Tenebrae Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I know they recalibrated it for TNG but if anyone recalls the first appearance of the Traveller, they said it would take something like a hundred years to get home from the galaxy they were in at maximum warp... Anyway, I worked out that it would take something like a hundred years to get home. Of course, by the time VOY rolled around an even faster maximum warp would take 10 times as long for a tiny fraction of the distance. Trek has been over the years, horribly inconsistent when it comes to the speed of warp. It's no hyperspace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I wouldn't worry about it. Inconsistancy is the vice AND the norm of any long running sci-fi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 Yeah, true that. I always thought that Trek took a perverse joy in violating continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 i like it when they do.....makes me feel like an expert:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I keep going back to that thread that claimed Gene Rodenbery didn't think of TOS as cannon - well if he had lived to have seen Voyager - he might have considered that canon - and say TNG not canon....:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlaC Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Im not even looking into series as serious as that... Kinda f*cks it up imo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 I stopped taking Trek seriously a long time ago. If you take it too seriously, you become the ugly loser fanboy that wears Spock ears to the convention and saying things like "girls are the enemy". And I like breasts too much to ever think that. Plus my rampant alcoholism is far more important than caring too much about tv shows. Outside of BSG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Yeah, they changed it between TOS and TNG, but appearently even after that they weren't to good at figuring out 'real life' distances... :) Ah well, we can't all be physicists. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Well the writers seem to be ok at keeping things consistant within a series - but throughout several series - it's understandable that things get messed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 18, 2006 Author Share Posted April 18, 2006 To be fair though - they don't generally talk too much about distances or travel times and when they do, it's generally pretty vague. 70,000 light years takes 75 years. Bit of a snails pace compared to Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now