Talk:USS Voyager (Star Trek)

Untitled

It would be good to have a few more technical details, at least the class of starship and how it is similar to and different from the Enterprise. Wesley

• Reply to above - I didn't originally write this article, but the first time I saw it I did some major revisions, which included adding a list of technical specifications. However, during a future edit, someone else moved the list over to a separate article titled "Intrepid class starship". (6/18/04, 20:37UTC)

Designer: Richard D. James

Is this for real? Was the designer actually also named Richard D. James or is this vandalism, as there is a very well known Richard D. James performing artist, more well known as Aphex Twin, AFX, etc., who even has an album titled "the Richard D. James album". Just seems rather coincidental, but if it can be confirmed either way, then this section can be removed. Thanks. --75.72.148.96 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.122.227 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SlipStream technology adopted from Borg

During "Timeless" Voyager tests a Silp-Stream drive which is a lot faster than warp 9. Because it was only tested once and ended up destroying voyager on a icy planet. The Delta Flyer managed to make it back to Earth in record time using a SlipStream drive. Using it once got Voyager 10 years closer to Earth Renegadevikign

The Borg use transwarp technology, slipstream was developed by "Species 116", slipstream exceeds the warp barrier, just like transwarp (There is more detail at MA) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the Borg assemblate Species 116 ("species 116" is a term the Borg uses)!

Yes they did assimilate 116. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Changing the name of this article to USS Voyager (NCC-74656) makes it REALLY HARD to distinguish in a Wikipedia search page (unless you are a trekie its hard to tell which article is Star Trek's "Voyager"). The previous name USS Voyager (Star Trek) would be preferable since it gives you an obvious clue as to what the article is about. This seems to a case of fan exactitude out weighing encyclopedic needs. I propose changing it back. Halfblue 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this at the talk:WikiProject Star Trek Halfblue 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I made edits to fit WP:1SP and WP:LAYOUT. I also tried to combine plot details and technical descriptions that just seem to repeat and repeat and repeat. Its still a mess... more help needed. Deleted info on Delta Flyer... it has its own page. Halfblue 13:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New Technologies

"During their years in the Delta Quadrant, the Voyager crew upgraded their ship as far as possible using captured, stolen and purchased alien technology as well as technology acquired from the future."

I'm having a problem with this sentence, but I hesitate to edit it because I don't know a way to make it precise but short.

For example: In "Scorpio, Part II", 7 of 9 beams Borg equipment onto Voyager's Cargo Bay 2 before her cube gets destroyed. Later on in the episode, the cargo bay is depressurized and all Borg except 7 get tossed out. As 7 becomes more human, she still uses a Borg alcove to sleep. The alcove belongs to her, since she is still Borg, so I would hardly consider that technology "stolen." But Voyager did not pay for it, so it's not "purchased" either. And for some reason I don't think "captured" applies either. ShutterBugTrekker 00:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it unique that the Intrepid class can make a touchdown on a planet?

Yes; at least Voyager can. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, misread that...I have no idea if other ships can touch down. Certainly the Galaxy class can't—but the Defiant can, if I recall correctly. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure it can touch down, remember the touchdown of Enterprise D? :D -- Cat ^chi? (Coolcat) 14:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Coolcat is correct. I should have added that Voyager has the bonus ability of being able to take off from the planet while still in one piece =) — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Propose move from Starship Voyager to USS Voyager

I am suggesting that this article be renamed from Starship Voyager to USS Voyager. This would be consistent with "official" Star Trek usage as well as other Star Trek ship names (for example, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), USS Defiant, USS Galaxy, and so on). If anyone objects (or supports), please discuss it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Starship Voyager → USS Voyager. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 11:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shortly after I proposed the move, an article was written on the currently-existing USS Voyager, so I moved this page from Starship Voyager to USS Voyager (Star Trek). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

USS Voyager should be a disambiguation page. You are right, there are many "voyager"s fiction or not, just like USS Enterprise. USS Voyager (NCC-74656) is the right format. -- Cat ^chi? 13:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that USS Voyager should be disambiguation, but USS Voyager (Star Trek) seems preferable to the one with the serial number—in my opinion, that would be done for multiple Voyagers within the Star Trek universe. If another one were to arise, we could then disambiguate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes by 69.104.18.93

Today (April 7th) 69.104.18.93 made a number of changes to data points that should be indisputable facts (ship length, weapon compliment, engine specifications, etc). We need some definate source documentation here, so we can determine which of these numbers are accurate. Or, if conflicting offical sources exist, we need to find a way to reconcile them or present both sides. Doopokko 07:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page move?

It appears User:Coolcat just moved this page from USS Voyager (Star Trek) to USS Voyager (NCC-74656). I personally feel that the former (Star Trek) is the better title, which is why I moved the article there from Starship Voyager last year. Any other thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC) [updated — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)]

Agreed, Use common names. - SimonP 04:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Any other opinions? If there isn't any opposition, and given the comments a few months ago when we were discussing moving the page, I will probably move the page back in a day or so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Common names? There is a format for star trek ships. That should be followed. I already voiced my reason to move this page. This is the only Starfleet ship that is named as "USS Voyager (Star Trek)". Common names based on what? I am not renaming it to Spock, I am adding the ships serrial number to the article title just like other voyagers. -- Cat ^chi? 14:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sure the common name for the coast guard ship is the USS Voyager. I am also sure the common name for any ship does not include the serrial number, however its a standard to put a serial number due to the number of ships having same common name. -- Cat ^chi? 14:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Computer Speed Units

48,000,000,000 kiloquads/nanosecond = 48 teraquads/nanosecond? What do you think? A strolling player 00:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Transporters making Star Ships Obsolete?

Transporter range of 1,550,000,000,000 kilometers??? That's 10360 au... The distance from the sun to pluto is 38 au... The range of the Enterprise transporters were around 40,000km so i don't think that number is right. Untill i find the range from a canon source i won't edit it myself, but am looking. A non canon source that points to the 40k range is http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Transporter#Limitations

Years

Voyager ends in 2377, not 2378... it's a common mistake due to an error in the episode "Homestead".

If "Homestead" contradicts the article, it should be mentioned. Bytebear (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So...

I want one of theese ships... And an Holosuite... And a Replicator... How much does it cost??

In Star Trek, there is no money, and no ownership, so you can't have one. Bytebear (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted propulsion additions

I removed the additions to the Propulsion section of the Infobox because they were not part of the ship's capabilities. The Slipstream drive used in "Hope and Fear" was never installed on Voyager. The drive in "Timeless" was not a capability of the ship; it was an add-on component tested once and dismantled after the ensuing disaster. -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Nacelles

In many episodes Voyagers warp nessels are seem moving up before the ship goes into warp. Can anyone cooberate or document this? Flamesplash 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can corroborate this. I believe it is referred to as the "Variable-geometry Nacelles", designed to protect the fabric of space-time. This is documented and referenced thoroughly on Memory Alpha. The folding nacelles are a result of this new solution to protecting the fabric of space-time. -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  08:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Warp Core

What is up with Voyager's warp core? Has it ever been explained? There are no "cascading" patterns of light that converge on the crystals, there's just that weird liquid-like light pattern. Again, has it ever been explained? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.254.8.195 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Table for decks

The current format looks a tad sloppy, dull, and not all to inviting. A table not only refines it, but also makes it clear what the numbers and words are. American Patriot 1776 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The capitalization is off, "Okudagrams" is not a reliable source, and in general I think it's too trivial to warrant including here. But, that said, I'd prefer the simplicity of a numbered list than the table. I don't think the table adds any more clarity, and given that, prefer the simpler markup of a list. --EEMeltonIV 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tables are good in general for various reasons, they are also bad. Tables should not be used for the sake over simpler wikimarkup, in fact I find it looks fugly. (WP:TABLE) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded Technology

Near the end of the last season, Voyager acquires technology that vastly increased the output of their replicators. This was when they formed an alliance with some aliens in an attempt to escape a void. In the episode called 'The Void' of course. The amount of energy needed to make one steak, for example, now makes multiple steaks.

I'd add in this upgrade section but my brain has the dumb today and I cannot think of a graceful way to add it in.

Lots42 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the info as a sentence in one of the paragraphs of the Design and capabilities section. See my edit for what I did. Look OK to you? Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Intrepid class starship here

Voyager certainly is notable, but the class as a whole seems not to be. Would there be any objection to migrating cited material from the class article here? We can put atop this article a dab link along the lines of "Intrepid-class starship redirects here; for other ships in this class, see List of Starfleet starships organized by class".

Which, actually, makes me wonder: would that List of... be a better merge/redirect target? --EEMIV (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For the merge/redirect, will the original class article be deleted?cdmajava There are always possibilities... 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge it. The class isn't important, the ship is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the class is important. It gives imfo on the Intrepid class in general, while Voyager has specific modifications the other don't have. besides, if you merge it, it would cause a ripple effect of merges, you would also have to change every other link to the Intrepid Class Article to either be removed or redirect to the Voyager page. This wouild screw up the List of... . Cdmajavatalk  02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what AWB is for. The class has no real-world significance -- those differing traits are at best minutiae, and even the class article pretty much only refers to Voyager for its information. And a reworking of the List of... and disparate class articles is exactly what that corner of the Star Trek WikiProject neds. I'm focused right now mostly on another article, but once that simmers the starship articles will (once again) be my focus and I'll do the merge(s), unless someone beats me to it/them. Cdmajava, you can use the time to try to substantiate some real-world significance for the class itself. --EEMIV (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Real-world significance"? You mean how it applies to the real real-world, or what? Cdmajavatalk  20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Slight Inconsistency at startrek.com

I've noticed a slight inconsistency at startrek.com. At http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ships/article/70413.html the maximum velocity is claimed as a sustainable warp 9.975 for the Intrepid class, but at http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ships/article/70517.html it states that Voyager can only do warp 9.975 for short periods of time. I suggest the later is supported by episode dialogue. Perhaps someone with the DVD set can confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermckwiki (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

what episode and season? I'll see if its on the set I have. Actually, I think I know an episode with this info in it. Get back to me with your specific episode though. Personally, I've read one and heard the other.cdmajava There are always possibilities... 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Technical Specifications

Width: 144 meters Height: 55 meters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdmajava (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Warp factor confusion

I've noticed something odd. The show states that it would take them 70 years to get home at maximum speed. The distance they needed to travel is 70000 light years and their maximum speed is warp 9.975. The only way that this would take 70 years at warp 9.975 is if they used the warp factor used in TOS which didn't have the warp 10 limit. If they used the new warp scale then traveling 70000 light years at warp 9.975 would only take approximately 5.19 years. With this being said wouldn't it have been possible to travel past warp 10 without a problem thus making the episode in which Tom Paris hyper-evolves a contradiction in warp factor or a plot hole? Jvclark2 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of Photon Torpedoes

The article currently says that there are a total of 38 torpedoes. However, I recently rewatched the first several episodes again, and I noticed that Chakotay says, in like the second or third episode, that they have a compliment of 38. This was after they launched 2 at the Caretaker's Array. Doesn't this mean they had a total of 40 when they left the Alpha Quadrant? GameSlayerGS (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because in 'Caretaker' Voyager fired Tricobalt devices, not photon torpedoes. However, throughout the run of Voyager, over 90 torpedoes were used. But, it has to be remembered that Voyager was 'officially' meant to carry 38 torpedoes, and didn't possess the means to replicate new ones unless they had raw materals from planets. Hope this helps. (talk) 21:22 3rd July 2012 GMT+1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Starship_article_ruminations, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent expansion

Well well-intentioned, this array of recent edits adds in-universe plot summary & trivia and large swaths of original research. Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting the major expansion, with the suggestion that the creating/restoring editor visit e.g. the writing-about-elements-of-fiction guidelines and a few high-quality article about elements of sci-fi, e.g. Master Chief (Halo) and Jabba the Hutt. --EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Voyager (Star Trek). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822193016/http://www.thelogbook.com/jcc/q3-04/voyager3/ to http://www.thelogbook.com/jcc/q3-04/voyager3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Enterprise & Voyager (USS Voyager crop).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)