|
Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions. If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name. |
|
|||||||
| Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#31 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: Lost in Moria (Arlington, WA, USA)
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
people kill people! Err, maybe that should be, "Kelvans kill people!" Except the point of the episode is that Kelvans are people by any other name, so therefore... ... never mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Captain
Location: maryland
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Fleet Captain
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
In 'the Children Shall Lead' they beam two guys into space and don't even go back for their bodies or mention them at the end. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Commodore
Location: Oklahoma
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
But IIRC, in time of war, if POWs attempt to escape and they in doing so assault one of their captors (as Kirk and Spock did) then the POWs are subject to reprisals. Rojan's team was a preinvasion scout team for the Andromedans so to me that would fall under the "state of war" definition. |
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
Rules of war are really meant to get people killed. There's no "nice" way out. And playing by the rules of the enemy seldom pays off. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Vice Admiral
Location: Oxford, PA
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Commander
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
__________________
Myko |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
I cannot imagine Kirk having Scotty de-tune a quicker, more efficient Enterprise. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
Certainly it seems that the standard way to make the ship go faster than planned is to disengage the failsafes for doing so. It's not as if the drive itself would be incapable of warp 14 or whatever; it's just something that cannot be safely sustained, with the failure points relating to ship's structure (just as in the extreme case of "Threshold"!) but possibly also to the power arrangements. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 | |
|
Commodore
Location: Oklahoma
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
Something completely impractical on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | ||||
|
Commodore
Location: Wingsley
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
The matter of Yeoman Thompson's death, whether Rojan was delusional or not, was as much Kirk's responsibility as it was Rojan's. Kirk couldn't resist trying to escape (to where???), and Rojan was itching to make an example of one of Kirk's crew.
Maybe it's possible for any decently-designed warp-driven starship to be able to remain in flight for a multi-generational period without relief. And maybe the Kelvans had already adjusted the food syntheiszer-thingies to spit out those Chiklett-thingies to conserve power and nutrient resources. (Interesting that Kirk and his remaining "crew" were not forced to start adhereing to that same diet.) But if you look at the leap in engine power output (for sake of argument, Warp 8 is supposedly 512 cochranes; versus Warp 11 which is 1,331 cochranes) and then consider that the ship is expected to sustain this for three centuries, structural stress and other breakdown issues aside, that would be pretty amazing. Apparently, nobody is even slightly worried about the ship running out of fuel or otherwise breaking down in the intergalactic void. Remember, the Kelvans have only one ship to work with. If the Enterprise gives out on them, they are as good as dead. But they go forward with their plan for the modifications to the Enterprise, no worries on anyone's part.
But if everyone was expected to behave by 20th century standards in that scene, Spock might've been brought up on negligence charges for the avoidable loss of Latimer and Gaetano. (Unless Spock's connections through his powerful father would have such a charge quashed.) All that aside, the laughter scene at the end of "The Galileo Seven" was pure 1960's TV Velveeta, no doubt about it. I think it could've been written more effectively if the laughter sillyness had not been there, but instead Kirk had a final brief encounter with Ferris in which the commissioner expressed relief at the successful recovery of the shuttlecraft crew and getting underway to New Paris. It seems very odd that Ferris is prominent in the rest of the bridge scenes but he is suddenly nowhere to be found. That was even more ridiculous than the laughter.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..." -- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | |||
|
Admiral
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
If the Kelvan gadget bypasses the whole fuel thing, the rest of the ship may remain largely unaltered, assuming the usual "structural failure" obstacle doesn't arise. But if the gadget also serves to strengthen the structural integrity fields (a likely component in TOS era starships already even if never mentioned), then Scotty's worries might be over. No need to worry about allocating power between keeping the ship going and keeping the ship from falling apart: there's plenty for both applications. Of course, the Kelvans may have been making false assumptions, failing to consider that the spacecraft of the Milky Way cultures might be inferior to the ones of Andromeda, and unable to operate for a thousand years without pit stops. It's a natural mistake to make: the Milky Way has this extremely hostile barrier at the edge, a barrier apparently not found at Andromeda, so of course the natives are going to have durable ships that are capable of dealing with that!
Juvenile behavior at the climax of a hair-rising adventure doesn't sound too unrealistic to me. Military standards of stiff upper lips might have been relaxed a bit aboard this isolated starship on a multi-year assignment, and people on the edge might have learned to dull that edge with laughter so that they could keep on sitting on it year after year. For all we know, that's why they keep the lethal holodecks in TNG, too: if personnel aren't allowed to vent steam in juvenile ways, they'll find more "adult" ways to vent it, leading to suicide, homicide and perhaps navicide as well. Timo Saloniemi |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
Commodore
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
Also, of calculable distance-times in interstellar space, Enterprise is almost twice as fast after "By Any Other Name" if you compare "Obsession" (pre-BAON) and "That Which Survives" (post-BAON). Or how did Kirk and the crew expect the Enterprise to run full-throttle, wide-open for thousands of years without relief? Remember that Kirk objected saying it would take too long, not that they would ever run out of fuel. And this is before they were aware of any Kelvin modifications. Later on Spock offered up a robot ship to send the message to the Andromeda galaxy. Even with Kelvin mods on the robot ship, it would have been expected to make the several hundred year journey. TOS does offer up that their power "regenerates" as mentioned in "The Mark of Gideon" and a couple of other episodes and as long as their regenerating mechanism works, they have unlimited fuel. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Problem I had with "By Any Other Name"
The same way we could say that a voyage to Sha-Ka-Ree is impossible for a dozen reasons, and Kirk quotes the Great Barrier rather than the distance because that nearby phenomenon is the first impossibility they will run into... I'm sort of hesitant to accept the idea of Starfleet ships running on a fuel-less power system, even though we do lack references to things like refueling, tankers or fuel shortages (except when relating to impulse travel). Supposedly, antimatter fuel is involved, after all. And while antimatter isn't exactly a naturally occurring substance and indeed might need to be generated and re-generated, it would be a bit odd for the ship herself to be capable of doing that. If she can generate or re-generate antimatter at the rate the warp drive consumes it, why the need for antimatter in the first place? Why not hook up the generators directly to the warp engines? Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
















