributors:

    Jason Hinson <hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu> 
    Greg Berigan <gberigan@cse.unl.edu>
    A.J. Madison <ajm@walrus.sw.stratus.com>
    Axis <nakazawa@tango.seas.upenn.edu>
    Sharon Collicutt <864677@academic.stu.StThomasU.ca>
    Ges Seger <segerge@sd2.sews.wpafb.af.mil>
    Michael M. Welch <mwelch@netcom.com>
    Tom Bagwell <ef.@bga.com@pro-smof.cts.com>
    Joseph Haller <haller@as.arizona.edu>
    
   
   
   (Pssst! Got your name in here? Have a WWW page you want your name to
   point at? Give the guy at the bottom there your URL and he'll add it
   in ASAP!)  
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   
   
6. Glossary:

   
   
   c 
          Speed of Light ( ~= 3 * 10^8 m/s ) 
          
   FQSD 
          Forced Quantum Singularity Drive. A miniature black hole used
          on Romulan Warbirds as a power source for their warp drives and
          other shipboard systems. 
          
   FTL 
          Faster Than Light (usually communication or travel) 
          
   IPS 
          Impulse Power System. The Newtonian STL drive used on board
          Federation starships. 
          
   M/AMR 
          Matter/Antimatter Reactor (also called the warp core). Power
          source used on Federation and Klingon starships. Romulans use a
          FQSD. 
          
   Newtonian 
          Term referring to action-reaction systems. For example,
          propulsion by means of pushing accelerated gas out the back of
          a ship, where the reaction causes the ship to move forward. The
          IPS is an example of this. Warp drive has no normal
          action/reaction component associated with it, and is called
          non-Newtonian. 
          
   STL 
          Slower Than Light (as opposed to FTL). 
          
   tetryon 
          Subspace particle unstable in normal space. Appears to be the
          primary particle associated with subspace fields and subspace
          interactions. 
          
   verteron 
          Particle associated with subspace interactions. Appears to
          inhibit the formation of subspace fields, damaging or rendering
          devices which use subspace useless. 
          
   warp 
          One method of FTL travel used in Star Trek, in which nested
          subspace fields create a propulsive effect. 
          
   Warp 
          "Unit" for warp factor, as opposed to the technology. 
          
   warp coil 
          One of many units in a warp drive; shaped like squashed
          horseshoes, and paired together to form rings, plasma is pumped
          into them and the exotic materials forming them create the warp
          effect. 
          
   warp core 
          See M/AMR. 
          
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
7. References:

   
   
    See the Reading List Mini-FAQ for full details on the volumes
   mentioned above and below. 
   
   More recently presented information is considered to supercede old
   information, unless the weight of the evidence supports the original
   data. 
   
   Greatest priority is placed on aired live-action material (canon) and
   documents produced by or quoting the production crews for Star Trek
   (quasi-canon), most notably the Technical Advisors to ST:TNG and
   ST:DS9, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach. 
   
   Other materials are not considered reliable sources of information,
   and anything gleaned from these is of questionable relevance. 
   
   Canonical Material: 
     * (VOY) Star Trek: Voyager 
     * (DS9) Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 
     * (TNG) Star Trek: The Next Generation 
     * (TFS) Star Trek feature films 
     * (TOS) Classic Star Trek 
       
   Quasi-canonical Material: 
     * (Encyc) The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the
       Future 
     * (Chron) Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future 
     * (TM) Star Trek: The Next Generaion Technical Manual 
       
   Questionable (but useful) Materials: 
     * The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion
       - contains some behind-the-scenes notes of interest 
     * Other episode guides (Compendium, Concordance, etc)
       - useful, esp. for spellings and details 
     * The Making of Star Trek
       - contains Roddenberry-approved TOS ship systems info 
     * Episode scripts
       - spellings and fiddly details, except where they say [TECH] 
     * Trading cards (esp. Skybox)
       - technical stuff often prepared by production staff 
       
   Material that is ignored (other than where it reproduces material from
   the above, e.g. photographs, descriptions, etc.): 
     * (TAS) Star Trek: The Animated Series 
     * Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise 
     * (WoF) Worlds of the Federation 
     * (SFTM) Star Fleet Technical Manual 
     * (TJ) Starlog's Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Journal 
     * Other "reference" guides 
     * Novels, incl. novelizations of films and episodes 
     * Blueprints, drawings, photographs, models, etc. 
       
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
    Joshua Sean Bell <jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca>
