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

[The Wormhole]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

Not one?

Well, none aside from my own of course. But I'll complain about anything Abrams related, he has a lot to answer for making Trek popular and successful. Where are the complaints from Trek's legitimate peanut gallery? The ones so outraged when they heard "Klingon Warbird" in Broken Bow?

[Locutus of Bored]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

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.

If?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

...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...

I don't know...
When Janeway told us her crew could modify the Voyager in one week to go miles underwater, It didn't really bother me. Meh

Was there an uproar from the fans due to her saying the ship could do that?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

...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...

Hardly.

I never had any patience with the online whinging about Berman and/or Braga.

My doubts about one of these ships underwater have to do with the propulsion systems, but in the face of a lack of information in that area - so far - I don't see the kvetching about whether the ships are designed to withstand that kind of an environment as anything other than stupid.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

...My doubts about one of these ships underwater have to do with the propulsion systems...

Yeah -- Logic and what I think the "real world" Star Trek propulsion systems would be make me think the ships would not be able to move around underwater -- but that would be my own ideas on the subject in the absence of any Star Trek precedence on the subject.

However, we DO have Star Trek precedence that starships CAN be maneuvered underwater, so my logical assumptions of how the propulsion system works is not relevant. Apparently, there would be propulsion.

[CorporalClegg]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

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.

Nonsense. The people who complained about the "Klingon Warbird" are the same people who are complaining about sea ship Enterprise, and those who rolled their eyes before, are the same people rolling their eyes now.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

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.

You mean like village-sized holoship in Insurrection? No only did they do it, but they did it in such a bland fashion you forgot it ever happened!!

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Yeah -- Logic and what I think the "real world" Star Trek propulsion systems would be make me think the ships would not be able to move around underwater -- but that would be my own ideas on the subject in the absence of any Star Trek precedence on the subject.

However, we DO have Star Trek precedence that starships CAN be maneuvered underwater, so my logical assumptions of how the propulsion system works is not relevant. Apparently, there would be propulsion.

I would think this isn't the typical way to handle a starship, and Scotty probably made some modifications to whatever systems keep the ship trim in atmospheric flight and he modified the thrusters in some way to provide some form of propulsion (though they seem more "parked" there than moving around).
A combination of the atmospheric flight stabilizers being used as ballast in water along with the modified thrusters would lower the ship, then raise it out of the water to assume "normal" atmospheric flight.

It's just technobabble.

Edited to add: And, if you needed a scene with hyperbole to more or less signify that over the previous year, Kirk and his crew were experiencing "non-standard" missions, throwing Spock into the middle of a volcano that's about to erupt and putting the Enterprise at the bottom of an ocean like it's no big deal would certainly serve that purpose.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Franklin wrote:

---

Edited to add: And, if you needed a scene with hyperbole to more or less signify that over the previous year, Kirk and his crew were experiencing "non-standard" missions, throwing Spock into the middle of a volcano that's about to erupt and putting the Enterprise at the bottom of an ocean like it's no big deal would certainly serve that purpose.

Yes.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Enterprise and her crew were just flying around through space and happened to come across this planet with a volcano problem, and figured they would stop and do something about it right then and there.

I think they were probably sent on that specific mission by Starfleet/The Federation, and the Enterprise may have been modified in specific ways for this mission's plan -- a plan that specifically could have called for the Enterprise being required to hide in the water.

[Arpy]

Wait, how do thrusters work under water?

[Locutus of Bored]

Arpy wrote:

---

Wait, how do thrusters work under water?

They're fusion rockets. Since rockets aren't air-breathing like jet engines, they work just fine underwater.

[Arpy]

Yeah but messy, no?

[Ovation]

I certainly hope (and feel pretty confident) we won't get some sort of lengthy exposition about how the ship was modified to go underwater, blah, blah, blah… Scotty's little bit of whining, as seen in the 9 min. preview, is all that is needed.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Arpy wrote:

---

Wait, how do thrusters work under water?

I don't know. However, the Delta Flyer had thrusters that worked underwater (with some modifications), and Janeway said the Voyager would be able to go miles underwater with some modifications.

I would think the Enterprise may be able to be modified to do the same.

[Locutus of Bored]

Arpy wrote:

---

Yeah but messy, no?

If you're a fish directly in the path of the exhaust, sure. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. Messy internally? It's all self-contained and sealed up, so I don't see why. Messy environmentally? The water would cool the exhaust down fairly quickly and dampen (no pun intended) its effects after a short distance, so it shouldn't cause too much damage as long as they don't blast off in a reef or some endangered alien kelp or anything.