RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,956
Posts: 5,391,117
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 533
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 6 2012, 10:03 PM   #31
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Starship water landing

The only screenshot I've seen is the one that Mark Nguyen put up the link to.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 10:18 PM   #32
Ghostface1701
Commander
 
Ghostface1701's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Starship water landing

Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.
Ghostface1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 10:41 PM   #33
Captain_Amasov
Captain
 
Captain_Amasov's Avatar
 
Re: Starship water landing

Ghostface1701 wrote: View Post
Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.
Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?
Captain_Amasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2012, 10:49 PM   #34
Ghostface1701
Commander
 
Ghostface1701's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Starship water landing

Captain_Amasov wrote: View Post
Ghostface1701 wrote: View Post
Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.
Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?
It's strange that it would need to. Transporters? Or does it go down there to fire a tow cable and haul the other ship out? Seems a bit pointless...
Ghostface1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 02:40 AM   #35
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Starship water landing

Captain_Amasov wrote: View Post
Ghostface1701 wrote: View Post
Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.
Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?
Wouldn't there be, like, i dunno, submarines for that sort of thing?

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 04:41 AM   #36
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship water landing

^ If Federation starships were capable of operating under water, why would they NEED submarines?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 10:24 AM   #37
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Starship water landing

Jet planes can drive along a highway, but they make for poor tow trucks. And there would be all sorts of interfacing issues that get complicated when the space between the two sides is filled with water rather than with nothing. Dedicated underwater rescue gear might indeed be vital and in existence. But probably not of great relevance in a fast-paced action sequence involving a villain making his escape to space. Or whatever.

How deep can transporters penetrate into ordinary seawater? Two klicks of basic if cave-ridden bedrock is already a problem ("Bloodlines"), and water might be worse - but San Francisco Bay isn't all that deep. We just don't have much data. Scotty's whale-saving operation involved depths of a dozen meters only...

The dikornium cloud creature entered the ship through the radioactive disposal vent for impulse engine number 2.
And then proceeded through the ventilation system to Garrovick's cabin. So, the cabin was directly open to space all the time?

Apparently, the cloud creature getting in involved going through some structure or material that didn't let air out. And I doubt it was a classic mechanical two-door airlock, as the creature never demonstrated an ability to operate machinery. But a random gas cloud probably wouldn't get in; it would need intellect, the ability to exert force, and possibly also some of the dikironium critter's special tricks for that.

That crash looks like a relatively low-speed one. A ship falling all the way from space would probably create a drastically different-looking impact mark in reality, but we can forgive Hollywood for that. Yet a ship falling from space would be unlikely to hit San Francisco Bay rather than some other random area of the Pacific or of dry Californian land. Do starships in nuTrek regularly operate from the surface of Earth, perhaps? Or does the protecting of SF Headquarters from anticipated threat routinely involve lowering a starship or three to rooftop level?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:53 PM   #38
jayrath
Fleet Captain
 
Location: West Hollywood, Calif., USA
Re: Starship water landing

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
^ If Federation starships were capable of operating under water, why would they NEED submarines?
Agreed. In TAS, if you accept it as canon, we saw special shuttles capable of landing on water. If you need a special shuttle for that, then it's likely that a conventional shuttle cannot. Probably the same for a starship.

In TNG's "Brothers," Picard is lured by some odd underwater project. Why is that a special undertaking performed by a different organization, if Starfleet can't just go underwater with a starship and -- presto! -- instant sea colony?

Not canon, but one of the Shatnerverse novels stated that ships can go under just fine. The problem is coming back out to space, when the water turns to ice and cracks the vents, etc.

Finally, if you can adjust screens to go underwater, why do we distinctly see weathering on the TOS Enterprise? It appears that at least navigational deflectors leak a bit, to create the gray streaks on the hulls and pylons. I've never thought of shields cranked up to max as impenetrable bubbles, possible of screening out all dust, all water, and so on.

And what's the fun of such super-shields, anyway? It reminds me of Superman in 1940s radio drama. The writers were stuck with such an invulnerable character that they had no suspense. That's why Kryptonite was invented.

Anyway, we'll all know the truth when the next nu-Trek opens.
jayrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:55 PM   #39
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship water landing

Timo wrote: View Post
Jet planes can drive along a highway, but they make for poor tow trucks.
Depends on the jet.

That crash looks like a relatively low-speed one. A ship falling all the way from space would probably create a drastically different-looking impact mark in reality, but we can forgive Hollywood for that. Yet a ship falling from space would be unlikely to hit San Francisco Bay rather than some other random area of the Pacific or of dry Californian land. Do starships in nuTrek regularly operate from the surface of Earth, perhaps?
I would guess so, primarily because that's a trope that's become more and more common in sci-fi these days.

In-universe, though, there's something to be said for your ability to extend your shields around the city you're protecting, use your phasers to intercept incoming missiles and torpedoes, quickly beam/shuttle people and equipment to and from the surface without having to worry about orbital positions and travel times and so on.

Of course, there's also the fact that San Francisco is supposedly the home of a major shipyard, so this could be interpreted as a starship getting suckerpunched by the bad guys just as it begins to take off for its maiden voyage.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 09:20 PM   #40
Scout101
Admiral
 
Scout101's Avatar
 
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Re: Starship water landing

That makes the most sense, in-universe. Not a crashing out of orbit, but trying to launch and crashing.
__________________
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 7 2012, 09:50 PM   #41
Captain_Amasov
Captain
 
Captain_Amasov's Avatar
 
Re: Starship water landing

Ghostface1701 wrote: View Post
Captain_Amasov wrote: View Post
Ghostface1701 wrote: View Post
Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.
Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?
Or does it go down there to fire a tow cable and haul the other ship out? Seems a bit pointless...
I'd imagine if there was a real danger of the warp core going critical you wouldn't just leave the ship to blow up this close to a city.
Captain_Amasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 11:50 PM   #42
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Starship water landing

Timo wrote: View Post
That crash looks like a relatively low-speed one. A ship falling all the way from space would probably create a drastically different-looking impact mark in reality, but we can forgive Hollywood for that. Yet a ship falling from space would be unlikely to hit San Francisco Bay rather than some other random area of the Pacific or of dry Californian land. Do starships in nuTrek regularly operate from the surface of Earth, perhaps? Or does the protecting of SF Headquarters from anticipated threat routinely involve lowering a starship or three to rooftop level?
To me, it looks like the ship is actually being dragged across the surface of the water. If it were an uncontrolled crash, I would think that at that angle the saucer would dig into the water pretty quick.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9 2012, 07:00 AM   #43
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Starship water landing

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
Jet planes can drive along a highway, but they make for poor tow trucks.
Depends on the jet.

That crash looks like a relatively low-speed one. A ship falling all the way from space would probably create a drastically different-looking impact mark in reality, but we can forgive Hollywood for that. Yet a ship falling from space would be unlikely to hit San Francisco Bay rather than some other random area of the Pacific or of dry Californian land. Do starships in nuTrek regularly operate from the surface of Earth, perhaps?
I would guess so, primarily because that's a trope that's become more and more common in sci-fi these days.

In-universe, though, there's something to be said for your ability to extend your shields around the city you're protecting, use your phasers to intercept incoming missiles and torpedoes, quickly beam/shuttle people and equipment to and from the surface without having to worry about orbital positions and travel times and so on.

Of course, there's also the fact that San Francisco is supposedly the home of a major shipyard, so this could be interpreted as a starship getting suckerpunched by the bad guys just as it begins to take off for its maiden voyage.
And nu-1701 coming off a fresh post-nuTrek refit with straight TOS-type nacelle pylons would lend itself more to the teaser trailer.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9 2012, 06:26 PM   #44
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Starship water landing

There is some discussion of this over in Trek Art. It would appear that both nacelle struts have a slight dogleg in them. There might very well be a new ship design in the movie, whether a refit nu-1701 or an entirely new class of ship. We did, after all, see a lot of new ship designs in the first movie.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9 2012, 10:19 PM   #45
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship water landing

I'm guessing a brand new ship. The first Enterprise and its interiors appear to be present here and I doubt enough time has passed for Starfleet to give Enterprise that much of an overhaul. It's only just been established in the last movie, no reason to change it now.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie 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 03:35 AM.

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