RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,875
Posts: 5,475,243
Members: 25,045
Currently online: 482
Newest member: alijo

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17


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 7 2012, 10:11 AM   #16
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: starships underwater.

Two words: fluidic space. If Voyager managed just fine, the Enterprise can too.

Although I wouldn't want to be nearby sea life...

"Warp speed!"

*ecological disaster*
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 10:37 AM   #17
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: starships underwater.

Two words: fluidic space. If Voyager managed just fine, the Enterprise can too.
That'd depend a lot on fluid pressure and viscosity and whatnot, tho.

The "operations" in the teaser might be limited to being just below the surface to hide from visual spotting. Or we might see some Jacques Cousteau action to round out the skydives of the first movie and the lava dancing evident here. Won't do to neglect any of the elements.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 04:38 PM   #18
Chaos Descending
Vice Admiral
 
Chaos Descending's Avatar
 
Location: Grand Canyon State
Re: starships underwater.

I now stand convinced that the ship crashing down is not the Enterprise, unless the Enterprise in this film is re-designed for some reason.

I still can't see the ship rising from the water as being the Enterprise. The nacelles look wrong to me, and I see no evidence of a saucer.
__________________
"Romanes eunt domus"
- Brian
Chaos Descending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 06:11 PM   #19
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: starships underwater.

^ That's because the saucer is well below the plane of the nacelles even in level flight. In this case, the nacelles are breaking the surface of the waves while the saucer is still under water.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 06:23 PM   #20
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: starships underwater.

You can get a peak at those black and white lines on the saucer, which is about to surface, just below the water. Plus the NCC 17... on the nacelle.
And the fact that they wouldn't waste such a money shot on any other ship than the Enterprise.


__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:01 PM   #21
Chaos Descending
Vice Admiral
 
Chaos Descending's Avatar
 
Location: Grand Canyon State
Re: starships underwater.

Why does the rear of the nacelle have a "double decker" look to it?

And the fact that they wouldn't waste such a money shot on any other ship than the Enterprise.
That argument isn't useful for the "other ship", the one that's crashing down, which everyone ALSO says isn't the Enterprise. So I dunno now. I bet neither of them are the Enterprise.

Or else the Enterprise has been heavily refit/modified for this film.
__________________
"Romanes eunt domus"
- Brian
Chaos Descending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:03 PM   #22
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: starships underwater.

Intercoolers.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:13 PM   #23
Chaos Descending
Vice Admiral
 
Chaos Descending's Avatar
 
Location: Grand Canyon State
Re: starships underwater.

Here is a post from another thread that illustrates perfectly what I am talking about.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=370
__________________
"Romanes eunt domus"
- Brian
Chaos Descending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:17 PM   #24
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: starships underwater.

Chaos Descending wrote: View Post
Here is a post from another thread that illustrates perfectly what I am talking about.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=370

Even that guy reconsidered a few pages later, if I remember correctly.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:39 PM   #25
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: starships underwater.

^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:43 PM   #26
Chaos Descending
Vice Admiral
 
Chaos Descending's Avatar
 
Location: Grand Canyon State
Re: starships underwater.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.
They look absolutely nothing alike to me.

I can accept that there might be tricks of angle and so forth, but it just seems SO different that I can't buy it.
__________________
"Romanes eunt domus"
- Brian
Chaos Descending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 07:55 PM   #27
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: starships underwater.

Sydney class has quite the boat hull, could see her soft land on water, as for the various Enterprises, if needed it could be done, engineer might get annoyed though.
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2012, 08:07 PM   #28
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: starships underwater.

Chaos Descending wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.
They look absolutely nothing alike to me.

I can accept that there might be tricks of angle and so forth, but it just seems SO different that I can't buy it.
Where do you even SEE differences? Take it element by element, use some images as reference.

Aft end of the nacelle: downward angle, concave center.

Top of the nacelle: flat rounded "fantail" with two low V-shaped "fins" that taper to flush with the nacelle tube a quarter of the way forward.

Front of the nacelle: goldfish hump, tapers to flush with the tube a fifth of the way aft.

The registry is in the right place and is the same size.

What's probably tripping you up is that you're looking at the nacelle with a couple hundred tons of seawater still rolling off of it and thinking the seawater reflects the shape of what you're looking at. The Enterprise is over 700 meters long; each one of those nacelles is the size of an aircraft carrier, and in this clip they just went from a submerged position to about a hundred meters above it in three seconds flat. The water isn't gonna just roll off of it like a submarine (although even then it's often hard to make out the lines of the ship under all that water).
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2012, 12:28 PM   #29
zennie62
Ensign
 
Re: starships underwater.

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Chaos Descending wrote: View Post
That's not the JJprise rising from underwater. It looks totally different. It's a different ship, or I need new glasses.

The JJprise does appear to be splashing down in one scene though.
Watch the trailer in HD, the rising scene is the Enterprise on an alien ocean, the splash down is a small frigate in the SF bay area.
Good call. I too thought it was the SF Bay.
zennie62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2012, 08:30 PM   #30
Vito Corleone
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Vito Corleone's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in Space and Time...
Re: starships underwater.

KamenRiderBlade wrote: View Post
Improvization is done when necessary, but crazy preparedness is how our US military trains so they can deal with just about any situation.
In some parts of it, anyway...

I was wondering about those scenes involving ships going into/coming out of the drink. It looks like a Constitution class but, that doesn't necessarily mean the Enterprise went down. (I hope...)
Vito Corleone 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 03:14 AM.

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