RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,158
Posts: 5,344,158
Members: 24,600
Currently online: 718
Newest member: Lord Galen

TrekToday headlines

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


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 9 2012, 06:38 AM   #31
DredZed
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: starships underwater.

I saw the same argument elsewhere about whether the ship coming up from the water was Enterprise. I put these pictures together to clarify the situation.

Screenshot:


Engine from MadMan1701's enterprise model:


Composited together:


They're clearly the same, the ship is definitely Enterprise's class (is it officially called Constitution class in the new timeline?) and would thus almost certainly be the Enterprise. After all, they've never had another ship of the same class as the Enterprise in any movie so far.
DredZed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9 2012, 02:02 PM   #32
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: starships underwater.

DredZed wrote: View Post
They're clearly the same, the ship is definitely Enterprise's class (is it officially called Constitution class in the new timeline?) .
It was called that in the ships dossier in the first movie's official site

__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 06:31 AM   #33
Chaos Descending
Vice Admiral
 
Chaos Descending's Avatar
 
Location: Grand Canyon State
Re: starships underwater.

Well, now I'm convinced.
__________________
"Romanes eunt domus"
- Brian
Chaos Descending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 11:04 AM   #34
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: starships underwater.

From someone who's seen the 9-minute preview of Into Darkness...


Also...
We also get enough humor (particularly from Simon Pegg) that manages to make light of exactly the kind of fan over-analysis that the film is sure to generate (i.e. Can the Enterprise even operate underwater?)


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=97913
__________________
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 11 2012, 12:17 AM   #35
jayrath
Fleet Captain
 
Location: West Hollywood, Calif., USA
Re: starships underwater.

I sure hope that Admiral Nelson, the Seaview and its Flying Sub put in an appearance.
jayrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 01:23 AM   #36
throwback
Captain
 
Re: starships underwater.

I don't have an issue with starships operating under water. There could be technologies present in the 23rd century that would allow a starship to operate underwater for a period of time. I doubt that the film will go into the specifics on why the Enterprise is underwater.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 06:30 AM   #37
Anji
Rear Admiral
 
Anji's Avatar
 
Location: Assisting in the birth of baby Horta on Janus VI
View Anji's Twitter Profile
Re: starships underwater.

Not necessarily. They could base the techobabble on current theories on how USOs function underwater.
__________________
"You may be wrong, but you may be right." - Billy Joel
Anji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 09:17 AM   #38
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: starships underwater.

Which is always a bad idea - when scifi tries to be contemporary, it only manages to annoy the enthusiasts in the know about contemporary tech, confuse those not in the know, look dated from the get-go, and technologically outdate itself in two months anyway.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 02:41 PM   #39
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: starships underwater.

Has anyone mentioned Insurrection's village-sized holoship yet? Was that film really so forgettable that no-one realized a starship has already been hidden underwater in a Trek movie?
__________________
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 11 2012, 03:18 PM   #40
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: starships underwater.

I'd think that the technological hurdles would be relatively low, but not nonexistent as per VOY "Thirty Days". The operational rationale is no doubt going to be debated for quite some time, though.

The holotrap transport of ST:INS was hidden uncrewed and otherwise unattended, waiting for the conclusion of a rather monomaniacal mission. It's a good way to stash away something that's not needed for anything else and should go unobserved not only by natives but also by starfarers.

No doubt a big starship can also hide underwater waiting for the conclusion of a recce mission or whatever. But shouldn't NCC-1701 have better things to do? If her capabilities are not needed for the mission, and she's there merely to pick up Kirk at the end of an adventure, a shuttle could be used instead, hidden underwater, on a mountaintop, buried in sand, cloaked, whatever. Why land the ship?

I sort of doubt the movie will give us a rationale, such as transporters not being available and shuttles being undesirable for a clear-cut reason X. There's no big reason not to dip the ship, sure, but only if we postulate a short mission. If Kirk is gonna be gone for weeks, the ship should be free to depart.

But I might be dead wrong. Apparently, and spoilers be damned, there are plenty of things going on at the planet where this dipping takes place. A center of operations close to all the action might be an operational necessity for a reason that becomes obvious once we see all the relevant scenes.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 06:33 PM   #41
FatherRob
Rear Admiral
 
FatherRob's Avatar
 
Location: Citizen of the Kingdom of God (Living in Bargersville, IN)
Re: starships underwater.

Timo wrote: View Post
But shouldn't NCC-1701 have better things to do? If her capabilities are not needed for the mission, and she's there merely to pick up Kirk at the end of an adventure, a shuttle could be used instead, hidden underwater, on a mountaintop, buried in sand, cloaked, whatever. Why land the ship?
Because that doesn't give you a big hero reveal with accompanying musical score that makes fanboys go 'twee!!!'

Rob+
__________________
"Purity in doctrine... Compassion in application."
FatherRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 07:53 PM   #42
jayrath
Fleet Captain
 
Location: West Hollywood, Calif., USA
Re: starships underwater.

^ Now, that is the best explanation I've heard yet!
jayrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 08:38 PM   #43
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: starships underwater.

The best explanation is that it is just for show.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2012, 02:04 AM   #44
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: starships underwater.

It's like Space Battleship Yamato, but with the Enterprise
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2012, 10:49 AM   #45
MiKaTrek
Ensign
 
Re: starships underwater.

I did some calculations with the given pressure values on http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/GSC and an approximated gravitational acceleration on Earth of 10 m/s².
The Klingon Raptor-Class can withstand a pressure of 15000 GSC (g/cm²). On Earth this would be about 1,500,000 Pa. This is the pressure in 140 m (460 ft) deep water.
On Kirk's Enterprise it is getting critical at 1000 GSC (that's nearly the standard atmosphere pressure). Told exaggerated, a normal anticyclone could be a problem for the Enterprise. So there is no way they could dive underwater.
Sisko's Defiant can even withstand 9,000,000 GSC (900,000,000 Pa or 9000 bar). Theoretically they could dive down to 90 km (56 miles).
So these are three widely differing canon values with a lot of room for speculation.
MiKaTrek 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 08:49 PM.

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