RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,795
Posts: 5,325,703
Members: 24,548
Currently online: 482
Newest member: wrestlefreak36

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9 2013, 02:50 PM   #226
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

The Enterprise hovering somewhere indefinitely like the Disctrict 9 ship or a Star Wars landspeeder would be awesome. Oh well
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 04:51 PM   #227
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I think it takes away some of the uniqueness of starships if they can operate normally underwater. If they can, why bother with submarines? Are there any submarines in the future? If so, can they travel through space?
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 05:50 PM   #228
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Tombfyre wrote: View Post
It means you are restricted on resources, firepower, manpower, ect.
How are they limited in firepower? The Enterprise can fire on ground target from orbit, even on a stun setting (like in A Piece of the Action).
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 07:41 PM   #229
ssosmcin
Rear Admiral
 
ssosmcin's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.

The rules are differnet now.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
This is from an old Star Trek strip in an old Joe 90 comic back in the 70's. Admittedly it was written by someone who had never actually seen the show (get a load of Captain "Kurt"!) but the Enterprise "landed" was a pretty cool visual.
I love the Jetson's car coming down from the saucer. The early version of the Captain's Yacht?
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
ssosmcin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 08:09 PM   #230
Sindatur
Rear Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

ssosmcin wrote: View Post
You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.

The rules are differnet now.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
This is from an old Star Trek strip in an old Joe 90 comic back in the 70's. Admittedly it was written by someone who had never actually seen the show (get a load of Captain "Kurt"!) but the Enterprise "landed" was a pretty cool visual.
I love the Jetson's car coming down from the saucer. The early version of the Captain's Yacht?
Wouldn't have been any uproar from me. I see no reason whatsoever, why submerging a few feet should be any more stressful on the hull then diving into the Sun's corona, flirting with Black Holes, crossing the Galactic Barrier, whiplashing around the sun to time travel, entering Earth's atmosphere, Launching from Earth, and so many other hull stressing events.
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 08:12 PM   #231
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

King Daniel wrote: View Post
This is from an old Star Trek strip in an old Joe 90 comic back in the 70's. Admittedly it was written by someone who had never actually seen the show (get a load of Captain "Kurt"!) but the Enterprise "landed" was a pretty cool visual.
It's either hovering, or that's one damn strong gangplank.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 10:41 PM   #232
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

__________________
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 January 9 2013, 11:12 PM   #233
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

ssosmcin wrote: View Post
You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.

The rules are differnet now.
Different or non-existent?

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Wouldn't have been any uproar from me. I see no reason whatsoever, why submerging a few feet should be any more stressful on the hull then diving into the Sun's corona, flirting with Black Holes, crossing the Galactic Barrier, whiplashing around the sun to time travel, entering Earth's atmosphere, Launching from Earth, and so many other hull stressing events.
Right, because diving into the Sun's corona is mostly a heat resistance and/or dissipation problem so that is obviously er, "similar". The other situations you mention are more to do with sheering stresses applied to the ship's structure, rather than resistance to compression effecting the hull and every external component. So again "similar".

By the way, it’s not a few feet of water. A very rough estimate would put the pressure differential somewhere around 15 atmospheres just between the top and bottom of the hull when the ship is fully submerged. Add additional depth, and therefore pressure, as desired. What you really appear to be saying is you don't care.

Anyway, my objection, is not that it can't be done, though it seems likely a ship designed to do that would incur a penalty compared to enemy ships that weren't as capable. I was mainly pointing out that this issue is not of the same trivial nature as the colour of the warp nacelles etc.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2013, 11:28 PM   #234
Sindatur
Rear Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

UFO wrote: View Post
ssosmcin wrote: View Post
You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.

The rules are differnet now.
Different or non-existent?

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Wouldn't have been any uproar from me. I see no reason whatsoever, why submerging a few feet should be any more stressful on the hull then diving into the Sun's corona, flirting with Black Holes, crossing the Galactic Barrier, whiplashing around the sun to time travel, entering Earth's atmosphere, Launching from Earth, and so many other hull stressing events.
Right, because diving into the Sun's corona is mostly a heat resistance and/or dissipation problem so that is obviously er, "similar". The other situations you mention are more to do with sheering stresses applied to the ship's structure, rather than resistance to compression effecting the hull and every external component. So again "similar".

By the way, it’s not a few feet of water. A very rough estimate would put the pressure differential somewhere around 15 atmospheres just between the top and bottom of the hull when the ship is fully submerged. Add additional depth, and therefore pressure, as desired. What you really appear to be saying is you don't care.

Anyway, my objection, is not that it can't be done, though it seems likely a ship designed to do that would incur a penalty compared to enemy ships that weren't as capable. I was mainly pointing out that this issue is not of the same trivial nature as the colour of the warp nacelles etc.
You honestly don't see the commonality of structural stress from diving so far into a Sun that you have to fight to escape the gravity, on top of the heat of the Corona? Or escaping the gravity pull of a black hole? Or whip-lashing around the Sun for Time Travel? And launching through the atmosphere? We have subs now, that can go to incredible depths, but, we had to cancel the Shuttle Craft program because we haven't reliably gotten down the technology of escaping the atmosphere with them

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but, it certainly isn't because I don't care, it's because we've seen numerous other examples of far greater stress on the structural integrity of Ships in Star Trek, and I have no axe to grind against the JJTrekverse
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 01:21 AM   #235
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Sindatur wrote: View Post
You honestly don't see the commonality of structural stress from diving so far into a Sun that you have to fight to escape the gravity, on top of the heat of the Corona? Or escaping the gravity pull of a black hole? Or whip-lashing around the Sun for Time Travel? And launching through the atmosphere? We have subs now, that can go to incredible depths, but, we had to cancel the Shuttle Craft program because we haven't reliably gotten down the technology of escaping the atmosphere with them.
To deal with that last point: Escaping Earth's atmosphere may be an activity we aren't quiet on top of yet but it is not of the same type as resisting deep water pressures, so I can't see the commonalty there either.

While most of your other situations would require structural strength, that is not the same thing as being able to resist pressure. For example, an aircraft wing, while usually havimg some flexibility, is still a fairly strong object. But if you sealed up any gaps and emersed it in water, I suspect you wouldn't have to take it down too far before the "skin" (the "hull" analog) would collapse. Not to mention that any fittings in the wing could be weak points, as I mentioned with a starship's hull.

The only really interesting issue is whether it was reasonable for a starship to travelling into a star's corona at all. I wouldn't have thought gravity would be the main problem if you didn't change course too fast and provided your engines could cope. However apparently the corona of a star is hotter than I thought (much more so than the surface temperature of the star!) and pretty damned dense near the surface too, despite being a gas. To figure out the reasonableness of that manoeuvre, we would need more data.

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but, it certainly isn't because I don't care, it's because we've seen numerous other examples of far greater stress on the structural integrity of Ships in Star Trek, and I have no axe to grind against the JJTrekverse.
Actually your conclusion would have been more impressive if you did have an axe to grind. Either way I hope my aircraft wing analogy shows that even if "we've seen numerous other examples of far greater stress on the structural integrity of Ships in Star Trek" (and that seems to be mostly guesswork unless you have some data) not all structural capabilities are the same. Try pushing on a rope for example.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 01:31 AM   #236
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Some people severely underestimate the power of water. It would already be a huge problem for Kirk and McCoy to dive to the engineering section and then enter the ship.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 01:50 AM   #237
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Start Wreck wrote: View Post
I think it takes away some of the uniqueness of starships if they can operate normally underwater. If they can, why bother with submarines? Are there any submarines in the future? If so, can they travel through space?
See the DY class.

__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 02:12 AM   #238
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

ssosmcin wrote: View Post
You know, if the Enterprise was shown underwater in the pre-Abrams universe, with just a "who cares it looks cool" response, the uproar would be deafening, probably even from the people who are now shrugging it off.
To be more accurate, if Berman and Braga featured an actual starship underwater the internet would be in an uproar by the people now shrugging it off. There's precedent over this. The use of the term "Klingon Warbird" in Broken Bow got everyone in hysterics, with a few online reviews docking the episode upwards to five points in their final score of the episode because of it. Trek XI uses the same term and there's not a single complaint from anyone.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 02:45 AM   #239
The Keeper
Commodore
 
The Keeper's Avatar
 
Location: Where reality ends and illusion begins
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Start Wreck wrote: View Post
I think it takes away some of the uniqueness of starships if they can operate normally underwater. If they can, why bother with submarines? Are there any submarines in the future? If so, can they travel through space?
See the DY class.

OMG! It is so simple now, the Villain is NEMO!
The Keeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2013, 02:52 AM   #240
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
There's precedent over this. The use of the term "Klingon Warbird" in Broken Bow got everyone in hysterics, with a few online reviews docking the episode upwards to five points in their final score of the episode because of it. Trek XI uses the same term and there's not a single complaint from anyone.
Not one?
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak 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 06:01 AM.

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