Starship water landing - Page 2

Longinus · December 5 2012, 03:20 PM

Timo wrote:

A starship supposedly is built to take thousand-gee accelerations routinely from her own impulse engines. And if warp one imposes any physical stresses, and those have a linear relationship to speed, then a starship capable of warp nine ought to also be capable of flying through a million miles of solid steel as if it weren't there. This being with hull strength and SIFs alone, before shields or anything.

We can safely assume that this at least is not the case. Warp speeds do not operate under normal physics.

Timo · December 5 2012, 03:46 PM

Yet a ship at warp can run into physical obstacles, and needs her deflectors to avoid collisions...

Whether being at warp reduces the effect of those collisions, and whether it reduces it wrt what would come from a Newtonian hit at 979 c or even wrt what would come from a Newtonian hit at sublight velocities, we don't know.

Timo Saloniemi

Forbin · December 5 2012, 04:43 PM

wonderstoat wrote:

Ghostface1701 wrote:

Because someone's gonna have an issue with it once the teaser comes out, I thought I'd get the topic going:

How plausible is it for the (JJ) Enterprise to survive a landing in water? To have to land in water in the first place, Enterprise must've received some serious damage. It looks like it hits the water - nose-first at a 45 degree angle - at some speed (enough to send spray into the air to the height of the back of the nacelles), so it wasn't a soft landing. Those who'd say "starships can fly into the atmosphere of a gas giant" should bear in mind that hitting water at speed would almost be like hitting a solid object!

And, once it's underwater, there's a question of pressure. How deep did the Delta Flyer go underwater in that VOY ep, and were there any issues? With a structual integrity field, it would be a breeze, but without, how much can a hull take?

Is this thread title a spoiler? Seriously?

The title isn't, but the goddamn question in the goddamn opening post is.

Scout101 · December 5 2012, 08:32 PM

Only if you assume that you're going to remain so spoiler-free that you won't even seen the teaser trailers. And won't be going to any movies between now and next summer (because it's been mentioned that this scene WASN'T pulled from some spoiler chat, but from the teaser trailer).

Of course, if that's the case, TrekBBS.com is NOT a safe place for you to be until the movie comes out.

If all that's valid, this may be considered a minor spoiler.

Since you're not going to close your account here, may end up in a movie theater between now and summer, and will see the trailer (and likely several follow-up trailers) before the movie, i don't see the harm here. Back down on the outrage. Hell, there's even someone with an image of this water landing as their avatar already...

C.E. Evans · December 5 2012, 10:46 PM

newtype_alpha wrote:

C.E. Evans wrote:

I imagine a starship could go into an ocean much deeper than a submarine, especially with shields and a structural integrity field in place.

Farnsworth: Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure!
Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?
Farnsworth: Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.

Obviously they're not talking about a Federation starship.

Ghostface1701 · December 5 2012, 11:32 PM

Forbin wrote:

wonderstoat wrote:

Is this thread title a spoiler? Seriously?

The title isn't, but the goddamn question in the goddamn opening post is.

Scout101 wrote:

Only if you assume that you're going to remain so spoiler-free that you won't even seen the teaser trailers. And won't be going to any movies between now and next summer (because it's been mentioned that this scene WASN'T pulled from some spoiler chat, but from the teaser trailer).

Of course, if that's the case, TrekBBS.com is NOT a safe place for you to be until the movie comes out.

If all that's valid, this may be considered a minor spoiler.

Since you're not going to close your account here, may end up in a movie theater between now and summer, and will see the trailer (and likely several follow-up trailers) before the movie, i don't see the harm here. Back down on the outrage. Hell, there's even someone with an image of this water landing as their avatar already...

Thanks for addressing this Scout101. I didn't know spoiler rules applied to teaser trailers. Should I not talk about the poster either? The scene in question will be an iconic moment, and it's one that JJ and Co. are clearly eager for everyone to know about. Only 18 hours or so to go...

Forbin · December 6 2012, 04:40 AM

Okay, I hadn't seen the trailer or any images from the film yet. This thread was the first place I'd heard anything about it. Didn't know it was out there already. Never mind. And thanks for the long-winded and pompous lecture in place of just saying "Relax, it's in the teaser."

Scout101 · December 6 2012, 01:04 PM

Forbin wrote:

Okay, I hadn't seen the trailer or any images from the film yet. This thread was the first place I'd heard anything about it. Didn't know it was out there already. Never mind. And thanks for the long-winded and pompous lecture in place of just saying "Relax, it's in the teaser."

6 sentences is "long-winded" for you? Guess I could have just posted a fail pic and skipped the explaination?

And it's impressive you can call someone else pompous from way up on the high horse you posted the previous internet outrage post from. When you go off on someone without knowing what you're talking about, suppose you're risking someone pointing out that you missed the obvious. That the scene was in the teaser was addressed in the OP, didn't feel it was worth repeating it if you ignored it the first time. Since your post was pretty clearly referring to the "goddamn question in the goddamn opening post", kinda seemed like you read the entire sentence.

Edit: just think, could have skipped another long-winded 6 sentences if you had just posted "ah, missed that it was in the teaser, my bad". Instead, we've got a fun circle where you got your info wrong and attacked someone because you didn't read the post, then got corrected, then attacked the guy that corrected you. And don't think you were in the wrong. Yay internet!

Forbin · December 6 2012, 02:40 PM

Feel better now?

Scout101 · December 6 2012, 03:22 PM

was never MY problem, so yeah, I feel just fine. You?

Don't try and turn it around on me, YOU tossed in the attack that begged for a response. Had you ended your last post a sentence early, the "sorry i missed it, my bad" post ends it. You threw in a bonus insult to cover the mistake, and now wanna keep poking, though, so don't pretend you have high ground. If you want it to go away, feel free to drop it. You don't get to keep taking potshots and claiming you're not in the wrong, though.

Perfectly happy to drop it and move on if you can resist poking it again

Forbin · December 6 2012, 07:13 PM

Not poking at all, just amazed that you claim to NOT be long-winded, but you can't seem to stop lecturing.

All this from ONE sentence I posted out of admittedly misplaced anger.

Scout will now be unable to resist having the last word - aaaaand GO:
(Okay, THAT was a poke).

throwback · December 6 2012, 07:32 PM

I checked the transcript site. The dikornium cloud creature entered the ship through the radioactive disposal vent for impulse engine number 2.

http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/47.htm

I am hesitant to say that the Enterprise is in either shot. The first shot shows the rearmost portion of a nacelle. I compared the nacelle of this ship and the nacelle of the Enterprise - they don't match. I think we are looking at a new ship here.

As for the second shot, this Federation starship doesn't have the shape of the Enterprise.

As a fan of ships, I am hyped to see new ships.

Mark_Nguyen · December 6 2012, 07:53 PM

Agreed there. Here's Trekcore's cap of the ship crashing into water in the first place:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...ness_hd_47.jpg

Mark

SicOne · December 6 2012, 08:13 PM

^ Hmmm...how certain are we that THAT'S the Enterprise? Overall configuration matches, but the nacelle struts wrong. The JJPrise has upward-curved nacelle struts.

throwback · December 6 2012, 08:19 PM

I did some more examination of the two screenshots. The first shot, of the nacelle, shows that the ship is a Federation starship (NCC) and that the first two numbers are 17. The rest of the registry is obscured by lighting and water conditions.

As for the second pic, that ship is having a hard crash into the water. (A hard crash is one where the ship is no longer under the control of the personnel aboard.) The left nacelle is badly damaged, and is on fire. Smoke is pouring out of the nacelle. It appears that the collector has been totally destroyed. The angle of the crash supports that this is a hard crash.

We have seen a soft crash of a ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The ship maintained level flying until it hit the water.

As for the ship in pic #1 and pic #2 being the same, I disagree. Again, I am basing this on the nacelle shape. The crashing ship has a nacelle with a flat upper surface; it lacks what the Enterprise has or what the ship in pic #1 has.

The ship that is hard crashing has a saucer like a Galaxy-class Starship and nacelles like a Sovereign-class Starship. A portion of the port saucer can be seen below the port nacelle. There appears to be an indent in the saucer.

December 5 2012, 03:46 PM	#17
Timo Admiral	Re: Starship water landing Yet a ship at warp can run into physical obstacles, and needs her deflectors to avoid collisions... Whether being at warp reduces the effect of those collisions, and whether it reduces it wrt what would come from a Newtonian hit at 979 c or even wrt what would come from a Newtonian hit at sublight velocities, we don't know. Timo Saloniemi

December 5 2012, 08:32 PM	#19
Scout101 Admiral Location: Rhode Island, USA	Re: Starship water landing Only if you assume that you're going to remain so spoiler-free that you won't even seen the teaser trailers. And won't be going to any movies between now and next summer (because it's been mentioned that this scene WASN'T pulled from some spoiler chat, but from the teaser trailer). Of course, if that's the case, TrekBBS.com is NOT a safe place for you to be until the movie comes out. If all that's valid, this may be considered a minor spoiler. Since you're not going to close your account here, may end up in a movie theater between now and summer, and will see the trailer (and likely several follow-up trailers) before the movie, i don't see the harm here. Back down on the outrage. Hell, there's even someone with an image of this water landing as their avatar already... __________________ Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey STO: @JScout33

December 6 2012, 04:40 AM	#22
Forbin Admiral Location: I said out, dammit!	Re: Starship water landing Okay, I hadn't seen the trailer or any images from the film yet. This thread was the first place I'd heard anything about it. Didn't know it was out there already. Never mind. And thanks for the long-winded and pompous lecture in place of just saying "Relax, it's in the teaser." __________________ My kitbashes: http://www.inpayne.com/models/kitbash/trekpage.html My Kitbash Wallpapers: http://www.inpayne.com/models/wallpa...allpapers.html My kitbash calendar: http://inpayne.com/calendar/kbcalendar2013.html

December 6 2012, 02:40 PM	#24
Forbin Admiral Location: I said out, dammit!	Re: Starship water landing Feel better now? __________________ My kitbashes: http://www.inpayne.com/models/kitbash/trekpage.html My Kitbash Wallpapers: http://www.inpayne.com/models/wallpa...allpapers.html My kitbash calendar: http://inpayne.com/calendar/kbcalendar2013.html

December 6 2012, 03:22 PM	#25
Scout101 Admiral Location: Rhode Island, USA	Re: Starship water landing was never MY problem, so yeah, I feel just fine. You? Don't try and turn it around on me, YOU tossed in the attack that begged for a response. Had you ended your last post a sentence early, the "sorry i missed it, my bad" post ends it. You threw in a bonus insult to cover the mistake, and now wanna keep poking, though, so don't pretend you have high ground. If you want it to go away, feel free to drop it. You don't get to keep taking potshots and claiming you're not in the wrong, though. Perfectly happy to drop it and move on if you can resist poking it again __________________ Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey STO: @JScout33

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

December 6 2012, 07:13 PM	#26
Forbin Admiral Location: I said out, dammit!	Re: Starship water landing Not poking at all, just amazed that you claim to NOT be long-winded, but you can't seem to stop lecturing. All this from ONE sentence I posted out of admittedly misplaced anger. Scout will now be unable to resist having the last word - aaaaand GO: (Okay, THAT was a poke). __________________ My kitbashes: http://www.inpayne.com/models/kitbash/trekpage.html My Kitbash Wallpapers: http://www.inpayne.com/models/wallpa...allpapers.html My kitbash calendar: http://inpayne.com/calendar/kbcalendar2013.html

December 6 2012, 07:32 PM	#27
throwback Captain	Re: Starship water landing I checked the transcript site. The dikornium cloud creature entered the ship through the radioactive disposal vent for impulse engine number 2. http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/47.htm I am hesitant to say that the Enterprise is in either shot. The first shot shows the rearmost portion of a nacelle. I compared the nacelle of this ship and the nacelle of the Enterprise - they don't match. I think we are looking at a new ship here. As for the second shot, this Federation starship doesn't have the shape of the Enterprise. As a fan of ships, I am hyped to see new ships.

December 6 2012, 07:53 PM	#28
Mark_Nguyen Commodore Location: Calgary, Alberta	Re: Starship water landing Agreed there. Here's Trekcore's cap of the ship crashing into water in the first place: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...ness_hd_47.jpg Mark __________________ Mark Nguyen - Producer The 404s - Improv Comedy Group Oh, I like that Trek thing too...

December 6 2012, 08:13 PM	#29
SicOne Fleet Captain Location: Omaha, NE	Re: Starship water landing ^ Hmmm...how certain are we that THAT'S the Enterprise? Overall configuration matches, but the nacelle struts wrong. The JJPrise has upward-curved nacelle struts.

December 6 2012, 08:19 PM	#30
throwback Captain	Re: Starship water landing I did some more examination of the two screenshots. The first shot, of the nacelle, shows that the ship is a Federation starship (NCC) and that the first two numbers are 17. The rest of the registry is obscured by lighting and water conditions. As for the second pic, that ship is having a hard crash into the water. (A hard crash is one where the ship is no longer under the control of the personnel aboard.) The left nacelle is badly damaged, and is on fire. Smoke is pouring out of the nacelle. It appears that the collector has been totally destroyed. The angle of the crash supports that this is a hard crash. We have seen a soft crash of a ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The ship maintained level flying until it hit the water. As for the ship in pic #1 and pic #2 being the same, I disagree. Again, I am basing this on the nacelle shape. The crashing ship has a nacelle with a flat upper surface; it lacks what the Enterprise has or what the ship in pic #1 has. The ship that is hard crashing has a saucer like a Galaxy-class Starship and nacelles like a Sovereign-class Starship. A portion of the port saucer can be seen below the port nacelle. There appears to be an indent in the saucer.