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

[Arpy]

The Enterprise hovering somewhere indefinitely like the Disctrict 9 ship or a Star Wars landspeeder would be awesome. Oh well

[Start Wreck]

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?

[The Wormhole]

Tombfyre wrote:

---

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).

[ssosmcin]

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:

---

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?

[Sindatur]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

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.

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.

[Franklin]

King Daniel wrote:

---

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.

[King Daniel]

[UFO]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[Sindatur]

UFO wrote:

---

Different or non-existent?

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

[UFO]

Sindatur wrote:

---

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.

[JarodRussell]

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.

[Nerys Myk]

Start Wreck wrote:

---

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 Wormhole]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

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.

[The Keeper]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

See the DY class.

OMG! It is so simple now, the Villain is NEMO!

[M'Sharak]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

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?