View Single Post
Old May 26 2013, 08:23 PM   #4
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Treknology Upside-Down

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
. . . THE BRIDGE
The bridge is at the top of the saucer section. while the sensors are at the bottom of the saucer. It should be the exact other way around; sensors should be at the top where they have a better view of surrounding space without the secondary hull blocking the rear aspect. The bridge should be at the bottom, where for no apparent reason starships normally orbit planets with their bellies facing the ground anyway (where, also, gravity will be pulling you if you ever descend into the atmosphere or approach close to very low to a low-gravity moon or asteroid).
The bridge is at the top of the saucer because that's where the bridge is on most naval vessels -- on the topmost or near-topmost deck.

According to the Franz Joseph plans, there is a sensor array above the bridge ceiling, and another one at the bottom of the saucer.

Since the bridge has no windows, the "view" from the bridge is irrelevant. Every outside view is projected onto the main viewscreen.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
There's a fundamental problem with using antimatter as a fuel source: when matter and antimatter annihilate, their main product is a lot of hard x-rays and gamma radiation. There's not a lot there that you can really use for conversion to raw energy, and it's certainly nothing you'd want to channel through a hundred meters of conduit into a pair of giant propulsion units sitting outside your ship. So unless the warp core is a device that MAKES antimatter for the nacelles to burn (which is a whole separate discussion altogether) it doesn't really make sense for the warp drive to use antimatter as a fuel source.
As I'm sure you know, there's real science and then there's Trek science, often with only the most tenuous connection between the two.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
*SHUTTLES vs TRANSPORTERS *
Away teams use transporters to beam down to different planets to see what's down there and they only use shuttlecraft when the transporters aren't good enough or when they simply have too much crap to carry.
. . . Shuttlecraft should be the MAIN method of landing away teams on a planet surface and should be fully stocked with survival gear, medical supplies, portable shelters (assuming the shuttle itself can't be used as a shelter), weapons, tools, and anything else an away team would need to explore the surface of an alien world.
That might make sense if Star Trek were real. But it's fiction. The transporter was created mainly as a dramatic device to get the characters into the story quickly and cheaply.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
. . . I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that the only strange new worlds worth sending a landing party are those incredibly Earthlike ones that can be explored without space suits or breathing gear.
Because creating non-Earthlike planets where atmospheric composition, pressure, temperature and/or gravity are radically different from those of Earth is prohibitively expensive on a TV series budget.

Long story short: It's only a TV show!
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote