Sovereign

[Tar-Palantir]

I noticed that the Sovereign class has a top warp speed of 9.982 in the Expanded Starfleet Operations Book, while in the Starships book it is 9.7.

I see that the table in Starships lists the engines as having a top speed of 9.7 so I know that it is not an error in design, but I wonder why the reduction in speed. Most places I have seen references to top speeds suggest the speed given in ESO is correct, or at least it suggests that the Sovereign is faster than the Intrepid class which has a top speed of 9.975.

why the reduction? Sorry if this has been brought up before but I did not see this posted in any thread.

Would be it "wrong" to change the engines top speed in the table to 9.982?


thanks.

[Don Mappin]

Between the two books Paramount mandated that "Starship Spotter" was canon. Spotter places the Sov at 9.7.

Ignore Spotter (I wish I could have). In fact, take out a pen and write in max speed of 9.982 for the LF-44.

[Snake_Plissken]

Spotter sucked. Big time. I feel your pain Don.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Between the two books Paramount mandated that "Starship Spotter" was canon. Spotter places the Sov at 9.7.

Ignore Spotter (I wish I could have). In fact, take out a pen and write in max speed of 9.982 for the LF-44.

Cool. This was good news. It was weird to see things downrated, but then Star Trek material in general has had a lot of trouble with consistency - not your fault, I know you just followed what you had to, but it can be frustrating.

I would love to find a decent LOGICAL map of the galaxy, but every one I look at seems to have errors - if one takes episodes or movies as canon and guide.

Duh!

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
I would love to find a decent LOGICAL map of the galaxy, but every one I look at seems to have errors - if one takes episodes or movies as canon and guide.

Actually, I thought the map thing was the more difficult task and was quite pleased with the results. I think Star Trek defies accurate mapping yet Star Trek Maps is pretty darn cool.

Our own SIR SIG had a hand in it, I believe.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Actually, I thought the map thing was the more difficult task and was quite pleased with the results. I think Star Trek defies accurate mapping yet Star Trek Maps is pretty darn cool.

Our own SIR SIG had a hand in it, I believe.

The book is very nicely presented, but as you say, it seems impossible to do accurate mapping.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
The book is very nicely presented, but as you say, it seems impossible to do accurate mapping.

Particularly as space is three dimensional. Maybe it should've been a popup book.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by JonA
Particularly as space is three dimensional. Maybe it should've been a popup book.

It's not just the three dimensional aspect that is at fault here. Mercator projections that are used to change our round globe into a flat surface on maps also has to deal with three dimensions, but at least on any mercator projection, the distance between, say, New York and Paris will be the same, assuming the scale is the same.

In Star Trek, I cannot find two maps that agree. Or looking at it backwards, I can't find two canon sources that agree with what is on a map. Drives one nuts!

[Owen E Oulton]

Well, considering that in Trek, all non-astronomical locations are completely fictional, pinning them down is impossible. Each person who does a map is literally making it up as he goes.

To use a comparable analogy, go get that same Mercator map you used to locate New York and Paris, them plot the distances between Smallville, Metropolis and Gotham City.

On a galactic scale, the three-dimensional aspect is really minimal. The galaxy is a flat disc with a bulge in the middle. In this neck of the woods, the galaxy is only 1000 light years thick - one percent of the diametre. According to on-screen statements, the Federation is 10,000 light years across, so it's only possible for it to be 1/10 as thick as it is across. Three-dimensionality is really only important on the small scale. Of course, on the small scale, it's quite important, which is why on my own sector maps I give a +/- 10 light year Z-coordinate.

[Space_Cadet]

the soverign class is in the ESO??? I thought it was some fan made variation called the Ascenent class or something.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Space_Cadet
the soverign class is in the ESO??? I thought it was some fan made variation called the Ascenent class or something.

Wrong acronym. NOt ESO, but Starfleet Operations Manual. Oooppsie.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
Well, considering that in Trek, all non-astronomical locations are completely fictional, pinning them down is impossible. Each person who does a map is literally making it up as he goes.

To use a comparable analogy, go get that same Mercator map you used to locate New York and Paris, them plot the distances between Smallville, Metropolis and Gotham City.

If I write an episode that says Smallville is 2 hours drive from Gotham at 55 mph, and Metropolis is in between the two, I know that it would not be enough information to show exactly where it is, but it WOULD be enough to know that metropolis is not accross the ocean. Something that novel writers and script writers seem to ignore when convenient.