View Single Post
Old May 27 2013, 12:51 AM   #6
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Treknology Upside-Down

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
What's wrong with the picture from one of the Apollo Missions? Has it been photoshopped? Where's the background / horizon? Does the lander stand on a plateau?
There's nothing wrong with it. On a planet the size of the moon, with a camera mounted only five feet off the ground, the horizon is less than a kilometer away. As Gene Cernan said once, you walk towards the horizon and you see these little rocks over there like the tops of boulders; you walk a few minutes more and you see these are actually the tops of hills; you walk a few minutes more and find out those are actually the tops of mountains.


scotpens wrote: View Post
Since the bridge has no windows, the "view" from the bridge is irrelevant. Every outside view is projected onto the main viewscreen.
The latest interpretations of Federation starships have all featured rather prominent windows in place of a viewscreen, and Enterprise-D had a "skylight on the bridge." I'm figuring that those same features would be a lot more impressive if the bridge was in a different position.

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.
I know that, but I don't have to like it.

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.
While this is true, in the age of cost-effective CGI this has finally become an option and I feel that we might actually have the option to do it right. Especially in literary fiction, where the overuse of transporters on screen can be either explained away as "Shuttle party already landed but was simply never mentioned in the episode" or just ignored altogether.

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.
But that would be so much cooler!

Long story short: It's only a TV show!
A TV show -- and a movie, in fact -- whose key technologies have been installed upside-down.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote