RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,316
Posts: 5,352,392
Members: 24,621
Currently online: 697
Newest member: Alexiad

TrekToday headlines

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 27 2013, 01:37 PM   #1096
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
The reason the ship being underwater bothers me is quite simply that I always think of the line from TMoST that refers to the ship not being designed to enter an atmosphere. The one time it did that I can recall, in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" it was a problem. It's a relatively minor annoyance for me, others not so much.
I think it's important to point out that it's a different Enterprise, built at a different date in a different timeline.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
But it had no reason to be there at all. And no consequences for the ship either.
So ?
I rather liked the watershot, if you are going to reveal yourself and break the prime directive why not do it in style.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 02:53 PM   #1097
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive.
A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 03:05 PM   #1098
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It was cool. Can't we leave it at that?
__________________
*Tim Duncan fills glass with milk*
"Hm, you know what..."
*adds squirt of chocolate syrup*
"Tonight's a special night."
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 03:14 PM   #1099
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

ATimson wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive.
A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.
Still, basically, a sealed metal tube. For a society that has forcefields and gravity manipulation tech, it's pretty much a non issue.

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
It was cool. Can't we leave it at that?
Apparently not I can't recall any other shot in a Trek movie being dissected as much as this one has.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 04:42 PM   #1100
anotherdemon
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
anotherdemon's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

ATimson wrote: View Post
A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.
Shields and starship hulls have to keep out impact events in space (space junk can hit pretty hard due to its velocity, and it's not all going to come head on for the navigational deflector to stop it, which is still a "shield"), which is an order of magnitude higher than the pressure on the whole ship when submerged on an earth-like planet. A metal bolt hitting at 20 km/s is harder to protect against than water pressure (earth-like ocean), and we don't see this bothering starships in Trek.

Not to mention being able to withstand the most common threats in battle to some extent (which has shown to be true in Star Trek -- ships seem to be able to withstand a certain amount of battle damage), which again, will be far higher than the pressures of an earth-like planet's oceans.
anotherdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 04:45 PM   #1101
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
ATimson wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
But otherwise, a starship is basically a submarine: a sealed environment. So real issue there, in terms of keeping the crew alive.
A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.
Still, basically, a sealed metal tube. For a society that has forcefields and gravity manipulation tech, it's pretty much a non issue.

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
It was cool. Can't we leave it at that?
Apparently not I can't recall any other shot in a Trek movie being dissected as much as this one has.
Sure, that other one where the ship is being constructed on the ground.


In the next film, it will have wheels and roll around on empty plains.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 05:11 PM   #1102
Captain_Q
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: 221 B Baker Street
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Scotty is a genius and can make anything work. He figured out how to put whales in a Klingon bird of prey without killing everyone. So tada.
__________________
“How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral!"
I'm just here to be around like minded people talking about Star Trek, not to make them upset.
Captain_Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 07:02 PM   #1103
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Spock said that the gravity systems were failing, that could mean they were going haywire, it didn't help that the Enterprise was caught in the gravity field of Earth.
At 300,000km from Earth, the gravitation field from the Earth is effectively 0.
Incorrect. It's actually about 55mm/s. Which is not at all insigifnicant, considering that force of gravity is sufficient to keep the moon in a circular orbit and not drifting off into space.

So, they should never have been "caught" in the gravity field of Earth.
Strictly speaking, they were never OUT of it. But since the Enterprise after defeating Vengeance would have immediately begun moving towards Earth on impulse power, then "caught" in gravity would simply mean the loss of engine power means what had been an eliptical orbit now transformed into an impact trajectory (see "The Naked Time", among others).

And even if they were, it would have taken quite a long time to fall (in fact, they probably should have crashed into the moon instead)
They were at least 50,000km from the moon, so Earth's gravity was still dominant. And that assumes they started to fall from a stationary position relative to the Earth and the moon; in space, there's no such thing. Both ships were in motion relative to both the Earth and the moon; significantly, they were both in motion at about the same velocity, which is why the debris field between them doesn't move when Vengenace's systems are shut down.

We don't know anything about their actual orbital characteristics when they drop to sublight, but they are definitely not stationary.

BAD SCIENCE
Using bad science to nitpick bad science is fail.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 07:16 PM   #1104
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.
That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.
Indeed it is.

And we can, in fact, have flying cars. It's not actually that hard to do. The reason we don't have a lot of STREET LEGAL flying cars is because it turns out they're not actually all that practical from a transportation standpoint.

You know what else isn't practical? Hiding a starship on the bottom of an ocean. It's not actually that hard to do. It's just kind of silly, and your chief engineer is probably going to complain a lot about how stupid this is even if you think you have a good reason for doing it.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 09:12 PM   #1105
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
gerbil wrote:
If the Enterprise were stationary compared to Earth, there's a good chance it would cease being in freefall and be drawn directly downward.
Not in the time shown on screen. Not by a long shot. You do realize these are very easy things to calculate, so if they had bothered to hire a science consultant (as most sci-fi films do), they could have avoided this nonsense.
I'm curious why you'd address this point but fail address the concept of explosive decompression and a lack of maneuvering thrusters as a factor.
__________________
"Life should be revered simply for the fact that we need to be thankful that we are currently able to consciously appreciate what we are going through right now. ... This moment that we're having right now is highly significant." -Maynard James Keenan
gerbil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2013, 11:27 PM   #1106
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
but if you can build a 700 meter starship, then why can't you build it on the ground.
That's the "we went to the moon, why can't I have a flying car" logic.
Indeed it is.

And we can, in fact, have flying cars. It's not actually that hard to do. The reason we don't have a lot of STREET LEGAL flying cars is because it turns out they're not actually all that practical from a transportation standpoint.

You know what else isn't practical? Hiding a starship on the bottom of an ocean. It's not actually that hard to do. It's just kind of silly, and your chief engineer is probably going to complain a lot about how stupid this is even if you think you have a good reason for doing it.
I take Kirk hiding the Enterprise on the bottom of the ocean as another symptom of what Pike was talking about with Kirk not being responsible and being careless.

I'd say it applies to the whole crew. They all needed a lesson in being adults, and STID was that lesson.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 03:58 AM   #1107
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

anotherdemon wrote: View Post
ATimson wrote: View Post
A submarine has to keep many atmospheres of pressure out. A starship has to keep one atmosphere of pressure in. Very different design problems.
Shields and starship hulls have to keep out impact events in space (space junk can hit pretty hard due to its velocity, and it's not all going to come head on for the navigational deflector to stop it, which is still a "shield"), which is an order of magnitude higher than the pressure on the whole ship when submerged on an earth-like planet. A metal bolt hitting at 20 km/s is harder to protect against than water pressure (earth-like ocean), and we don't see this bothering starships in Trek.

Not to mention being able to withstand the most common threats in battle to some extent (which has shown to be true in Star Trek -- ships seem to be able to withstand a certain amount of battle damage), which again, will be far higher than the pressures of an earth-like planet's oceans.

I don't remember this much BS going on over the Enterprise D going into the sun or through an asteroid. Why not complain that the crew should have been wiped out in Generations when the saucer crashed landed, or Voyager's crew should have been turned into goo when she crashed on the ice planet in Timeless, but holy crap put Enterprise underwater and the fans get all in a wad.


-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 04:13 AM   #1108
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
At 300,000km from Earth, the gravitation field from the Earth is effectively 0.
Incorrect. It's actually about 55mm/s. Which is not at all insigifnicant, considering that force of gravity is sufficient to keep the moon in a circular orbit and not drifting off into space.
It's insignificant in terms of the "boost" it gives them in moving toward Earth. A quick calculation shows that it would take on the order of 40 hours to fall to Earth from rest at that distance. Not 5 minutes. And it would require a SIGNIFICANT radial velocity to accomplish that, something you're just not going to get from "explosive decompression" (especially if you guys insist the Enterprise is 700m long).

And before I go on, let me be clear: 'm not arguing they *won't* fall to Earth. I'm arguing they wouldn't do so in the time shown in the film (nowhere near it, actually).

Crazy Eddie wrote:
They were at least 50,000km from the moon, so Earth's gravity was still dominant.
Already taken into account.

And that assumes they started to fall from a stationary position relative to the Earth and the moon; in space, there's no such thing. Both ships were in motion relative to both the Earth and the moon;...
Of course it's possible to be stationary with respect to the Earth. Many satellites are. The likelihood they would drop out of warp in this state, however, is slim. But since their position with respect to the moon doesn't really change during the entire encounter, and furthermore the Enterprise maneuvers to be co-moving with the Vengeance, it stands to reason they weren't moving in a radial direction toward Earth. Ergo, no significant initial velocity.

We don't know anything about their actual orbital characteristics when they drop to sublight, but they are definitely not stationary.
It won't make a difference, unless they were already plunging toward Earth.

You wrote:
Me wrote:
BAD SCIENCE
Using bad science to nitpick bad science is fail.
Using Newtonian mechanics is bad science, huh. News to me. But who am I to argue.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 04:37 AM   #1109
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
It's insignificant in terms of the "boost" it gives them in moving toward Earth. A quick calculation shows that it would take on the order of 40 hours to fall to Earth from rest at that distance. Not 5 minutes.
That assumes a relative velocity of exactly zero with respect to the Earth's surface the moment their engines shut down. We don't even know if this is the case during the EVA.

Since their position with respect to the moon doesn't really change during the entire encounter
You don't know that. Even a relatively slow (by Trek standards) orbital velocity of 10 to 15km/s wouldn't be noticeable in the short timeframe we're seeing; at that velocity alone you wouldn't start to notice a change in the moon's position for at least an hour, and you would approach the Earth in about six hours.

On the other hand, Enterprise would have been heading for Earth under impulse power at this point, using the usual subspace trickery to reduce its inertial mass and allow a couple of thrusters to push it along. How close was it to Earth when the field collapsed? Going by visuals alone, ALOT closer than 230,000km.

and furthermore the Enterprise maneuvers to be co-moving with the Vengeance
You have that backwards: Vengeance maneuvers to be co-moving with the Enterprise, which was forced out of warp in a burst of gunfire.

It won't make a difference, unless they were already plunging toward Earth.
Exactly.

Why are you so sure that they weren't? Especially since Kirk had earlier ordered Sulu to do exactly that?

Vengence blows up, Enterprise heads for Earth at one quarter impulse power. Under normal circumstances that would be a five minute flight; under a sudden power failure and loss of vessel control that turns into more like twenty minutes of twisty-tumbling insanity.

It's not that hard to explain. And the interesting thing is, it's such a breathtakingly cool scene that most of us don't mind looking for explanations. It would be one thing if it was a pointlessly concocted idiocy that served no purpose whatsoever (e.g. the dune buggy chase in Nemesis), but in this case we're forced to invoke the Rule of Cool.

Using Newtonian mechanics is bad science, huh.
Only when you use it incorrectly.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 04:40 AM   #1110
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Oh yeah, this is why I typically never click on this thread...

... anywho...
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

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 10:50 AM.

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