RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,195
Posts: 5,404,182
Members: 24,758
Currently online: 394
Newest member: Chris-1701

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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 8 2004, 06:53 PM   #46
AlexR
Rear Admiral
 
Location: North Brunswick, NJ, USA
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Actually, all the answers are in the first post.

What I've tended to watch for are questions which both come up frequently and have a very straightforward, relatively simple answer. There really haven't been that many. What we tend to see are recurrences of the same debates, which recur because there isn't actually a defined answer. <shrug>

I've thought about pruning out the cross-discussion here, but since it doesn't actually seem to be affecting anybody's ability to see the answers in the FAQ itself, I've left folks the freedom to comment and have comments read.

Now, of course, if you think I've missed a question and answer that ought to go into the FAQ, by all means suggest away.

Best,
Alex
__________________
Treknologist
Fan of the Whole Star Trek (Prime ) Universe
www.ussavenger.org
"Because you, too, must know."
AlexR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2004, 07:21 PM   #47
ahkyahnan
Captain
 
Location: WV, USA
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by AlexR:
Actually, all the answers are in the first post.

<snip>

I've thought about pruning out the cross-discussion here, but since it doesn't actually seem to be affecting anybody's ability to see the answers in the FAQ itself, I've left folks the freedom to comment and have comments read.
So you mean any new answers that come up will always be added to the first post at the top, and not as a new post in sequence behind the last post made? If that's the case, then disregard my question.

My assumption was that any new activity (answers) would just fall in together with other posts in sequential order, as in other threads. If that were the case then as the thread grew you'd have to scroll through a lot of posts looking for the answers, and that's why I was concerned. I never thought about the ability to keep updating the very first post.

My goof! Thanks for setting me straight!
__________________
Founder of Federation Frontiers, & creator of the Federation Shuttlecarrier Comparison Chart, Federation Shuttlecraft Identification Chart & Ships Of The Delta Triangle series.
ahkyahnan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2005, 06:10 AM   #48
Extrocomp
Captain
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by AlexR:
(The scale-change takes place in 2312, as originally cited by Andre Bormanis in an article in ST: The Magazine and subsequently used in Starship Spotter.)

Do you know which issue of Star Trek: The Magazine that article was in?
__________________
May swift death come to all enemies of Extrotech!
Extrocomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12 2005, 02:57 AM   #49
AlexR
Rear Admiral
 
Location: North Brunswick, NJ, USA
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by Extrocomp:
Posted by AlexR:
(The scale-change takes place in 2312, as originally cited by Andre Bormanis in an article in ST: The Magazine and subsequently used in Starship Spotter.)

Do you know which issue of Star Trek: The Magazine that article was in?
Good question! FAQ's been updated to reflect that information.

Best,
Alex
__________________
Treknologist
Fan of the Whole Star Trek (Prime ) Universe
www.ussavenger.org
"Because you, too, must know."
AlexR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2005, 01:02 AM   #50
Guest
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Just picked up an updated Dixon timeline in here, trek15.zip ----> trek17.zip. Thank you very much.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2005, 12:53 AM   #51
EightyFive
Lieutenant
 
Location: Iceland
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Why is the bridge situated atop the ship instead of more safely imbedded within the ship itself?
__________________
"My underwear is flame-retardant. That doesn't mean I'm going to light myself on fire to prove it."
- Charles Tucker III
EightyFive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2005, 12:27 AM   #52
The Bermanator
Commander
 
Location: L.A., Alpha Sol III
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Probably in case there's a system-failure and they lose sensors etc, there's fewer things to go wrong between space and the bridge: and it's more important to be able to see what you're dealing with, than to be protected from it.
Otherwise, however, I'd have to say for simile to an actual ship, where the brige on top of the ship so they can SEE better what they're headed for.

But either way, if the bridge goes out, they always have aux. engineering-- also like on a real ship.
__________________
"I'll be back!" -- Kirk
The Bermanator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2007, 04:26 AM   #53
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Have you guys thought about offering blueprints to download at perhaps a lower price?
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13 2008, 12:39 AM   #54
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

wow, that was quite fascinating the Chi thing. I thought i knew a lot about trek and i didn't know that. I had even developed my own alternate explanation which was a lot like that but mine was based on gravity; where
Hyper-subpsace is actually a node to node network of gravitational singularities in the place of stars and planets; my hypothetical explanation thus was that theres a gravitationally determined medium and that thus flying through "empty space" is slower than flying through gravitationally "knitted"
space. This also had some nice explanatory power for naturally occuring wormholes.

So, I guess my question then becomes reading further regarding your "sourcing" of materials; By your definition of treknology i should leave you alone and count myself lucky for being smart enough not to participate.
But before I run off, let me say why. My version of treknology is to take
current applied known physics and science and attempt to extrapolate reasonable futurists geusstimates. This tends to actually often put me at odds with cannon, but thats never bothered me much because I am far more interested in building the enterprise than chatting with muggles.

That said, where and how does a vulcan fit into your process schema?
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 07:24 PM   #55
Albertus
Lieutenant
 
Albertus's Avatar
 
Location: East Sussex, UK
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

I have trawled through the responses, and to be honest, got bored with the diatribe after the second page. It seems there are two questions here: What is 'canon'? What is non-canon and fan created? As I understand it, 'canon', is everything that appears on screen, even if it contradicts itself. 'fan created' is the attempt to rationalise and explain the iinconsistencies inherent in the Trek world Here's a simple way of looking at the problem. If it works in the episode, its 'canon', if it don't work in reality, thats our problem. Star Trek was produced as a fantasy show. Roddenberry and his legacy staff were not, and are not, scientists. although they did use advisors. I know for a fact that there was no real discussion by the creators of ST as to how a starship slows down after dropping out of Warp. Or how the 'Heisenberg Compensator' really works. We take these things on faith. Next week, I will explain the function of Plasma Convertors and why Data can't make contractions.
Albertus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2008, 04:31 PM   #56
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

For this forum, I tend to treat "canon" somewhat loosely. Most of the tech stuff has been done by fans, and is thus not "canon," but some of it is quite decent. I find a lot of that much more interesting than seeing the same few designs used over and over for budget reasons.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18 2009, 09:04 AM   #57
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

How do we know Voyager is 344 meters? Was it ever stated on screen at any time? Or did Rick Sternbach tell us in a post?

Also, was there ever a size mentioned for the Prometheus-class?
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2009, 08:53 PM   #58
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

SicOne wrote: View Post
How do we know Voyager is 344 meters? Was it ever stated on screen at any time? Or did Rick Sternbach tell us in a post?

Also, was there ever a size mentioned for the Prometheus-class?

For one thing, it's stated in the Voyager Technical Manual, by Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, put together for production use in 1995. You can view it online here, and the length of 344 meters is given on page 11.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...cal-manual.php
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2009, 12:41 PM   #59
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
SicOne wrote: View Post
How do we know Voyager is 344 meters? Was it ever stated on screen at any time? Or did Rick Sternbach tell us in a post?

Also, was there ever a size mentioned for the Prometheus-class?

For one thing, it's stated in the Voyager Technical Manual, by Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, put together for production use in 1995. You can view it online here, and the length of 344 meters is given on page 11.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...cal-manual.php
Ahhhhhhhh! Thanks much, LCARS 24!
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2011, 01:53 AM   #60
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

May 2003??

Is this the oldest thread on the board?

If anyone ever does a new FAQ, I'd suggest covering the sizes of the STXI ships and the Quantum Slipstream drive from the recent novels.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness 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 10:07 AM.

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