RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,346
Posts: 5,502,460
Members: 25,119
Currently online: 678
Newest member: mahler

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 5 2012, 03:20 PM   #16
Longinus
Commander
 
Longinus's Avatar
 
Re: Starship water landing

Timo wrote: View Post
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.
Longinus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 04:43 PM   #18
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Starship water landing

wonderstoat wrote: View Post
Ghostface1701 wrote: View Post
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.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 08:32 PM   #19
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
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
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 10:46 PM   #20
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Starship water landing

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 11:32 PM   #21
Ghostface1701
Commander
 
Ghostface1701's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Starship water landing

Forbin wrote: View Post
wonderstoat wrote: View Post

Is this thread title a spoiler? Seriously?
The title isn't, but the goddamn question in the goddamn opening post is.
Scout101 wrote: View Post
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...
Ghostface1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 04:40 AM   #22
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
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."
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 01:04 PM   #23
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: Starship water landing

Forbin wrote: View Post
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!
__________________
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
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 02:40 PM   #24
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Starship water landing

Feel better now?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 03:22 PM   #25
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
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
Scout101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 07:13 PM   #26
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
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).
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 07:53 PM   #28
Mark_Nguyen
Commodore
 
Mark_Nguyen's Avatar
 
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...
Mark_Nguyen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 08:13 PM   #29
SicOne
Commodore
 
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.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.