Isn't there a Voyager episode where the USS Voyager also travels by subspace corridor? There should also be mention of that in the article, and it will also have to be rewritten, because whoever wrote this, assumed that Xindi had the patent on subspace corridors. -- Redge 17:45, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- That's referred to in the episode as an underspace corridor. I assume you mean the Vaadwaar technology from "Dragon's Teeth"? -- Michael Warren 17:59, 19 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Removed from articleEdit
- Reptilian seeker drones employ a small scale verson of the subspace vortex, which can help for a quick getaway. (ENT: "The Shipment")
- I've removed this yet again because there's still no evidence for it. --Steve 18:14, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
OKAY!! Look closely at "The Shipment"! Lt. Reed destroys a seeker. Archer disables the second one! IT DISAPPEARS IN A YELLOW GLOW (VORTEX)! THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE!
- I've just double-checked the episode, and all I saw was the drone zipping out of sight at a fast but normal speed. It looked nothing like the normal flash we got from subspace corridors in space... I think the sentence should be removed again. -- Dan Carlson 20:14, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- I agree with Dan. -K 20:38, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Look at the episode again. Watch the scene with the seekers again. Keep the info about seekers have vortex technology in!
- I have checked and double-checked. I see no evidence of a subspace vortex. Therefore, I'm removing the mention from the article. Please don't replace it again without further discussion here. If you can provide more evidence, I'm definitely willing to listen! :-) -- Dan Carlson 16:16, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Sorry about that stuff with the seekers. I just looked to me that the seeker did vanish into a vortex.-B-101
Vortex = Corridor?Edit
I'm not convinced that a subspace vortex and a subspace corridor are the same thing (though they may have similar principles). The "vortex" is generated by a propulsion system and can take you wherever you want to go, while the "corridor" is clearly established in "Dragon's Teeth" as naturally occurring, constantly "open", and having a specific path that can't be changed. There's no dialogue in "E2" that suggests the corridor was created or maintained by the Xindi, and its characteristics mostly match that of the Underspace. I recommend splitting them. -- Kingfisher 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- No one seemed to object, so I split the articles. -- Kingfisher 08:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the background note for now:
- It is possible that traveling via subspace vortex was in some way related to the Sphere-Builders as, following the return of the Delphic Expanse to normal space, (ENT: "Zero Hour") the technology was never seen used again; despite its apparent superiority to traditional propulsion methods and the fact that the Xindi joined the United Federation of Planets some time before the mid-26th century. (ENT: "Azati Prime")
There are two problems: 1) the Xindi-Aquatic ship transported Enterprise back to Earth via subspace vortex after the Delphic Expanse ceased to exist in "Zero Hour", and 2) with the change in the timeline there's no reason to believe the Xindi would "still" join the Federation at some point. -- Kingfisher 08:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Speed and Distance of the Earth/Delphic Vortex Edit
Added a brief sentence computing the distance traveled through the Vortex, and the equivilant warp speed on the TNG scale. Calculations were made using the speed of the Enterprise NX-01 as described in the Memory-Alpha article on the Enterprise and calculating the distance traveled at that speed over six weeks. Using the obtained value of 11.2 light years, a Warp Speed value inside the Vortex was then calculated based on the given information of a travel time of 10 hours. SwordandScales 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, S&S, I have removed this stuff for a few reasons. The milder reason is that it's original research. The stronger reason is that distance/time/warp factor relationships are notoriously inconsistent and Memory Alpha judges them to be not calculable, therefore not canon. And the strongest reason of all is that a
natural phenomenonvortex isn't a warp drive at all, so this is all moot. --TribbleFurSuit 14:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit, I'm not yet quite as well-versed as I'd like to be on Mem Alpha's policies regarding warp factor relationships. But in the article on the NX-01 Enterprise, there's quite a bit of speculation (not in the main part of the article, but in italicized asides) on how fast the ship likely is, based on quotes taken from the show relating to, for example, how long it takes Enterprise to travel from Earth to Neptune. The author translates that into a speed value in terms of kilometers per second, and then gives the equivilant value in the TOS scale of warp speeds. I know that speculative sorts of things aren't permitted in the article's main body, but don't we allow reasonable conclusions to be drawn from separate pieces of information drawn from canon sources? I drew my calculations from the equations found in MA's article on Warp Speed, as well as a number of citable backstage sources (okuda et all). Thanks very much for the help. I hope you'll bear with me a bit while I learn the ins and outs of contributing. :) 09:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. :) Since it's been a week, and I haven't heard from you, I'm going to guess that you're okay with the counterpoints I've made. Also, The Vortex isn't a natural phenomenon, but rather an artificial conduit created by Xindi ships (See ENT: Azati Prime). I'm going to restore my original changes, but if you still have any objections, please feel free to drop me a line and let me know. I'm sure we can work out a good compromise. :) Thanks again for your help, and I hope you had a great Thanksgiving! Best, SwordandScales 12:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again :) See up there how I struck through
"natural phenomenon"? I already granted I was wrong about that. It doesn't make any difference: A vortex still isn't a warp drive, and, no, I still think what you have done still isn't canon and still is unreferenceable original research. Also: Our policy (see FAQ) about speculation doesn't give "reasonable conclusions" as the criterion for permissibility, but "very obvious conclusions".
- If anything, I'd say the info shouldn't be here but in the Warp factor article. The many speed/distance/time relationships stated in canon have been far too inconsistent (not even consistent with any of the Okuda statements or reference book figures) for MA to lend any credence whatsoever to inferred calculations. You might be interested to read the Talk: page at Warp factor to see how fractious this subject has been.
- The vortex still isn't a warp drive, so it's all moot anyway. We don't consider that there's a "warp factor" for the speed with which subspace communications travel, nor for ships traveling in quantum slipstream or even Borg transwarp.
- If I had changed my opinion I would have responded with "OK" or something. But rather than pingpong edits with you, I'll leave it at this and we'll just see if anyone else cares to weigh in. Cheers, --TribbleFurSuit
17:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I had thought that we weren't going to revert back and fourth until we received opinions from other community members? If no one else has any objections to the text, I'm not sure how this is different than any other calculation regarding time and distance made in any article on Warp Drive, Quantum Slipstream, or any other faster than light means of travel within the Star Trek universe. I'd ask that you reinsert the text as we'd agreed, at least until we can get one more opinion on it. I'd also ask that when you have a moment, you review the MA articles on other faster than light drives. I think you'll find that the text added is no different than the calculations and conclusions performed therein. Best, SwordandScales 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- You only have to say it in one place. For the record, I regard the Warp drive article as something of a special case, and what's written there is less a set of calculations than a set of canon examples which are the very proof that it's incalculable because it's so inconsistent. The other articles, I will look at, and what I expect I'll find is that either whatever's written is direct from canon, in which case it's fine, or that it's fan speculation/calculation, in which case it has no place. Too many people have added too much of this fancruft over the years for us to have rooted it all out yet, and that's why you can very easily point to articles that contain stuff which shouldn't be used as a model for new contributions. --TribbleFurSuit 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)