Salt Water Nacelles?

[cooleddie74]

While I'm no fan of wanting to see Federation starships zipping through alien oceans like some gargantuan SeaQuestDSV with warp engines when we think about it we have to admit we've seen an Enterprise do something similar even if we don't usually think of it that way.

In "The Immunity Syndrome(TOS)" the Enterprise traveled through the liquid cytoplasm of the monstrous space amoeba/single-celled organism and was enveloped by fluids from the moment it penetrated the outer membrane and entered the creature until Spock freed them all at the end of the episode. So, yes, an Enterprise can travel through a liquid environment of sorts even if what we saw in TOS wasn't a sea or ocean.

Just sayin'. There is a precedent even if it's not immediately obvious or a perfect analogy.

[M'Sharak]

Photoman15 wrote:

---

So you believe a ship can travel in space and at warp speeds but you have a problem believing it can't survive under water? It flies in space, it's water tight for God's sake.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

^ I don't see any reason why the Enterprise, or indeed any ship that damned big, would ever be built for underwater travel.

You'll note that Photoman did not say that it was built for underwater travel, only that it ought to be able to survive being submerged. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that a starship could go deep-sea diving. eddie also has a point about the TOS Enterprise going mobile inside the space amoeba - wasn't designed for that, obviously, but the ship's construction is rugged enough to survive it as long as they don't get too crazy.

[Timo]

...Also, Trek shuttlecraft are shaped like bricks, but somehow slip through the air in such a fashion that they even have the ability to glide when engine power is inevitably lost...

Might be shield magic. If shields can give these bricks the perfect aerodynamic shape, they can probably make an arbitrarily shaped starship ideally shaped for underwater travel, too. I wouldn't want to be a fish in the vicinity when such a thing passes at 1/10 impulse, but then again, I wouldn't want to be a fish to begin with.

Timo Saloniemi

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

CaptainJack wrote:

---

I personally have never liked the small size that Star Trek Ships are depicted as being. There cant be much internal space/volume when they are that small. I wish they were at least 2x bigger than what they show.

JJ Abrams to the rescue!

[Therin of Andor]

Fluiditic space.

[CaptainJack]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

JJ Abrams to the rescue!

Although that is better. I still wish they were a little bit bigger. Too bad this image doesnt have a real US Shuttle to show for size comparison. It think the old original Enterprise would be about 2-3 times bigger if that...

[The Keeper]

3chordboy wrote:

---

don't think the pylon is supposed to be curved. given the flames/ smoke from the engine i'd safely assume the pylon has buckled from the impact/ crash.

I like the "crashing upside down" theory... HERE Patrickivan posted the above IMG with outlines drawn which show both the struts have been built with the kinks, (illogical) or they both buckled slightly upon impact, (logical) Check these links to other posts on the site with similar looking ships. The first one is a Fan Production about Garth himself.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...21615289_n.jpg @ this thread
http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/a...l01/Akyazi.jpg @ this thread

[Anji]

Anybody ever watch the episode of "UFO Hunters" where they discuss USO's or Unidentified Submersible Objects? Seems to me the writers of this script did. They've been discussing USO's on the History Channel for the past two years!

[mos6507]

If you want to talk about spaceships underwater, the most famous ship that did this as a matter of routine was the Argo (Yamato) in Starblazers. But then again, it itself was a converted battleship, so it kind of makes sense. It both floated like a ship and could go underwater. In the remake they even made it turn upside down while in the water (artificial gravity being what it is). But that's really a Yamato thing, not a Trek thing.

[Captain Rob]

I seem to remember a videeo that was posted a while back of a large model of the E-refit zooming around underwater in a swimming pool. It had some sort of thruster in the hangar bay and it waas also lit up. Looked really cool.
Anyone want to see the Enterprise go to warp while underwater?

[Grup]

I have to admit to not reading all 4 pages of posts so please forgive me if this was questioned. I read two pages and gleaned the rest.

I don't see the Enterprise rising out of the water. I see a two nacelle ship with NCC designations. No 1701. Nor do I see the saucer. Could the Enterprise have a vessel on board that is capable of underwater responsibilities? Like a shuttlecraft for aquatic maneuvers.

If there is a screenshot clearly depicting the 1701 designation, can you link me? Thanks.

[M'Sharak]

Grup wrote:

---

If there is a screenshot clearly depicting the 1701 designation, can you link me? Thanks.

Here's a cap which Chem made and posted in another thread:



It's not perfect, but the identity of the ship attached to that nacelle seems reasonably clear.

[Grup]

The nacelles are in the foreground of the clip correct? This is at the back of the ship. I don't see the forward part of the ship. The saucer. I attached the first image I came across to illustrate my confusion. Granted the angles are different but if the nacelles are rising up, shouldn't I be able to see the saucer? I don't think it's farther ahead of the area we can 'clearly' see as the water appears to be undisturbed ahead of this part. You might have to draw me a picture. hahaha Thanks for what you've done so far though.

[cooleddie74]

I guess Starfleet affixed new "NCC-1701" graphics to the ship's warp nacelle casings at some point after the Nero crisis and the new ones are in a different, more TOS and Prime timeline-esque font similar to what we've always been familiar with.

[M'Sharak]

Grup wrote:

---

The nacelles are in the foreground of the clip correct? This is at the back of the ship. I don't see the forward part of the ship. The saucer.

This is looking toward the front from roughly 45 degrees off the aft view, yes. If you look to the far right of the larger image, just ahead of the forward end of the right nacelle, you can see what looks like an edge of the saucer, barely breaking the surface of the water.