View Single Post
Old September 10 2013, 02:26 AM   #231
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The initial flash isn't nearly bright enough to expect that it would; it is not, in fact, that much brighter than the torpedo itself, which only illuminates part of the hull directly next to it (mainly because the Enterprise's hull isn't all that reflective in the first place). The ACTUAL EXPLOSION is bright enough that the glare masks the entire saucer section including the bridge.
The initial explosion put a green glare to the right almost to the "U" of USS. If the explosion point was at the back of the bridge at "1701" as you've described then the light would have easily lit up the front of the impulse deck.
It IS in the frame you're referring to (though partially obscured behind the actual flash) wherein the entire starboard side of the ship all the way up to the first "S" in "USS" and the starboard nacelle is also illuminated. The frame before that, the initial flash of detonation (or impact?) lights up nothing at all except the starboard side of the bridge.
That's glare - which increased the brightness by a small amount for the entire frame. Again, what we'd expect to see from an initial flash from where you're describing it to be should have lit up the front of the impulse deck as my example shows. Since it does not, it's still glare and the impact point could only be further back on the port side.

We both see two different things and it's not going to change unless there is new evidence.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's standard procedure on a real world training vessel. Why would it be different on a fictional one?
"Recoverable munitions" (you), "Training drones" (me). Because they've got live torpedoes instead of the training ones that you were expecting makes it different from a real world training vessel.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Of course you can. That's how we've been training Marines for hundreds of years. They learn how to fight and operate effectively on the ground long before they ever set foot on an actual naval vessel.
Just to be clear, I was commenting on what you wrote, "You go on training missions to practice the things you CAN'T learn at the Academy, namely operating a starship on a day-to-day basis. "

And that is still true even in your example - those marines once they've learned to be effective on the ground will then need training on a live starship for ship-to-shore operations. In your own example you list operating a starship can't be learned at the academy so transporting explorers (or marines) down would fall under requiring a starship.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Typically does not. Most of the gaps between episodes are on the order of one or two MONTHS,
The gaps between episodes can include other missions that aren't shown. We've seen that IN episodes, the Enterprise has no problem going from one planet to another planet in a different system in DAYS.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
and as I already pointed out, not all of those episodes actually involve beaming down to a planet (and even the ones that do, it's the same three or four bridge officers on almost every mission).
Which again isn't accurate. We've seen other crewmen, including Yeomans, go down on away missions.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's not part of her TRAINING mission. In fact, the only reason she gets to on the Regula-1 mission is by quoting regulations at a really convenient time.
Do you have a checklist of what her training mission was? She could've volunteered to just to get it checked off for going on an away mission.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And would therefore have no reason to GO on a training mission if they have no jobs on board the ship.
Sure they do. They can go on planetary survey missions, operate the science gear and be part of the lab guys that report up their findings to department heads. They just wouldn't necessarily be needed for starship combat operations.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Yes we do. "Cadet." In conventional terms, that's an actual rank referring to an officer in training who has not yet received a full commission. A cadet may ENTER the officer's corps at various ranks, but he cannot hold that actual rank and be a cadet at the same time (unless, of course, "Cadet" is just shorthand for "space cadet" and Starfleet actually has no such defined status for its trainees).
No we don't. We have no idea what the highest rank a cadet can have in Starfleet. "Lieutenant" Saavik could be an example that cadets have ranks.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
She felt it was an unfair test of her COMMAND ABILITIES. Which is part of what is reflected in Troi's question to Riker "Is there a solution? Or is this simply a test of my ability to handle a no-win situation?"
Saavik isn't Troi and they are not in the same era for training.

Kirk pretty much describes them as cadets and as you've pointed out all the other cadets on the simulator wore red turtlenecks which points to Saavik being a cadet.
KIRK: Aren't you dead? I assume you are loitering here to learn what efficiency rating I plan to give your cadets.
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
There's nothing to see. You can argue extenuating circumstances all you want, but the BUREAUCRATS wouldn't see it that way.
You wrote, "1) We have seen the Enterprise come under conventional attack four different times in the movie era. All four times, she took heavy damage and on one of those occasions was thoroughly disabled."

Which 4 times where she came under conventional attack and suffered heavy damage and with one thoroughly disabled?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The job of an escort vessel is to deter/prevent an enemy from attacking the object of your protection. If your escort ship's most effective tactic is to run away, it's probably not a very good escort.
You said, "2) NO ship named Enterprise has EVER withstood a conventional attack from more than one Klingon (or Romulan) ship at a time."

I provided evidence that you were wrong because the TOS Enterprise did withstand a conventional attack from more than one Klingon or Romulan ship at a time.

Both your points fail to show that the ship wouldn't be effective against a conventional attack or that she is less advanced.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Three 100 year old Klingon warships manage to overwhelm the most powerful and most advanced ship in Starfleet; in Rascals, it requires only TWO, and those ships are flown by Ferengi.
Then if age has nothing to do with it what's to stop Kirk on the Enterprise from destroying 3 attacking BOPs? Kirk isn't Riker and the Enterprise-A isn't the Enterprise-D.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-A is NOT the most powerful or most advanced ship in Starfleet at the time of TUC.
That's very different than you arguing that she's obsolete which is what I disagree with. With the Excelsior around, of course she's not the most powerful or most advanced. However that doesn't make her obsolete either.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It would be fortunate if it was even on par with its latest Klingon counterparts.
Again, what proof that it is not? The head of Starfleet didn't have any qualms about sending the Enterprise instead of a different ship.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
By no stretch of the imagination is it up to facing two-to-one odds.
Again, proof? As far as we know, she could take half-a-dozen Klingon BOPs on if she outgunned a single one so badly.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's why Spock had to personally vouch for Kirk: Gorkon wouldn't have come in the first place if Kirk wasn't part of the package.
Okay - what dialogue is that? The only time Spock talks about vouching for Kirk is in volunteering to Starfleet for the mission.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I wrote, "There really isn't anything specific about the ship that tells us that it couldn't be upgraded like all the other ships to keep up with technology. "

"All the other ships" is in reference to just that, all the other ships that have been upgraded to keep up with the technology like the gazillions of Reliants and Excelsiors in DS9's time...
None of which have registries in the low 2000s or even 3000s and appear to be relatively new vessels.
That's not true either. Memory Alpha lists these 2 Reliant-types in TNG/DS9 with sub-3000 registries:
1. USS Trial (NCC-1948)
2. USS Lantree (NCC-1837)

The USS Repulse (NCC-2544) an Excelsior class was also serving in TNG/DS9.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
What's more significant is that we've never seen an active Constitution class in the 24th century (the point of the OP, remember?).
Why should we when they were supposedly retired in the 23rd century?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
This pales in comparison to the fact that that other than Enterprise, we never see one in the movie era either.
The Enterprise-A would be the second we see. Perhaps you meant we've never seen a third TMP-Enterprise-type ship in the movie era?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So they've figured out that any further upgrades to the Last Constitution would be prohibitively expensive and would leave the ship STILL inferior to its contemporaries. There's no reason ton continue at that point, especially since Kirk -- the only thing that really made Enterprise special -- is due for retirement.
That is one possibility that a complete conversion from TOS-model Enterprise to TMP-model Enterprise was impractical in the long run. However we don't really know why the Enterprise-A and the rest of her class of ships were to be retired. There isn't any technological reason to believe that the ship could not be further internally upgraded as her contemporaries, the Reliants and Grissoms, remained viable into the future. The only other viable reasons for her retirement are political or financial, IMHO.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Klingon stories go better when they can say, "and yes, the Federation feared Gorkon so much that they sent the might Excelsior...
To which the hearer of the story would reply "What the hell is an Egg Seltzer?"
Oh come on, Klingon's would love cracking a joke about that!

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Klingons know the name of Kirk and they know Enterprise is his ship. They're warriors, not technicians; they're not doing side-by-side comparisons between the Enterprise and Excelsior (whose specifications they don't even have access to in the first place) and thinking "Ya know? Enterprise is kind of a paper tiger when you really think about it."
I don't think you give the Klingons enough credit. Besides, Kirk's a magnet for young Klingons trying to prove themselves (see TFF) so the Enterprise is going to get tested by the Klingons more than any other ship

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Not that the movie era's portrayal is exactly "flailing barbarianism," but the phrase "Let's stop and think about this rationally..." isn't exactly the first thing you expect to hear on a Klingon warship.
No, it'd be,
KLAA: Enterprise? That's Kirk's ship. ...If I could defeat Kirk...
VIXIS: would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy.

blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote