Do it again! Do it again!
One of the scenes in “The Cage” that wasn’t included in the later framing two-parter “The Menagerie” has Spock giving the order to “prepare for hyperdrive”.
Just some geek observations.
The Cage
Capt. Pike: “Our destination is the Talos star group our time warp, factor seven.”
The term Hyperdrive goes back at least to Forbidden Planet (1956), from the opening narration: “almost at once came the invention of hyperdrive in which the speed of light was achieved and later greatly surpassed.”
All I know is that Orson Scott Card specifically wrote into his book “How to write Science Fiction and Fantasy” that you should never use the term “Warp Speed.” The reason is simple: Star Trek has a lock on it. All you’re going to end up doing if you use the term is remind your reader that you’re cribbing off Star Trek’s universe, even if the story itself doesn’t.
Ya know, it’s really going to suck if we ever do manage to develop an FTL drive and all the good names have already been taken by bad scifi books…
Too fast.
I prefer Ridiculous speed - it’s much safer and fuel efficient.
Good point. Plus you can also keep the circus open.
So it was just a jump to the left then, was it?
And then it’s back to the right…
Sounds like a vacuum cleaner.
The horse died on arrival.
1949, at the latest.
Cite from Larry Niven (1966). Of course it’s just a variant of “light speed”, which goes back much further.
However, they always talk about warping into orbit, which as far as I could tell had nothing to do with a warp drive. Roddenberry was in the navy (as a pilot) so the warping the ship explanation is plausible, even though you are right about the time warp drive reference. I think his experience made the early Treks very plausible wrt to shipboard life.
Which is really the best reason not to use it. I haven’t seen a little TM on warp speed, so it is legal to use, just not advisable.
It is too late now (and I’d love to find out what choie decided, but it is better to ignore the issue than to sound like an idiot. Which, judging from the few sf stories presented in my critique group, happens all the time. (Like randomly crashing into a planet when you go out of control on an interstellar trip. Yeah, right.)
I’m happy to say that agents I’ve spoken to at writing conferences seemed really worried about writers getting the science reasonably right. Flashing my MIT ring at them took care of that issue for me at least. 
These citations are about the use of “lightspeed” for c. Thirty times light speed is the same as 30 c which is the same as thirty times the speed of light. The Niven usage sounded fine, the others were tinny. However the Star Wars usage is different, since by the definition in the citation the Falcon would be jumping to exactly c - and since time didn’t stop for them, that can’t be right. Minor, but it has always bugged me, like the infamous misuse of parsec.
And was only because Roddenberry couldn’t figure out how to land the darn thing.
He could figure it out - he just couldn’t afford the special effects to make it look non-cheesy. And it was a brilliant choice, even if it bit them later by forcing the Enterprise to be disabled by a superior power or something in every damn episode. Still, the nautical analogy holds.
I thoroughly agree. Even though foolsguinea’s comments make sense (i.e. that it wouldn’t really be likely that Paramount lawyers are gonna jump on this publisher’s tush for using it once in what’s a close stepsibling to a vanity press), it’s just … I’d know, and it’s quite likely that some reader might notice. I figured, might as well come up with something original, right?
Fortunately most of the book takes place planetside, rather than on the ship, so I only needed to change one instance of “warp” to “faster than light.” And I did use ‘superlux’, vacuum-sounding or not, in one place.
So it was pretty minor but it makes me feel better, what can I say? Thanks very much to all for the discussion and advice!
His own words–from the 25th Anniversary Special–were that he couldn’t figure it out, period.