RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,116
Posts: 5,400,797
Members: 24,744
Currently online: 530
Newest member: Ohwowmelody

TrekToday headlines

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 25 2013, 01:16 AM   #46
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

stj wrote: View Post
If they're getting thrust from their feet, why would they move them at all? Every move would turn them I should think.
I also believe there was propulsion from their boots, like in the old Marine Boy cartoons. I immediately thought of Marine Boy in the theater when I saw the trial of bubbles.

Small movements of their limbs would enable them to maintain a straight line of travel. The Human body isn't a nice regular shape, we're "bumpy" in form. Not moving their limbs at all could have resulted in a gradual turn.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25 2013, 01:55 PM   #47
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

stj wrote: View Post
How can the phrase "cold fusion" be reconciled as somehow referring to the previous?
I just hope the term means something completely different in the 23rd century because otherwise it's a bit silly.

How can the Enterprise be bigger on the inside than the outside?
It isn't. Or it's a TARDIS.

How can concrete floors be a useful spaceship construction material?
I didn't spot that.

stj wrote: View Post
The first thing that really hurt suspension of disbelief were the scenes with the swimmers effortlessly swimming down. After all, a split second before they didn't even have masks on!
They had mask when they got inside the ship.

B.J. wrote: View Post
Assuming that the order they have those pics in matches the arrangement on the desk, then the ringship was *before* the Phoenix. Considering that everything else was arranged chronologically, what does that mean for the history of warp flight? Perhaps the ringship was an earlier failed experiment? Or maybe not quite failed, just a stepping stone to actual FTL flight?
No I think it was post-Phoenix. An early Vulcan-like annular warp drive design, from what I read. Of course we don't have anything official on it.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 01:45 AM   #48
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

stj wrote: View Post
Aside from not seeing any motion at a tangent, how fast was the ship rotating?

Is the wrong question.

The question is "How far are you from the axis of rotation?" and also "Exactly how much sideways force were all those people experiencing in those scenes?" To the latter question, probably less than you'd think; they're falling way too slowly for that, and Chekov's "gotcha" moment on the catwalk sort of hints they were being pulled sideways at something like one third of a gee or less.

But let's be generous and call it a full G. If they were only a hundred meters from the ship's axis of rotation, that would be consistent with a turn rate of about 18 degrees per second; that is, a rate at which it would take the ship a full ten seconds to tumble 180 degrees. That, IMO, is quite a bit slower than the ship appears to be tumbling; OTOH, the catwalk is in engineering, probably much closer to the ship's center of gravity, so the rotational velocity at that moment could easily be twice that.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 01:53 AM   #49
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
Lol - yes but these explanations aren't all that satisfactory. Earth is moving fast, Qo'onos is moving fast. We can't beam you out of a volcano or from inside the katric ark (which in fairness might be shielded) but we luckily can beam you from one planet to a specific deserted location on another planet?
A repeated theme in this movie that seemed surprisingly consistent: it's a lot easier to beam someone DOWN than it is to beam them back again. Thinking back, this seems to be the case in the STXI as well: beaming Spock down to the surface is a pushbutton operation, but beaming him and the council back to the ship is "I have your signal. Don't move! Transport in five... four.. three... OH NOES!"

TOS is actually what set the precedent for this one. Apparently beaming people down is so easy that you don't even need to have a solid understanding of where you're beaming them to, hence Kirk accidentally beams two security officers into deep space because he never bothers to check to see whether or not the Enterprise is anywhere near the beamdown site.

Was it sheer luck that Harrison transported at the exact time that the planetary locations were aligned or can they beam through the hot centre of planets but not volcanoes?
With transwarp beaming, you can go through just about anything, including shields, warp fields, the hulls of starships, water tanks, etc. However, you have to really know what you're doing and your equations for your destination solution have to be perfect, otherwise the transwarp beam will wander off target and god only knows where you (or Admiral Archer's prized beagle) will end up.

Actually, we understand from that Enterprise episode "Daedalus" that transwarp beaming isn't technically all that challenging, all you're really doing is piggybacking a transporter signal on a subspace carrier wave. The trick is getting the payload to materialize at the proper destination; if you miss your target, you either wind up in a random place on the far end of the universe, or you fail to materialize at all and wind up floating in subspace until somebody can dig out your pattern and rematerialize you.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 07:49 PM   #50
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

hence Kirk accidentally beams two security officers into deep space because he never bothers to check to see whether or not the Enterprise is anywhere near the beamdown site.
More exactly, one of Kirk's redshirts beams down two doomed shirtmates because the ship has been taken over by paranormal kids who have the power to tell people to do stupid things and see false images. Spock seems surprised that the planet Triacus is nowhere to be seen, yes - but there's nothing to say the other guy wasn't seeing the planet right there when he beamed down the redshirts moments before.

As for the movie, why should the transporters of Harrison and Kirk behave in like manner? Harrison has a wholly different piece of technology available to him; even if there's no fundamental difference in operating principle, we know that a transporter isn't a transporter isn't a transporter. Some have less range, some have more. Some have less penetrating capacity, some have more. Some struggle with materials others can handle with ease. And Harrison is supposed to have under-the-counter tech while Kirk has off-the-shelf.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 12:56 AM   #51
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

It's the concept I find silly, not the internal consistency, although Scotty's proposal was beaming to planets in the same system and he beamed about 1 light year onto a ship at warp in the first movie. They moved the goalposts quite considerably by beaming Harrison 90+ light years.

But then the concept of being able to beam onto an enemy ship without triggering an automated alarm for unauthorised transports which leads said ship to automatically lock onto your signal and beam you straight to a holding cell is very silly as well and that's been used over and over and over again.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 10:14 AM   #52
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Hmm... Sensor tech is something our Starfleet heroes supposedly excel in, as opposed to their brutish opponents. Nevertheless, we have seen Kirk and Picard's teams struggle with locating one of their own inside the Enterprise, let alone with reliably tracking an intruder. I'd say TOS has every excuse not to feature capturing of intruders by intraship beaming; TNG is on shakier ground, but the nuTOSMovie realm still isn't obligated to be capable of anything of this sort.

Intruder alerts might be largely based on detecting penetration rather than presence, and if the means of penetration is innovative enough, it will go unnoticed. Quite possibly, countermeasures or even detection mechanisms for transwarp beaming will not be invented until several decades into this new timeline...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 04:18 PM   #53
DaleC76
Captain
 
DaleC76's Avatar
 
Location: The State of Alabama
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

stj wrote: View Post
There are some wonderful new ideas in the new movie Into Darkness, are there not? Surely worthy of discussion?

How could a wet suit make a person survive a long fall, then sink effortlessly and then swim unaffected by water pressure. Particularly without visible helmets.

How can a hand-held devise pump massive quantities of heat from equally massive quantities of lava, without generating more heat as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

How can the phrase "cold fusion" be reconciled as somehow referring to the previous?

What power source could be in a ring sufficient to create the explosion in London? Could enough antimatter be inside the containment ring?

How can we reconcile the notion of warp drive with any determinate "speed" with the travel times in the movie?

Why can't the Klingons detect the vessel when it's leaving, after a patrol disappears, that they couldn't detect when it arrived?

How can the Enterprise be bigger on the inside than the outside?

How can concrete floors be a useful spaceship construction material?

How can we justify the enormous empty spaces inside the Enterprise?

How did the Federation abolish Newton's First Law of Motion, so that people who fall off rails [i]in a free falling spaceship[/] would immediately fall even faster even though the Earth's gravitational field is unchanged?

Lastly, why would the Federation design a ship so that the crew could fall to its death?
Don't forget the handheld communicators powerful enough for someone at the NZ to have a conversation with someone on Earth. In REAL TIME.
__________________
I am created Shiva, the Destroyer; death, the shatterer of worlds. The dead night tiger made whole by the Master of Sinanju. Who is this dog meat that dares challenge me?
DaleC76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 04:18 PM   #54
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Belz... wrote: View Post
B.J. wrote: View Post
Assuming that the order they have those pics in matches the arrangement on the desk, then the ringship was *before* the Phoenix. Considering that everything else was arranged chronologically, what does that mean for the history of warp flight? Perhaps the ringship was an earlier failed experiment? Or maybe not quite failed, just a stepping stone to actual FTL flight?
No I think it was post-Phoenix. An early Vulcan-like annular warp drive design, from what I read. Of course we don't have anything official on it.
Saw the movie again this past weekend. The ringship was just before the Phoenix. Personally, I'd still like to think of it as an important sub-warp stepping stone. Nothing really to contradict that from all its appearances.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
A repeated theme in this movie that seemed surprisingly consistent: it's a lot easier to beam someone DOWN than it is to beam them back again. Thinking back, this seems to be the case in the STXI as well: beaming Spock down to the surface is a pushbutton operation, but beaming him and the council back to the ship is "I have your signal. Don't move! Transport in five... four.. three... OH NOES!"
I think in this movie Chekov said something specifically along the lines of the receivers are damaged. But I guess the transporter transmitters were okay.

New question: This was a blink-and-you-miss-it thing, but where did they launch the captured ship from? It was way too quick (like 1/2 second), but it looked to me like it was a square shaped door/hatch along the side of the Enterprise somewhere, not the aft shuttlebay.

Also, where is the "aft warp nacelle", behind which is the life support systems that Khan refers to?
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 06:37 PM   #55
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Don't forget the handheld communicators powerful enough for someone at the NZ to have a conversation with someone on Earth. In REAL TIME.
I don't understand this bit. Why would a hand communicator be a less likely way to talk from star to star than a starship communicator? Both are likely to simply hook up to an existing network anyway. It's not as if the hand communicator would have been operated far away from all possible boosters, now is it?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 06:42 PM   #56
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Long distance communication in Trek has always been instantaneous...unless the plot demands it to take time.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 08:43 PM   #57
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

This maybe SOT but do the jj phasers have one 1 stun setting or kill? Khan was stunned repeatedly while a higher setting would have fell him in less time.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 09:09 PM   #58
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

I think the phasers have two "modules" with a general power setting for each, which sort of implies that "stun" and "kill" are totally separate types of energy altogether.

Not that it matters much, but the "Star Trek" videogame suggests that the stun setting doesn't actually produce unconsciousness except at VERY high power levels and otherwise just causes extreme dizziness and disorientation.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 10:36 PM   #59
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Harvey wrote: View Post
Long distance communication in Trek has always been instantaneous...unless the plot demands it to take time.


Yes, and it has worn very badly. The new team should have had the balls to redesign the treknology. They didn't need a bigger Enterprise, they needed one that could feed our willing suspension of disbelief, just a scrap. We want to believe, we just need something beside a slap in the face!
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 10:42 PM   #60
Pauln6
Rear Admiral
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

Timo wrote: View Post
Don't forget the handheld communicators powerful enough for someone at the NZ to have a conversation with someone on Earth. In REAL TIME.
I don't understand this bit. Why would a hand communicator be a less likely way to talk from star to star than a starship communicator? Both are likely to simply hook up to an existing network anyway. It's not as if the hand communicator would have been operated far away from all possible boosters, now is it?

Timo Saloniemi
The fact that the conversation took place is not an issue since it would hook up to the nearby transmitter of the ship and the station. What is silly is that Scotty could engage in an unauthorised conversation on a secure facility without them noticing.
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 01:54 PM.

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