Why was the Transwarp project abandoned??

Graham Kennedy <graham.RemoveThis@ditl.org> wrote in
news:3f64d924$0$33810$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net:

> And when you look at history, it's almost impossible
> to catch a specific single bad guy. They haven't caught
> Saddam, or Osama (assuming they are alive), hell, they
> didn't even catch Hitler!


Yeah and the Third Reich is surely to rise again. NOT. It would be mistake
to titrate the War on Terrorism down to a hunt for this or that specific
bad guy. This would elevate these thugs into something they are not,
important. The US went that route in Ethiopia and it was disastor. Clinton
cut and ran at the first sign of trouble which baited Osama bin Laden into
citing the incident when telling his followers that the US is a paper
tiger.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

> It centers mostly on Clark and Chavez forming an anti-terrorist strike
> organization composed of six nations worth of military guys, at least I
> think that was the gimmick. SAS guys and some others. I only read it once,
I
> think it followed "Executive Orders" and aped some of that previous novels
> plot points on the terror angle.

Sounds close to the Mack Bolan paperback series. They're my guilty read.

--
Have Fun
Dale McGill

Life must be lived with every ounce of your being. So when you rejoice let
the heavens be filled with your laughter and when you mourn let the heavens
be filled with your tears
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

in article zv69b.10758$Aq2.10312@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, Dale at
hipdale.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net wrote on 9/14/03 6:06 PM:

>> It centers mostly on Clark and Chavez forming an anti-terrorist strike
>> organization composed of six nations worth of military guys, at least I think
>> that was the gimmick. SAS guys and some others. I only read it once, I think
>> it followed "Executive Orders" and aped some of that previous novels plot
>> points on the terror angle.
>
> Sounds close to the Mack Bolan paperback series. They're my guilty read.

Don't know about those.

I read some Clive Cussler (I think that's his name) eons ago when "Raise the
Titanic" came out and thought occasionally about giving his stuff another
try but haven't gotten round to it. I have a copy of "Lie Down With Lions" I
think by Ken Follet (sp?) that is set 20 years ago in the Afghan/Soviet war
that was an interesting read. I've got a box of books that I was given years
ago that I dip into occasionally for reading stuff and that had been
languishing in it for over a decade. I don't usually go for the spy or
action adventure stuff other than Clancy and the odd book here and there. I
tried reading some Ian Fleming like 20 years ago in college and couldn't get
into it.
--
"Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my first
instinct is to laugh. But then I think, what is I was an ant, and she fell
on me. Then it wouldn't seem quite so funny."
--"Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

In article <BB8A63D2.1948B%elvisgump@NOhotmailSPAM.com>, Elvis Gump
<elvisgump.TakeThisOut@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:

> I read some Clive Cussler (I think that's his name) eons ago when "Raise the
> Titanic" came out and thought occasionally about giving his stuff another
> try but haven't gotten round to it.

I tried a few of those, way back when. Raise the Titanic is much
better than the movie they made of it, and the ending is very
different. There's another couple of books in which Dirk Pitt (I think
that's the hero's name, or maybe I'm confusing him with that actor)
gets into a deal where he locates a WW1-era treaty from the British
that ceded Canada to the US in exchange for gold. After that, Cussler
began writing books about the new United States of Canada. He had a
neat little alternate history going there.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Mack Bolan AKA The Executioner is the title character in a pulp paper back
series that started in 1969 whit the title At War With The Mafia these days
he sometimes works for the government as part of a group known as Stonyman
who fight against terrorists. Their a fun read but very violent.

--
Have Fun
Dale McGill

Life must be lived with every ounce of your being. So when you rejoice let
the heavens be filled with your laughter and when you mourn let the heavens
be filled with your tears
"Elvis Gump" <elvisgump RemoveThis @NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BB8A63D2.1948B%elvisgump@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
> in article zv69b.10758$Aq2.10312@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, Dale at
> hipdale RemoveThis @earthlink.net wrote on 9/14/03 6:06 PM:
>
> >> It centers mostly on Clark and Chavez forming an anti-terrorist strike
> >> organization composed of six nations worth of military guys, at least I
think
> >> that was the gimmick. SAS guys and some others. I only read it once, I
think
> >> it followed "Executive Orders" and aped some of that previous novels
plot
> >> points on the terror angle.
> >
> > Sounds close to the Mack Bolan paperback series. They're my guilty
read.
>
> Don't know about those.
>
> I read some Clive Cussler (I think that's his name) eons ago when "Raise
the
> Titanic" came out and thought occasionally about giving his stuff another
> try but haven't gotten round to it. I have a copy of "Lie Down With Lions"
I
> think by Ken Follet (sp?) that is set 20 years ago in the Afghan/Soviet
war
> that was an interesting read. I've got a box of books that I was given
years
> ago that I dip into occasionally for reading stuff and that had been
> languishing in it for over a decade. I don't usually go for the spy or
> action adventure stuff other than Clancy and the odd book here and there.
I
> tried reading some Ian Fleming like 20 years ago in college and couldn't
get
> into it.
> --
> "Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my first
> instinct is to laugh. But then I think, what is I was an ant, and she fell
> on me. Then it wouldn't seem quite so funny."
> --"Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

If I recall my history correctly, the only World War II-era battleship to be
converted to a carrier was the Japanese ship Shinano. It was supposed to be
a 72,000-ton Yamato class battleship, but had much of its armor stripped off
and a flight deck installed.

It was sunk a few days after its commissioning by the submarine Archerfish.

That said, a couple of pre-World War II carriers started as World War I
battlecruisers -- the Ranger and the Lexington, I think.

At the point where the U.S. was down to one active carrier in the Pacific,
it already had several Essex-class carriers under construction, and I have
to imagine it would have been easier and cheaper (and faster) to complete
them then to try to convert a battleship. Besides, all but a couple of the
pre-WWII battleships were at the bottom of Pearl Harbor to start, and all
but the Arizona, the Utah and the Oklahoma were raised and sailed again as
battleships.

But to the point at hand, there are technologies that work, but are
unreliable or too expensive. And as I recall, Scotty's complaint was that
the Excelsio was overdesigned, suggesting that it was unnecessarily complex
and prone to malfunction. Which he demonstrated with the computer system, as
I recall.

Todd

"Dale" <hipdale.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NTu8b.5185$NM1.3669@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I Believe that in the second World War a lot of battle ship hulls were
> converted to Carriers hulls because there was a need to replace sunken
> Carrier's. At one point I believe that The USS Enterprise was the only
> carrier in use. The Saratoga was in dry dock and Yorktown, Lexington and
> Hornet had been sunk.
>
> A good reason that The Transwarp Drive may have been abandon is that it
was
> just over kill. There was no need at that point for a Ship that could
> travel that fast.
>
> The most likely reason that the Federation cut Starfleet's budget.
>
> --
> Have Fun
> Dale McGill
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Raker <raker.RemoveThis@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7uj9b.91137$7G2.33893@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> But to the point at hand, there are technologies that work, but are
> unreliable or too expensive. And as I recall, Scotty's complaint was that
> the Excelsio was overdesigned, suggesting that it was unnecessarily
complex
> and prone to malfunction. Which he demonstrated with the computer system,
as
> I recall.

Indeed. Sulu's ship and bridge seemed much less automated, much less
computer interaction (no computer voice status reports, etc.) I still kinda
think Excelsior was a proof-of-concept, including that much automation.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Snake <vze3cdrt.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XHj9b.4064$U41.3332@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> Raker <raker.TakeThisOut@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7uj9b.91137$7G2.33893@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > But to the point at hand, there are technologies that work, but are
> > unreliable or too expensive. And as I recall, Scotty's complaint was
that
> > the Excelsio was overdesigned, suggesting that it was unnecessarily
> complex
> > and prone to malfunction. Which he demonstrated with the computer
system,
> as
> > I recall.
>
> Indeed. Sulu's ship and bridge seemed much less automated, much less
> computer interaction (no computer voice status reports, etc.) I still
kinda
> think Excelsior was a proof-of-concept, including that much automation.

That is, Sulu's ship was Excelsior. They removed much of the automation
once the trial phase was out of the way.

??????
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

According to the Book Titans of The Sea the USN had several battleship hulls
converted over they were pocket carriers. When I say converted I meant in
the sense that only the basic hull structure was in place. They needed to
replace several lost carriers quickly and that was the fastest way to do it.
Yorktown was lost at Midway but I can't remember where the Lexington and
Hornet were lost. But The Saratoga and Enterprise were all that was left
and the Sara was in dry dock she had the rep of being an unlucky ship.

--
Have Fun
Dale McGill

Life must be lived with every ounce of your being. So when you rejoice let
the heavens be filled with your laughter and when you mourn let the heavens
be filled with your tears
"Raker" <raker DeleteThis @twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7uj9b.91137$7G2.33893@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> If I recall my history correctly, the only World War II-era battleship to
be
> converted to a carrier was the Japanese ship Shinano. It was supposed to
be
> a 72,000-ton Yamato class battleship, but had much of its armor stripped
off
> and a flight deck installed.
>
> It was sunk a few days after its commissioning by the submarine
Archerfish.
>
> That said, a couple of pre-World War II carriers started as World War I
> battlecruisers -- the Ranger and the Lexington, I think.
>
> At the point where the U.S. was down to one active carrier in the Pacific,
> it already had several Essex-class carriers under construction, and I have
> to imagine it would have been easier and cheaper (and faster) to complete
> them then to try to convert a battleship. Besides, all but a couple of the
> pre-WWII battleships were at the bottom of Pearl Harbor to start, and all
> but the Arizona, the Utah and the Oklahoma were raised and sailed again as
> battleships.
>
> But to the point at hand, there are technologies that work, but are
> unreliable or too expensive. And as I recall, Scotty's complaint was that
> the Excelsio was overdesigned, suggesting that it was unnecessarily
complex
> and prone to malfunction. Which he demonstrated with the computer system,
as
> I recall.
>
> Todd
>
> "Dale" <hipdale DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:NTu8b.5185$NM1.3669@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > I Believe that in the second World War a lot of battle ship hulls were
> > converted to Carriers hulls because there was a need to replace sunken
> > Carrier's. At one point I believe that The USS Enterprise was the only
> > carrier in use. The Saratoga was in dry dock and Yorktown, Lexington
and
> > Hornet had been sunk.
> >
> > A good reason that The Transwarp Drive may have been abandon is that it
> was
> > just over kill. There was no need at that point for a Ship that could
> > travel that fast.
> >
> > The most likely reason that the Federation cut Starfleet's budget.
> >
> > --
> > Have Fun
> > Dale McGill
> >
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

I forgot about The Wasp but I don't remember if she was sunk or in dry dock.

--
Have Fun
Dale McGill

Life must be lived with every ounce of your being. So when you rejoice let
the heavens be filled with your laughter and when you mourn let the heavens
be filled with your tears
"Dale" <hipdale RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3Bk9b.17589$Aq2.14518@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> According to the Book Titans of The Sea the USN had several battleship
hulls
> converted over they were pocket carriers. When I say converted I meant in
> the sense that only the basic hull structure was in place. They needed to
> replace several lost carriers quickly and that was the fastest way to do
it.
> Yorktown was lost at Midway but I can't remember where the Lexington and
> Hornet were lost. But The Saratoga and Enterprise were all that was left
> and the Sara was in dry dock she had the rep of being an unlucky ship.
>
> --
> Have Fun
> Dale McGill
>
> Life must be lived with every ounce of your being. So when you rejoice let
> the heavens be filled with your laughter and when you mourn let the
heavens
> be filled with your tears
> "Raker" <raker RemoveThis @twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7uj9b.91137$7G2.33893@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > If I recall my history correctly, the only World War II-era battleship
to
> be
> > converted to a carrier was the Japanese ship Shinano. It was supposed to
> be
> > a 72,000-ton Yamato class battleship, but had much of its armor stripped
> off
> > and a flight deck installed.
> >
> > It was sunk a few days after its commissioning by the submarine
> Archerfish.
> >
> > That said, a couple of pre-World War II carriers started as World War I
> > battlecruisers -- the Ranger and the Lexington, I think.
> >
> > At the point where the U.S. was down to one active carrier in the
Pacific,
> > it already had several Essex-class carriers under construction, and I
have
> > to imagine it would have been easier and cheaper (and faster) to
complete
> > them then to try to convert a battleship. Besides, all but a couple of
the
> > pre-WWII battleships were at the bottom of Pearl Harbor to start, and
all
> > but the Arizona, the Utah and the Oklahoma were raised and sailed again
as
> > battleships.
> >
> > But to the point at hand, there are technologies that work, but are
> > unreliable or too expensive. And as I recall, Scotty's complaint was
that
> > the Excelsio was overdesigned, suggesting that it was unnecessarily
> complex
> > and prone to malfunction. Which he demonstrated with the computer
system,
> as
> > I recall.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > "Dale" <hipdale RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:NTu8b.5185$NM1.3669@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > I Believe that in the second World War a lot of battle ship hulls were
> > > converted to Carriers hulls because there was a need to replace sunken
> > > Carrier's. At one point I believe that The USS Enterprise was the
only
> > > carrier in use. The Saratoga was in dry dock and Yorktown, Lexington
> and
> > > Hornet had been sunk.
> > >
> > > A good reason that The Transwarp Drive may have been abandon is that
it
> > was
> > > just over kill. There was no need at that point for a Ship that could
> > > travel that fast.
> > >
> > > The most likely reason that the Federation cut Starfleet's budget.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Have Fun
> > > Dale McGill
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Dale wrote:
> According to the Book Titans of The Sea the USN had several battleship hulls
> converted over they were pocket carriers. When I say converted I meant in
> the sense that only the basic hull structure was in place. They needed to
> replace several lost carriers quickly and that was the fastest way to do it.
> Yorktown was lost at Midway but I can't remember where the Lexington and
> Hornet were lost. But The Saratoga and Enterprise were all that was left
> and the Sara was in dry dock she had the rep of being an unlucky ship.
>

I think you're referring to the Independence-class light aircraft
carriers (CVL-22 through CVL-30), which were converted from
Cleveland-class light cruisers. Also, towards the end of the war, two
Baltimore-class light cruisers were converted into the carriers Saipan
and Wright (CVL-48 and CVL-49).

Lexington was lost at the Battle of the Coral Sea; Hornet at
Guadalcanal; Wasp was torpedoed by a submarine. 1942 was an expensive
year for carriers...

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

In article <BB878CA2.190B7%elvisgump@NOhotmailSPAM.com>,
elvisgump RemoveThis @NOhotmailSPAM.com says...
> in article 3f620a48$0$33812$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net, Graham Kennedy at
> graham RemoveThis @ditl.org wrote on 9/12/03 1:02 PM:
>
> > Kasey Chang (remove EATSPAM to reply) wrote:
> >
> >> "Willem-Jan van Strien" <wjvs RemoveThis @xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> >> news:3f60fd4b$0$132$e4fe514c@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >>> To my knowledge, the Excelsior had a working (tested = working enough
> >>
> >> for me
> >>
> >>> Transwarp Drive System.
> >>
> >>
> >> They only said "it was supposed to..." but we never saw it actually
> >> work. Nor
> >> did they ever really referred to it as "tested", did they?
> >
> > Doesn't it seem rather strange to build an entire, fully
> > functional starship with a drive system that has never
> > been tested, though?
>
> Sometimes things work in the lab that don't pan out in reality. It could be
> also that the Excelsior was always meant to be a regular warp ship and that
> the addition of the transwarp stuff was a last minute development.
>
> There are one-off examples like this in the modern US navy. IIRC the nuclear
> powered air-craft carrier USS Enterprise was the only carrier in it's class
> that was nuke powered until the larger Nimitz class superceded it. In that
> way USS Enterprise was a test platform for nuclear carriers eh?

Exactly. Enterprise (CVN-65) is a one-off. In fact, Long Beach (the
first nuclear-powered surface ship; she preceded Big E by three months)
is also a one-off; her sister ships are conventionally powered.

One of Big E's sister ships (in fact, she was built *later* than
Enterprise) is the nearly-as-famous USS John Fitzgerald Kennedy (CV-6
a *conventionally* powered carrier.

The United States Navy (in fact, this is true of most navies) is *rife*
with *one-offs* or the understandable *improved-in-design* ships (where
later technology improvements were built into later ships of a class,
but could not be backfitted into earlier ships of the same class); the
so-called *Los Angeles* (SSN-688) class of attack submarines is actually
one primary class and two subclasses.

The Kidd-class DDGs weren't even intended for the *United States* Navy
at all; they were originally built for the *Iranian* Navy, but were
*frustrated* after the fall of the Shah and *forced* into the United
States Navy by a pissed-on Congress. (These four ships make up the
infamous *dead-admiral* class of DDGs all named after admirals that
never won a battle while a flag officer.)

In Star Trek lore, Kirk's Enterprise (NCC-1701) is somewhat of a one-off
(quite a number of improvements were designed in at the request of
Captain Robert April). After Kirk brought her back from his five-year
mission, Enterprise itself was the first (in fact, the only) ship of the
Constitution (heavy cruiser - MK IX) class to undergo SLEIP (Service
Life Extension and Improvement Program). Twenty *new-build* ships of
what was termed MK-IXC/Enterprise-class heavy cruisers were originally
authorized (a re-authorization primarily of the never built vessels of
the MK-IXB class); however, no Enterprise-class starships (other than
Intrepid II) were known to be built .

Picard's Enterprise was also somewhat of a one-off; several changes were
made to the basic design of the class, but were done only to Enterprise
(and *not* to the original USS Galaxy; this has been suspected as being
a partial cause of Galaxy's later loss with all hands).

I strongly suspect that the *current* Sovereign-class Enterprise is yet
another one-off (with several design changes from the basic Sovereign
design), simply because ships named Enterprise are not *cookie-cutter*
vessels (this goes all the way back to the *wind-powered* original
Enterprise).

As to why *transwarp* was abandoned, Scott's successful sabotage of
Excelsior confirmed that transwarp as designed was unworkable (transwarp
could *only* be made active while within warp; therefore, if warp drive
was down, transwarp wouldn't work, either). Note that Excelsior was
*not* scrapped (as we *all* know, Hikaru Sulu would later become her
CO); however, the transwarp design was never activated in other ships of
the class (or re-activated aboard Excelsior herself).

Research continues on other FTW transport methods (including wormhole
networks, *transporter ship* technologies, and Borg-type transwarp
conduit technologies), which is part of the reason why Kathryn Janeway
is chained to a desk (and is a flag officer) in Star Trek: Nemesis
(Janeway, like Picard, is a scientist of some note, though it *does*
seem odd that Janeway, who is actually younger than Picard, is now
Picard's boss).
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Christopher L. Estep wrote:

> Picard's Enterprise was also somewhat of a one-off; several changes were
> made to the basic design of the class, but were done only to Enterprise
> (and *not* to the original USS Galaxy; this has been suspected as being
> a partial cause of Galaxy's later loss with all hands).

Not sure where you get all this from, but this at least is
incorrect. Last we heard the Galaxy was alive and well;
she was listed as one of the ships the E-E was going to
meet up with in Nemesis as it left Romulan space.

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned??