Starships underwater WTF??? - Page 2

C.E. Evans · December 14 2012, 10:10 PM

I've always likened starships to submarines, so the idea of one being underwater is really one that should have been done a long time ago, IMO.

Instead of using ballast tanks, they're using either maneuvering jets and/or subspace fields to dive and submerge.

BillJ · December 14 2012, 11:07 PM

My problem is...

If that rumor is true.

Silvercrest · December 15 2012, 06:39 AM

Carcazoid wrote:

billcosby wrote:

I completely understand the irrational anger, however I would think starships designed in a fictional series would be equipped to enter gas giants, many of which are comprised of liquid materials.
That is all.

Keywords: "fictional series"

You're absolutely right. They can do whatever they want, because it's NOT REAL.

Didn't we do this 4 years ago?

Anyone who's taking the OP seriously (and who thinks he's talking about nuTrek: Read the line below carefully.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

We're supposed to believe a huge Federation starship can come down through a planet's atmosphere, descend into a large body of water and submerge itself completely?

The Trek I knew is dead, replaced with this unjustified nonsense. Star Trek: Insurrection is not true Star Trek. Screw Rick Berman and his idiotic "kewl" popcorn-movie stunts. Gene Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave. I'm through with Star Trek

RAMA · December 16 2012, 11:54 PM

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

We're supposed to believe a huge Federation starship can come down through a planet's atmosphere, descend into a large body of water and submerge itself completely? And remain functional? And then just rise up into space again?? This is completely contrary to anything in established Trek history. Starships go in SPACE, they're not submarines. Only an idiot would think a starship could pull a stunt like that and not be CRUSHED by the crushing forces of H20, nature's deadliest liquid. Every ship that ever sank did so in WATER! And they were built for it! Look what happened to the Klingon ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for more proof!

The Trek I knew is dead, replaced with this unjustified nonsense. Star Trek: Insurrection is not true Star Trek. Screw Rick Berman and his idiotic "kewl" popcorn-movie stunts. Gene Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave. I'm through with Star Trek

Why not? They're structurally superstrong, made of advanced materials, air tight, use both exterior shields and structural integrity fielkds, and on top of that, anti-gravity technology is well established in Star Trek. Quite frankly its almost shocking you're asking this question, because out of the 4-5 most exotic technologies on the Enterprise, going underwater is probably the LEAST impossible of them.

Nerys Myk · December 17 2012, 01:53 AM

RAMA wrote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

We're supposed to believe a huge Federation starship can come down through a planet's atmosphere, descend into a large body of water and submerge itself completely? And remain functional? And then just rise up into space again?? This is completely contrary to anything in established Trek history. Starships go in SPACE, they're not submarines. Only an idiot would think a starship could pull a stunt like that and not be CRUSHED by the crushing forces of H20, nature's deadliest liquid. Every ship that ever sank did so in WATER! And they were built for it! Look what happened to the Klingon ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for more proof!

The Trek I knew is dead, replaced with this unjustified nonsense. Star Trek: Insurrection is not true Star Trek. Screw Rick Berman and his idiotic "kewl" popcorn-movie stunts. Gene Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave. I'm through with Star Trek

Why not? They're structurally superstrong, made of advanced materials, air tight, use both exterior shields and structural integrity fielkds, and on top of that, anti-gravity technology is well established in Star Trek. Quite frankly its almost shocking you're asking this question, because out of the 4-5 most exotic technologies on the Enterprise, going underwater is probably the LEAST impossible of them.

====Whoosh

teacake · December 17 2012, 01:56 AM

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

the crushing forces of H20, nature's deadliest liquid.

That was my favorite part.

RAMA · December 27 2012, 09:45 PM

Santa Kang wrote:

RAMA wrote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

We're supposed to believe a huge Federation starship can come down through a planet's atmosphere, descend into a large body of water and submerge itself completely? And remain functional? And then just rise up into space again?? This is completely contrary to anything in established Trek history. Starships go in SPACE, they're not submarines. Only an idiot would think a starship could pull a stunt like that and not be CRUSHED by the crushing forces of H20, nature's deadliest liquid. Every ship that ever sank did so in WATER! And they were built for it! Look what happened to the Klingon ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for more proof!

The Trek I knew is dead, replaced with this unjustified nonsense. Star Trek: Insurrection is not true Star Trek. Screw Rick Berman and his idiotic "kewl" popcorn-movie stunts. Gene Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave. I'm through with Star Trek

Why not? They're structurally superstrong, made of advanced materials, air tight, use both exterior shields and structural integrity fielkds, and on top of that, anti-gravity technology is well established in Star Trek. Quite frankly its almost shocking you're asking this question, because out of the 4-5 most exotic technologies on the Enterprise, going underwater is probably the LEAST impossible of them.

====Whoosh

Yes, I didnt see that till afterwards, but the answer is still the same for all the zillions of others questioning it.

RAMA

R. Star · December 29 2012, 02:43 AM

The power of the plot can do strange and mysterious things.

Greg Cox · December 30 2012, 05:22 AM

You're right! That's crazy! Next they'll have starships flying through "fluidic space" or something!

Ronald Held · December 30 2012, 10:07 PM

Greg Cox wrote:

You're right! That's crazy! Next they'll have starships flying through "fluidic space" or something!

That could not be sarcasm, could it?

Carcazoid · December 30 2012, 10:21 PM

Ronald Held wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

You're right! That's crazy! Next they'll have starships flying through "fluidic space" or something!

That could not be sarcasm, could it?

With this bunch it's often impossible to know for sure.

Argus Skyhawk · January 2 2013, 04:25 AM

teacake wrote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

the crushing forces of H20, nature's deadliest liquid.

That was my favorite part.

I was getting all ready to make a snarky remark about mercury or snake venom or lava before I realized the OP wasn't being serious.

Australis · January 10 2013, 01:42 PM

WHAT?! THE OP ISN'T SERIOUS?! HE IS MAKING FUN OF THE HOLY TREK?!

SHUN THE UNBELIEVER! SHUN! SHUUUUNNN!!!

Anji · January 24 2013, 03:33 AM

It should be able to go through water. Let's see how Mr. Scott does it.

JarodRussell · January 24 2013, 10:11 PM

Can submarines they build in the 23rd century go into space as well?

December 14 2012, 10:10 PM	#16
C.E. Evans Vice Admiral Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? I've always likened starships to submarines, so the idea of one being underwater is really one that should have been done a long time ago, IMO. Instead of using ballast tanks, they're using either maneuvering jets and/or subspace fields to dive and submerge. __________________ "Shout, shout, let it all out..."

December 14 2012, 11:07 PM	#17
BillJ Vice Admiral Location: Greater Cincinnati	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? My problem is... How it got that deep into Klingon space and beneath a Klingon ocean without the Klingons noticing. If that rumor is true. __________________ J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.

December 29 2012, 02:43 AM	#23
R. Star Commodore Location: Terra 3	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? The power of the plot can do strange and mysterious things. __________________ "I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams

December 30 2012, 05:22 AM	#24
Greg Cox Vice Admiral Location: Oxford, PA	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? You're right! That's crazy! Next they'll have starships flying through "fluidic space" or something! __________________ www.gregcox-author.com

January 10 2013, 01:42 PM	#28
Australis Writer Location: The Electric Age	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? WHAT?! THE OP ISN'T SERIOUS?! HE IS MAKING FUN OF THE HOLY TREK?! SHUN THE UNBELIEVER! SHUN! SHUUUUNNN!!! __________________ I will not accept tyranny, any tyranny, even that of Heaven - Terry Pratchett. Always choose cognac over cocaine. -- Jon Lord

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

January 24 2013, 03:33 AM	#29
Anji Rear Admiral Location: Assisting in the birth of baby Horta on Janus VI	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? It should be able to go through water. Let's see how Mr. Scott does it. __________________ "You may be wrong, but you may be right." - Billy Joel

January 24 2013, 10:11 PM	#30
JarodRussell Vice Admiral	Re: Starships underwater WTF??? Can submarines they build in the 23rd century go into space as well? __________________ lol l /\