Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater?

[Nerys Myk]

gastrof wrote:

---

You don't know?

Gene Roddenberry originally presented the Trek concept as "Wagon Train to the stars". (Wagon Train was a weekly TV series about America's cowboy era, with people moving west as part of a Wagon Train. So many people, so many stories, you never knew who or what might show up next.)

I did. That's why I used the and followed it with play on the "get the wagons in a circle" bit from far too many Westerns.

[jpch]

Well Voyager in season 5 was referenced to be able to go under water with some modification,the Delta Flyer also did go underwater. but since the new movies are less technical and more action they might throw a few words about the subject.

[YARN]

Let's see.

It can materialize matter just about anywhere one could want.

It can travel faster than light.

It has particle weapons.

It can fly close to the Sun.

It can fly through pea-soup nebulas.

But it can't get wet?

[jpch]

YARN wrote:

---

Let's see.

It can materialize matter just about anywhere one could want.

It can travel faster than light.

It has particle weapons.

It can fly close to the Sun.

It can fly through pea-soup nebulas.

But it can't get wet?

haha that is so true

[Arpy]

No. It mustn't get wet. Nor should it be exposed to tooo bright a light, and under NO circumstances are you to feed its core additional antimatter after midnight!

I mean duh. Obviously.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Arpy wrote:

---

No. It mustn't get wet. Nor should it be exposed to tooo bright a light, and under NO circumstances are you to feed its core additional antimatter after midnight.

Shatner has some experience with gremlins:

[The Mirrorball Man]

UFO wrote:

---

It seems that no one can point out even reasonable issues with the new holy of holies. Any attempt to do so will be met with a star ship load of examples of past ludicrous complaints presumably trying to imply they are all on the same level.

It is not unreasonable to question if a star ship can exist underwater. The pressures involved are enormous and there is no reason any form of flying object should normally be designed to cope with them.

Now maybe there is a way for the Enterprise to operate in water but I have no problem with anyone who is not prepared to sacrifice their reason on the alter of the modern obsession with "Cindy Lauper Trek": Fans just want to have fun (AT ANY COST). So can we avoid this silly self-indulgent ridicule (or at least restrict it to things you are sure deserve it)? Such rampant anti-intellectualism really isn't a good look.

I think it's just a matter of seeing Star Trek for what it really is, i.e. fun, occasionally smart space opera, instead of believing the self-perpetuating myths which see it as first-class cerebral science-fiction.

If your suspension of disbelief can't stand the thought of the Enterprise going underwater, it means that the whole of Star Trek has to be rewritten in order to accommodate the kind of critical thinking you're advocating. In the end, I think that would be futile and won't make Star Trek any better.

[22 Stars]

one word... Midichlorians.

[Franklin]

In the context of the 1960s technology when TOS was conceived, the idea of the Enterprise soaring through the atmosphere without problems and diving underwater might seem cartoonish to many viewers.

These days, some military aircraft are so non-aerodynamic they would fall from the sky like rocks if it weren't for the computers keeping them airborne. So in that context, a starship 200 years from now that can both easily fly through the atmosphere and even go under water seems at least plausible.

I suppose part of updating Trek is keeping ahead of what may be possible or at least realistic without being silly.

[Rhaven]

Mr Scott will just make some adjustments and, POOF! the ship will be able to withstand the pressures of being under water.
He really should be called Saint Scott, as he pulls off miracle after miracle.

[mos6507]

Chemahkuu wrote:

---

Exactly, can't even have a nice money shot without someone complaining. From what we know of the 9 minute trailer this is the Enterprise's big entrance in the movie, so why not do it in style?

Because, um, it's a stupid idea that only makes sense for visual impact?

[mos6507]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I think it's just a matter of seeing Star Trek for what it really is, i.e. fun, occasionally smart space opera, instead of believing the self-perpetuating myths which see it as first-class cerebral science-fiction.

Which is the same argument that SW Prequel apologists used. Let's tear down the originals in order to make the new ones look better in comparison.

[BillJ]

mos6507 wrote:

---

Because, um, it's a stupid idea that only makes sense for visual impact?

We won't know whether it makes sense or not until we know the reason it was done.

[BillJ]

mos6507 wrote:

---

Which is the same argument that SW Prequel apologists used. Let's tear down the originals in order to make the new ones look better in comparison.

Funny, I still enjoy my Trek just fine.

[JarodRussell]

I'd be more interested in the explanation for why the Enterprise even needs to go underwater.