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

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Is that a dare?

Maybe something like this:

...Deanna's generous bosom heaved beneath her uniform, uplifted by the corset that formed her wasp-like waist, as she slowly inhaled after her lungs were momentarily and suddenly evacuated by the unexpected sight of the Enterprise rising from the depths of the windswept desert dunes -- dunes like golden ripples of water having been stilled by a temporal anomaly.

Worf sauntered up to her from the direction of the suns setting behind the expanse of sand adjacent to the ancient stone edifice; a monument long abandoned by the race who once dwelled on this planet, but whose mummified kings still remain entombed within. Worf approached Deanna slowly, but deliberately, with a desire in his eyes that burned greater that the red orbs of this world's two stars descending on the horizon behind him. His brown sinewy chest bare except for his chainmail sash, which was framed by his expansive pectoral muscles like fleshy, but heavy, bronze bookends.

"Commander Riker will be quite occupied tonight with extracting sand grains from the nacelle vents", he boomed in a voice of which a baritone opera singer would be jealous, as Deanna turned away, feigning rejection to his obvious, but at the same time sublime, advances, and looked vacantly at the sheer veil of the nebula rising in the eastern sky beyond...

....or is that not quite your genre, Mr. Cox?

[Greg Cox]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Maybe something like this:

....or is that not quite your genre, Mr. Cox?

I take it you haven't read my vampire novels . . . .

[Tombfyre]

I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

[Image converted to link. Please be sure that images posted inline are hosted on your own web space. - M']

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.

[The Keeper]

You cannot simply chalk it up to yet another Scotty Miracle?

[Nerys Myk]

Tombfyre wrote:

---

I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.

Someone should tell Gene Roddenberry.



The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^Exactly. Roddenberry wanted the Enterprise to be able to land, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. The fact still remains that in Roddenberry's original view of what he wanted Star Trek to be, the ship would land.

To tell you the truth, though, I like the idea of having smaller landing craft (shuttles), but I have no real philosophical issues with a big ship landing, either.

[Tombfyre]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.

Haha, well i'm glad for that. I just really like the idea of parking in orbit of a planet and conducting whatever operations are needed using runabouts and such. It means you are restricted on resources, firepower, manpower, ect.

Gene Roddenberry was a great visionary of his time... but star trek developed its style because of some of those initial compromises.

I'm sure the movie will still be a blast to watch. Just prefer the old TNG\DS9 time. If JJ abrams really said that rerun comment.... that just arrogant. He'd have no movie to make if it wasn't for those reruns and those who enjoy them.

[Nerys Myk]

Rerun comment?

[Arpy]

What they meant to do in TOS doesn't matter as much as what they did do.

There's nothing wrong with the preference of capital ships not being atmosphere-capable, and it does add a dash of faux verisimilitude that Trek's so famous/loved for.

I used to like the idea that ships couldn't travel in atmosphere, but it does make more sense to me that soooo advanced ships would be able to. Of course, it makes more sense that such ships wouldn't be welded together hull plate by visible hull plate but what can you do?

[Carcazoid]

The Keeper wrote:

---

You cannot simply chalk it up to yet another Scotty Miracle?

You need something done, you call the man who can do it. He'll bitch and moan and tell you it can't be done, but he'll figure it out.

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Someone should tell Gene Roddenberry.



The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.

Sidebar: I like the cheesy old TOS effects much better than the cheesy new TOS-R effects. Just sayin'.

Arpy wrote:

---

What they meant to do in TOS doesn't matter as much as what they did do.

There's nothing wrong with the preference of capital ships not being atmosphere-capable, and it does add a dash of faux verisimilitude that Trek's so famous/loved for.

I used to like the idea that ships couldn't travel in atmosphere, but it does make more sense to me that soooo advanced ships would be able to. Of course, it makes more sense that such ships wouldn't be welded together hull plate by visible hull plate but what can you do?

I want to know why we weren't told decades ago that these ships are watertight. Airtight in the vacuum of space, even where there are no windows or doors, damn straight! But watertight? Dude. If they don't say it, it ain't so. Right? Right?

[Arpy]

Uhhh, it's not a matter of watertight but structurally able to withstand the water pressure and gravity pull. And no ships don't feel that pressure/pull at warp because they're in a bubble at warp and these things don't come into play.

At impulse I guess the shields, or the deflector, or the structural integrity field, or artificial gravity, or some amazing new hull materials, are keep the ship together...

I don't remember - does the Abramsprise have bubble shields?

[The Mirrorball Man]

Arpy wrote:

---

I don't remember - does the Abramsprise have bubble shields?

No, it has sombrero shields.

[Carcazoid]

Arpy wrote:

---

Uhhh, it's not a matter of watertight but structurally able to withstand the water pressure and gravity pull. And no ships don't feel that pressure/pull at warp because they're in a bubble at warp and these things don't come into play.

At impulse I guess the shields, or the deflector, or the structural integrity field, or artificial gravity, or some amazing new hull materials, are keep the ship together...

I don't remember - does the Abramsprise have bubble shields?

You saw the winky, right?

Sheldon: Sarcasm?
Howard: Nah.

[Arpy]

No! No winkie! Winkies excuse nothing!

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

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.