Talk:V'ger

Roddenberry quote

should the quote from Gene Roddenberry not be altered slightly. He did say that Voyager may have met the Borg, however i doubt he would have mentioned a transwarp conduit as that concept hadn't been introduced until Star Trek Voyager.

Please sign your posts with 4 ~. I think it probably should be altered, not sure where that came from. Logan 5 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to see some proof that Roddenberry actually said this. He was severely ill at around the time the Borg were conceived and he was dead by the time the Borg transwarp coil had been introduced. BobGoatse 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof that he said it, because the comment was actually after post production to "Q Who", where he said that the machine planet encountered by Voyager might have been the Borg homeworld. As mentioned elsewhere on this page, details indicate, non-canon novels aside, that such a scenario is not very believable. -- ChrisK 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no source that Roddenberry said this. i think a fan made it up and added it here. do other featured articles keep unsourced information for this long?

If it's not going to be removed, shouldn't it at least be put as background? Borguselinux 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this quote impossible, since the concept of the Borg using transwarp conduits was created several years after his death? Or did I miss something? --Kevin W. ^Tlk 01:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is the case, and thus the incite. if it ain't cited in a few days, the information can be cleared up a bit... -- Sulfur 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the sentences in question did say JOKINGLY, so if anyone can cite it, we need to find out just how "jokingly" he was speaking, and judge whether it is worth having in the article. Borguselinux 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Except the quote itself is impossible. The first mention of a Borg transwarp conduit was made after he died. There's no way he could have known about it, especially since I don't think he's the one who wrote that episode more than a year in advance of its airing. --Kevin W. ^Tlk 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this comment: [1]. Someone should check the novel "The Return" to see what exactly was stated there, and if it is enough to act as a reference for what we have here. -- Cid Highwind 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Return" said it was a branch of the Collective that assimilated by converting everything into data patterns of information, rather than making drones out of the population and adapting useful technology. The Roddenberry quote is real, although he did not say anything about a transwarp conduit. According to the Wikipedia V'Ger article, the quote can be found in an early edition of The Star Trek Encyclopedia. --leandar 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is right- it's mentioned in the 'pedia that he JOKINGLY said the planet V'Ger met might have been the Borg homeworld. There was no mention of transwarp conduits. --Species 8675309 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote for FA - successful

Renominating. Nomination previously failed due to lack of sufficient support. The article has been partially rewritten since, and in my opinion meets the standards for a Featured Article. Ottens 12:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All the details are there and it's well written, but I think there are some easy fixes that would improve it quite a bit.
  • It buries the lead. The cat's out of the bag, and we know V'ger's Voyager VI origins. It's fundamental to V'Ger's nature, and I think the fact should be noted in the introduction.
  • Related to the above, the chronology's mixed up. If we're painting the picture of V'Ger's history and journey, it's more valuable as an encyclopedic article to describe events as they happened (launch/black hole/machine planet/questions of life/search for creator/events of TMP - followed by the physical details), rather than how the facts unfolded to Kirk & Co. in the movie.
  • The intro may be technically correct in calling V'Ger "one of the most extraordinary lifeforms", but my take on the film was it was an incredible self-aware artificial intelligence. The emphasis on an extraordinary new lifeform was what the Decker/Illia/V'Ger merge created in the end -- something other than V'Ger (but obviously covered by this article)
  • Second line of Initial Contact: "It was unlike anything that Starfleet had ever encountered." And yet, shockingly similiar to what Starfleet encountered only a few years before, Nomad. I don't thing we have to mention the recylcling outside of background, but "The Changeling" happened, and that line is not supportable.
  • I don't know any better, but I'm very suspicious of that Roddenberry quote, particularly the transwarp conduit bit, a tech that appeared in TNG (according to MA) over a year after he died. --Aurelius Kirk 14:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I liked this nomination the last time around and I still do. While I agree with AureliusKirk's first and last points, I disagree entirely with points 2-4. First I think the chronology of the encounter is good as it is, there are plenty of other instances where ships, lifeforms, etc are written from the perspective of encounter chronology, not history per se so this seems minor and could go either way. Second, the extraordinary lifeform part makes sense to me. Third, though Nomad should definitely be mentioned in the background, V'Ger is sufficiently different in origin, size, power, desire, and the threat it presented to Earth to more than justify the use of "unlike anything...". --Logan 5 15:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Weyoun 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -- Dmsdbo 01:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support (and counting Ottens thats five). Jaz ^{talk | novels} 19:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to add my support for this article as well. Its been well thought out and the pictures compliment the article well. ZsingayaFile:Maco-corporal.png 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of possible removal of FA status (not vote or action)

The article is blatantly wrong on the size of the V'Ger spacecraft. A similar error would be identifying Jupiter as equal in size to one of the inner planets, and leaving that piece of information in place. The article therefore makes a joke of FA status. --ChrisK 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This article is quite fine, the size issue is one small portion of the page and it contains a lot of valid information, plus the background section is quite extensive and provides a lot of background information. - Enzo Aquarius 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • When I attempted to correct the article, it was reverted back to incorrectness. V'Ger was 4,000 kilometers long, the size of Earth's moon, based on 0.5 km being identified by the Kirk/Sulu quote, the fact that they later moved back to 100 kilometers distance over it (1% past the supposed entire length of the object in question), and that they traveled for approximately 30 minutes to reach, if generous, 3/4 of the way into the object (neverminding how much deeper Spock went in the suit). Or in other words, I "was bold" in setting the record to be more accurate, and it gets reverted to what is blatantly wrong.
    

EDIT: And while I'm at it and thinking about it, another Kirk/Sulu quote was "...reduce magnification factor four, Mr. Sulu." "We're already two settings below that, sir." --ChrisK 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisK, if you are serious about removing the FA status, than hold this discussion in the location where people will see it and action will actually be taken. The proper location is at Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As the size was never stated in the movie, I have removed it. As for the calculations you made ChrisK, they are still speculation, and cannot be added as canon material in the article. I think the incorrect information is now gone, and therefore there is no reason to remove the FA status. I don't think there was really a reason before, as this seems to have been over ONE SENTENCE out of a large and very well done article. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My experiences on numerous wikis have shown me that people often get angry at simply chopping out material that is well-written but just plain wrong; that said, your doing so here to get rid of the ludicrous number is greatly appreciated...and yes, I'll admit to getting extremely p*ssed off about this one single subject, because of viewing V'Ger, since about six years of age, as being the only Deus Ex Machina in Star Trek history. It is special. --ChrisK 10:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:V'Ger amphitheater

Shouldn't this information already be posted at V'Ger? --From Andoria with Love 13:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, yes. It's just like specifics on a starship section, like a Bridge, Sickbay, Ten Forward, etc. Even though we have articles for these, this section of V'Ger is a one shot item, that isn't even named and is minor enough to not to need it's own article. Besides, I don't even think the term 'amphitheater' is really accurate. - Enzo Aquarius 13:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a merge is in order. I'll get on that ASAP. --From Andoria with Love 17:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merged. --From Andoria with Love 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"...on the far side of the galaxy..."

Be aware that Kirk's quote is in direct opposition to what Spock claimed to see inside the V'Ger orrifice, "whole galaxies, all stored here, recorded..." Kirk therefore had to have misspoke, since if V'Ger recorded entire galaxies while en route (hypothetically, for instance, it might've been required to go much slower through galaxies than it was capable of through the seemingly empty space between them), it would've had to have emmerged on the far side of the universe. The idea of living machines (as opposed to cybernetically inhanced) on a planet at the far side of the universe makes, frankly to this author, more sense than anything in one of the four quadrants, because there is no believable way, whatsoever, that the Borg, no matter how powerful they've ever been portrayed, could've created, for instance, the energy necessary for a twelfth-power energy field (which means, simply enough, one trillion times the energy-output of Kirk's Enterprise). All that said, I am inclined to trust the judgment of Spock rather than Kirk on the scope of V'Ger's knowledge, as he saw it with his own eyes. --ChrisK 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting Voyager's mission of 'learn all there is to learn, then report back'. It was never mentioned it took a direct path back, and its mission directive would seem to indicate it explored the entire universe before it did so (presumably out of regular space-time with all its power and technology, as 300 years would be precious little time otherwise). True, the Borg could not have initially constructed such a ship of fantastic power, however again, assuming its mission of exploring the entire universe, it was sure to have evolved tremendously during that time and considering its goal.... This (human exploration) mission was independent of any Borg/living machine planet and thus they did not reap the benefits. The idea that is it a living machine race at that point instead of the modern Borg is quite consistent with that timeline. 23rd century seems to be the earliest appearance of the Borg (the Borg in 21st century 'First Contact' are 24th century and isolated, same thing with the Star Trek :Enterprise episode) From that point on once the first 'carbon unit' Decker was 'assimilated', the evolution of 'the borg' could have started, along with a new found directive of assimilating all technology, and more importantly biological organisms to advance their race...

--74.98.72.52 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree about the fact that V'ger did not nessicarily take a direct route back, but V'ger did not create the borg. we know the borg are a lot older than V'ger. the Vaadwuar in "Dragons Teeth" knew the borg as a race with only a few planets, and they were from the 1400's. Guinan said the Borg had been around for thousands of years in "Q, Who". also, if V'ger had already 'learned all that is learnable', and was searching for a way to higher levels of existance, why would it stick around and make a corporeal race that needed to assimilate further 'searching for perfection'? wouldn't it already know everything? or to paraphrase from captain kirk "What does god need with a cyborg?" Mithril 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

V'Ger's power

V'Ger's power is definitely extraordinary, and we know not its limits.

It would lap the planet of organic matter to find its creator, but who knows what it would do to take out a whole world.

To that effect, we know that V'Ger's weapons act as data storage. Spock said, "Whole galaxies stored here, recorded." Does that mean V'Ger can decimate entire galaxies? Perhaps V'Ger had other means to collect information?

V'Ger is so advanced as to utilize a matter energy conversion system to build a bridge for the Enterprise away team to its most sacred artifact. I imagine the holographic imaging system was that corridor originally planned but seen in the Director's Cut.

Lastly, and I figure a number of you know this, V'Ger is NOT Borg. There are similarities (Living machines of fantastic power collecting data) but that's about it. The Borg existed in the 21st century (First Contact), so if V'Ger were Borg, it would have assimilated all it came across. And if the Borg had such advanced technology, they would be unstoppable--Resistance WOULD be futile at that point!

What saddens me is that V'Ger has never returned in later Star Trek releases.

"Other dimensions, higher levels of being."

- Decker (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)

It would seem to indicate that interacting inside something minor, such as our universe, would no longer be on its list of priorities, and hence won't return at all. -- ChrisK 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

same comment as above, to say V'Ger is not Borg based on your Borg timeline is just plain wrong....

The idea that is it a living machine race at that point instead of the modern Borg is quite consistent with that timeline. 23rd century seems to be the earliest appearance of the Borg. The Borg in 21st century 'First Contact' are from the 24th century and isolated, same thing with the Star Trek: Enterprise episode.

From that point on, once the first 'carbon unit' Decker was 'assimilated', the evolution of 'the borg' could have started, with V'ger giving the new found directive of assimilating all technology, and more importantly biological organisms to advance their race...

A very nice argument for speculation in fanon, but that is it. the FACT, plain and simple, is that the Borg were NEVER said to be related to V'Ger in canon. Never. Didn't happen. You can speculate and explain all you want, but it isn't canon. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

V'Ger's size

I find it hard to believe that V'Ger was "merely" 20 kilometers long, when the Whale Probe is claimed at 70. V'Ger frankly looks larger than the Probe, as insane as it might sound, and 1/3 the size of the latter would not only be too small, but nowhere near the size it seemed to exhibit in the background while it drew the Enterprise into the apperture for study. Kirk had them fly at first 1/2 a kilometer off the surface of the vessel (and got bug-eyed looks at going in so close), then told him them to go out to "100 kilometers distance, adjusting parallel course." 20 is therefore totally impossible, and miniscule compared to the scale that was shown. -- ChrisK 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Given how far they traveled to reach the center of the ship itself, versus how large the Earth actually is, I'm going to soon change the description of V'Ger's solid matter diameter, "bow" to "stern" from 20 to roughly 4,000 km long. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, feel free to say so; I will debate you until doomsday or until we agree that V'Ger was one hundred times larger than the article claims, however. -- ChrisK 02:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my one question: Is the size of V'Ger ever stated in TMP? If it is, then sadly, no matter how crazy the numer is, we'd have to go with it. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And if it wasn't stated, we couldn't add it in except as background information since any personal calculations would be considered speculation. --From Andoria with Love 08:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

V'Ger's size is never directly given in TMP, due to the authors apparently being aware that to peg it down would've been to unleash a can of worms from the precisionists (those such as, for instance, myself). The only reference given to size is the orders by Kirk to Sulu on distance. V'Ger's size cannot be accurately known, is the final reality...save for backgrond that it actually works out, the final scenes of it launching the super-plasma bolts at the D-Cut's finale being inaccurate, at a little larger than the moon. --ChrisK 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has now been two months, with no major objections to the material presented. As such, I will now change the reference "about the size of...Eros," which has no in-movie material to support it, to "slightly larger than...Earth's moon...", since it is at least half-supportable that that's how slow Enterprise was going when it passed over the main structure of the ship inside the cloud; some may protest that the evidence is iffy at best, but with all due respect, it's a h/ll of a lot more believable than the true V'Ger ship being the size of Manhattan island. --ChrisK 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

V'Ger's size, from Reference Desk

On a role with topics of late, apparently... Anyway:

In the feature article on V'Ger, I've noticed one predominant, glaring error...at least, if my own mathematical calculations and/or chronological ("stopwatch") records in the movie are accurate.
In the article, it states that V'Ger was estimated to be about the size of the solar asteroid Eros, or about the dimensions of the Terran island of Manhattan. I have no idea where this reference comes from, but that would be literally impossible for V'Ger to be anywhere near that small, for several reasons.
First, and foremost, Kirk at one point tells Sulu that he wants him to guide the ship down to 500 meters off the V'Ger spacecraft surface, and gets a bug-eyed look back, obviously at how close that would be. Yet 500 meters is 0.5 kilometers; visual comparison on screen to V'Ger at this time makes clear the Enterprise being approximately the size of a pea, versus a small building. He then tells Sulu to take them out "to 100 kilometers distance, adjusting parallel course." Sulu does so...and such things as the V'Ger orifice, shortly thereafter, literally tower over the Enterprise...especially when the ship is drawn through the orifice immediately after Ilia is taken, and the rest of V'Ger stretches on to the proverbial horizon to left and right. If 100 kilometers distance is flown over a craft 20 kilometers long, the distance above it would've been five times the length of V'Ger...and yet V'Ger is easily large enough to hold well over 100 Enterprises in its "amphitheater" holding chamber alone.
The second point that makes 20 kilometers an impossibility is the traveling speed of NASA's space shuttle, of all things. In orbit around the Earth, the shuttle travels at a pace of roughly 18,000 miles per hour. Insanely fast, if it were in the atmosphere, but it's of course not. In orbit, it might well be said to gently, or lazily, float around Earth. It is also composed of rocket technology of our own day and age. Are they actually willing to claim that our rockets would be pushing the space shuttle orbiter faster than Enterprise would be going at impulse, or even half-impulse? When they left Earth orbit, Earth became much smaller, VERY quickly, in their reverse angle. To say V'Ger is 20 kilometers long is to say that that during the pass over the ship, 23rd century Enterprise was going MUCH slower than the space shuttle...and somehow I doubt that. At a speed comparable to shuttle cruising pace, 18,000 mph, Kirk and crew would've covered a distance of 28,968 km/h. Even if you half that time to thirty minutes (and it was a little more than that), between first sighting the V'Ger ship after passing through the cloud to reaching the amphitheater, that pace would have them cover just over 14,000 km.
...
14,000-20,000 km, vs. 20 km.
V'Ger was roughly 100 teams larger than the article claims. Being that as it is, I bring it all up here, rather than its talk page, because it'd be a major change to what is otherwise rightly a featured article. -- ChrisK 10:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's huge Majorthomme 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah! --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Im still uncomfortable with 14,000-20,000 km. Those numbers assume RCS speed, which is far less than impulse. I can watch the movie again and see if they make mention of exactly what speed they were going, but to think that they were going on thrusters for all that time is troubleing. Calculate the size based on Half (12.5% c) and Full-Impulse (25% c according to DITL). I get 67 million km at full impulse, 33 million km at half, and we can even say quarter impulse at 16 million km, give or take a million, assumeing that the opening is on the exact opposite side of V'Ger as the spacecraft surface. --Sdamon 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

moved from Talk:V'Ger cloud

This entry should be merged with the V'Ger article. There's no need for a seperate page for the V'ger cloud when that is covered in the V'Ger article. Either merging them or deleting this one would seem logical to me. Andrew 07:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been a great fan of "The Motion Picture" since it first came out. What I'm going to suggest is that the "Cloud" is an advanced warp field that also has defensive abalities. Question. If you were going to move that much mass at high warp wouldn't you need one hell of an energy field? The energy field could also be entropic in nature at high warp but would also require a great amount of control. Just idle musings here.

Article has been merged. --From Andoria with Love 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Black hole/wormhole

I noticed there is some discussion about where the probe emerged from the blackhole. The other side of the galaxy? The other side of the universe? Who cares? While we're at it, I may as well point out that by definition the probe fell into a wormhole, not a black hole. And what was that bit about the Enterprise being caught in a wormhole near the beginning of this film all about anyways???? Federation 02:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, as to answer the "who cares" part, we do. If we are going to say "other side of the universe", or "other side of the galaxy", then we need to say that one that was stated in canon. Also, Voyager 6 was lost in a black hole, not a wormhole. Again, that was established in canon. As for the wormhole Enterprise was in, did you watch the movie? It is impossible to miss. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss the scene about the wormhole, just had a hard time understanding what caused it to appear or what about it was a "wormhole" as opposed to an abnormal warp field. Why did destroying an asteroid free the ship? Also, Voyager 6 was not caught in a black hole. Things do not come out of black holes, at least not intact. If the anomaly that Voyager 6 encountered transported it through space, by definition it is a wormhole. Don't know why Decker called it a black hole, but he must had been mistaken. He also could not had known where the probe emerged, so the debate is really about what a character said in error! Federation 01:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could just be chalked up to not knowing as much about black hole physics as we do today because you are right in saying that it could not have been a black hole in any form. The probe wouldn't have even made it past the event horizon intact, much less getting through it and past the singularity. It had to be a wormhole. --leandar 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! In 1979 everyone knew as much about the difference between wormholes and black holes as they do today. The fact that wormholes were mentioned by name in the script indicates an understanding of them, so why not are we talking black holes? I think that a lot of people on MA need to realize that its one thing to ask what characters on the show say, and what actually happens on the shows. They are not always the same. Federation 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If they understood so much about wormholes, how did the Enterprise keep from getting tossed to who knows where in the galaxy, much less the universe? Sure it could have been a local phenomenon, but they still would have noticed that they had moved a significant distance through the galaxy. All I'm saying is that scientists may have thought it to be a black hole when Voyager VI disappeared, but for it to have survived getting through it, much less even reaching the event horizon, it had to be a wormhole. --leandar 01:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)