Azimuth Horizon Plan
Posted on 02/22/2012 @ 5:37am
Edited on on 02/22/2012 @ 6:32am
Mission:
Azimuth Horizon: Crusade - Chapter 3: Preparations
Location: Starbase 10, Deck 7, Main Conference Hall
Timeline: 87170.83
Before another debate could erupt, Samji cut them off. "Clearly some sort of level of information dissemination is required. The specifics we can decide on later, however."
Speaking to all, he then said, "Please direct your attention to this holoimage."
The image of the Azimuth Horizon was sectioned off into four parts. The first one he pointed to was the closest to Sol and it was highlighted in blue. "We'll be designating this as Quadrant One. This will be the location least likely to be approached by any hostiles and will be our starting base of operations. However, we will want to eventually draw some of them here to take advantage of Starbaes 10's superior firepower."
He then moved clockwise to the next section highlighted green, which was closest to Romulan space. "This is Quadrant Two and will be most likely the area approached by the Romulans while they attempt to fire on and destroy the AH."
Again, moving clockwise he gestured to the third section highlighted red, which was near Klingon territory. "Quadrant Three was where the Klingons were attempting their 'test' and most likely where they will try again. Ion pulses at this location would cause the Horizon to expand the fastest toward Sol."
The last section was highlighted orange. "This is Quadrant Four and is nearest to many of the systems that have been taken over by the Horizon's Children, so expect them to be there. They will also likely be trying to sabotage and destroy Starbase 10 in Quadrant One."
Samji turned away from the holographic display. "The basic tactical plan will be for all Lotus Fleet ships we have available to first disable the multivariable subspace matrix on their warp engines. They will then go to maximum warp and circumnavigate the Horizon. Navigation routes will be disseminated to each ship in order to coordinate the effecient and all encompasing navigation in a ring around the Horizon. The purpose is really to damage subspace as much as possible, but in a path which WE define. We'll also need to collect whatever unused warp drives we can and overload and detonate them at certain spots along the path. This should serve to create a circular subspace rupture around the Anomaly."
As he spoke, the holographic display illustrated eight ships circling the anomaly several times at a greatly increased rate, leaving trails behind them. Eventually the lines formed a mesh around the anomaly in the shape of a ring. "This will create the warp trails that the anomaly follows, and hopefully it will fill in the area like so..." As he said this, the image then showed the Azimuth Horizon expanding to match the geometry of the mesh. "We expect the initial journey around the anomaly to take 24 hours. Because of differences in maximum warp factors possible, our slowest ship, the Artemis will only be able to get around the Anomaly once and a half in that time, whereas the Lotus, our fastest, would be able to get around approximately five times. These calculations are based on if we have NO interference from the various factions. Therefore, any fights you need to engage in will slow this down; so we will have to make our skirmishes or diplomatic efforts as quick and efficient as possible."
The eight ships surrounding the anomaly in the holoimage then arranged themselves around it, two to a Quadrant. "Whenever it is deterimined that there is enough a subspace rift encircling the anomaly, we would need the Wisconsin and Pittsburgh to go to Quadrant One, the Artemis and Alsea to Quadrant Two, the Lotus and Spectre to Three, and the McKenzie and Republic to Four. They will then simultaneously fire the ion pulses, of which I will allow Captain Kheren to explain shortly, since it was his science officer who is currently unavailable who discovered this technique."
"We need to iron out more of the details and likely issues surrounding this, but that's the basic plan. So... any questions?" he asked, hesitantly.
By Allen Samji on 02/22/2012 @ 5:40am
The "multivariable subspace matrix" is the name I came up with for the environmentally friendly part added to all new ships made after 2370 to keep subspace ruptures from occurring due to warp travel over 6.
I made up the name because as far as I can tell, there was never a real canon reference to it, but it has to have been a common part for the past 40 years that everyone is familiar with.
By Kheren on 02/22/2012 @ 6:01am
here is the reference about it from the Starfleet Technical Manual:
Another large advancement utilized in the development of the warp propulsion system was the utilization of a rotatable dilithium articulation chamber within the warp core, where the matter and antimatter reactants are combined to create the high-energy warp plasma needed to power the engine nacelles, as well as shipboard systems through the use of EPS power taps. Computer-controlled rotation of the frame allows for manipulation of the manner in which the reactants meet, allowing for further control of the warp plasma into a "cleaner" power source. Redesigned verterium cortenide components within each pair of warp field coils is then able to use the warp plasma to generate a more energy-efficient subspace field with less particle waste products and stresses that were found in older propulsion systems to damage subspace. After the fleet-wide installation of this new variable warp geometry system, Starfleet was able to remove the so-called "Warp Speed Limit" of Warp 5, established in 2370 after the discovery of pollution by Dr. Serova in the Hekaras Corridor. Pursuant to Starfleet Command Directive 12856.A, all starships traveling within Federation space are required to receive engine upgrades that prevent the further pollution of subspace by 2380.
So your "mutlivariable subspace matrix" name do fit well this description.
It also means that only a simple misalignement of the warp geometry is enough to create the "polluting" we need.
By Kheren on 02/22/2012 @ 6:11am
Oh by the way: the Artemis maximum speed is warp 9.6 which it can sustain indefinitely; the Lotus maximum speed is warp 9.975 which it can sustain for 12 hours.
This means that the Artemis can cross one light year in 9.9 hours and the Lotus in 8.8 hours.
So, I would not say the Lotus covers 5 times the distance of the Artemis in the same amount of time...
By Allen Samji on 02/22/2012 @ 6:23am
This is the calculator I always use: http://www.ussdragonstar.com/utilitycore/warpspeeds.asp
Warp factors are exponential, such that there is a HUGE difference between 9.6 and 9.975. Additionally, part of the Lotus refits that occurred were to install a newer, more efficient warp engine such that a warp factor of 9.98 could be maintained almost indefinitely, rather than the figure you quoted which was from the Caretaker episode and thus, over 30 years old (which is what the engine was like prior to the refit).
Using that calculator, with 9.6 vs 9.98, it appears that the Lotus would be 3.4 times faster, so I'm not sure where I got the x5 calculation... perhaps I had a different figure than 9.6 for the Artemis previously.
By Kheren on 02/22/2012 @ 7:25am
I was using this one; http://www.anycalculator.com/warpcalculator.htm
because for some reason, i could not connect anymore to the site you give here. But now I used your address and WOOT! I can use it again!
OK first, on the other one I made a mistake: I used the TOS scale instead of the TNG scale (which is our official one).
Second, I guessed the Lotus had been revamped to higher speeds but had no data so I used the one from canon. Anyway, 9.975 and 9.98 is not THAT different. But still, on the TNG scale, the difference with 9.6 IS huge indeed.
Now, using the proper table and scale (yours) I find that indeed the Artemis takes 4.59 hours to cross a light year at warp 9.6 and the Lotus at warp 9.98 does the same in 1.35 hour... which makes it 3.4 times as fast.
So 5 times is... a bit... exaggerated... but less off the mark than I was!
By Allen Samji on 02/22/2012 @ 8:10am
If you had taken a look at the story, you'd notice I changed the figures to match the 3.4 figure right after my last comment. Thanks!
By Kheren on 02/22/2012 @ 8:32am
Didn:t notice the 1.5 to the 5 (making 3.4 times...) All good then.
By Vir'ell Gould on 02/23/2012 @ 5:09am
You guys need to cut back on the caffeine.. just saying.
As much as I hate to resort to Star Wars logic, the story is more important than the science, we want to accurate of course but not to the point of narcissism.
Frankly I prefer Kheren's math to Samji's, it keeps the story closer together and doesn't sound like 'weird math'
The idea that one ship is X3.4 faster because its got .375% more warp power if flaky at best.
I designed star ships before and after the 'Next Gen Shift' and after some research found out they did it (Poorly I might add) because using the old chart it would have taken the Enterprise (I think it was, i did this 20 years ago) something like 2 months to get to alpha century from earth.
So space travel to a distant (Thats the closest star to Earth for those that don't know) would have taken years to do or even decades.
And that just didn't fit into the story line at all.
So the Next Gen Warp 10 drive was born! (The old max was warp 14, witch ironically is like warp 5 on the new chart. Yes, you might remember warp 8 from ToS, but the tech manual said warp 14 was the fastest speed possible to achieve.)
By Vir'ell Gould on 02/23/2012 @ 7:58am
Whoops! correction.
Warp 10 was the ToS warp max, not 14.
They invented Trans-warp to breech the warp 10 barrier and get them that much needed travel boost they were looking for, but dropped it for the new formula.
By Allen Samji on 02/23/2012 @ 5:37pm
I fail to see how it is narcissistic to use someone else's calculator to define a speed I need for the story... Next time I'll use your warp speed calculator... just give me the link..
By Kheren on 02/23/2012 @ 6:48pm
Sorry Redding but I have to disagree. And by the way, I don't drink cafeine in any form ;-) Just saying...
It is clear in my mind that you can't have quality storytelling without quality details and without consistency; more to the point, you can't have quality sci-fi and thus a good story without quality details and good science in it. Simply put, to me, good "science fiction" means to me "good fiction" out of "good science." Without good science, you have whatever you want to call it (like... Star Trek XI) but not good science fiction... thus no good story.
What gives a sizeable part of quality to Star Trek has always been the science part; and what always annoys Star Trek fans most ( and calls out the most criticisms from non-fans) is when it doesn't.
Yes many episodes missed the mark on that note. Is this our excuse to not do better? Should we thrive for "the worst of Trek" instead of "the best of Trek?"
Here we have a great tool to establish time, speed and distance in the Trek universe to give beleivability and consistency, thus quality, to our stories. Should we ignore it? If you take the time to look at the warp calculator the RP dept officially adopted almost two years ago now, you will see there is nothing "flaky" about it. It is precise, detailed, beleivable in the Trek setting and extremely easy to use and useful to establish things like why no other ship can come in time or why we need all the fleet to englobe a 1 light year wide anomaly before it destroys the base in a few days.
Sorry but no one will ever convince me that ignoring such a tool and such details or science in science fiction could make a "better story."
By Vir'ell Gould on 02/24/2012 @ 3:12am
Hay, one mans motivation is another mans tedium.
If you want to take poor math and call it fact so be it, its not THAT big a deal.
Of course it wasn't the math that inspired me to jump into this, its the fact you guys put so much into it that I thought it was funny.
Oh and my 'link' is several manuals and construction guides that Ive acquired over the MANY years Samji, so I guess if you want to check 'em you can come over some time.. but no coffee for you! How about a diet soda?
Kheren, I'm sorry you can't can't think that just because something has a chart its the best way to go.. the plays the thing! every thing else is just to sell tickets.
Love you guys, without you life would be boring!
(ahh.. I do so love a good debate)
By Kheren on 02/24/2012 @ 6:03am
So do I (the love you part and the love debate part as well) :-D
And yes, the play is the thing; but when the play has fudgy rules, it is very mediocre play to me.
Yes, I prefer chess over fizzbin, GURPS over D&D, Star Trek over Harry Potter, science over technobabble, Vampire the Masquerade over Twilight and Arthur Conan Doyle over Agatha Christie.
But hey, that's me! I'm the kind of fool who always want the universe (real or imaginary) to make sense.
You're certainly not bound to the same attitude... but expect ME to always jump each time I think something is being needlessly ( mark the word: needlessly) fudged when we do have a tool to make it as defined, refined and thus beleivable story-wise as possible.
And when i do, I may be right, I may be wrong; but as I said, I will always want to discuss it. Always politely as we do here of course.
And Redding, I know there are a lot of references out there and not always agreeing with one another. Heck, even real science is like that! All the more an imaginary universe. That is why in LF RP we try to establish what would be offically used, like the warp calculator Evshell was so kind to give me back. Having lost it, I was using another one (and poorly at that) and, although it pointed to an inexactitude in the story, it diverged in exact numbers with the one I should have used. But once we got back to the same reference tool, the discussion was resolved for good.
So, thanks to that tool, next time the Lotus and the Artemis race each other and your ship pulls away with amazing ease, I will not complain one bit about "plot armor" and "godmoding" and such. But expect me to raise a word when I read again about any non-QSD ship going the near 200 light years from SB10 to ESD and then to the Romulan Neutral Zone in mere hours. Say what you will, such a thing will never make a good story for me.
I care a lot for "Star Trek", not at all for "Silly Trek".
And so do you I beleive ;-)
Just so saying.