RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,675
Posts: 5,212,725
Members: 24,202
Currently online: 644
Newest member: wendelcarree


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 June 20 2009, 08:31 AM   #76
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Well yeah, but what possible utility would seperating have for a ship like this? The warp nacelle is pretty much an outboard motor at this point, there's no reason to separate from it unless someone shoots it full of holes and the Captain decides to jettison it so he won't have to haul that dead weight when he limps away on impulse power.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 11:23 AM   #77
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Remember in GEN when the Enterprise-D's saucer separated in order to act as a lifeboat? Remember how the secondary hull exploded, and the shockwave from the explosion was enough to send the saucer hurtling into the planet?

Even if the saucer of the Kelvin did somehow separate, where the hell was it supposed to go? The Narada would have blow it out of the sky before it had a chance to get away! Not exactly the kind of lifeboat I would want to be trapped in.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 01:30 PM   #78
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Newtype_Alpha,

Is this supposed to be funny? The entire ship is just a saucer with a nacelle and a hangar/cargo pod attached to it. What the hell would the saucer separate FROM?
Am I, like, talking to a wall or something?

The engineering-hull is not a cargo/hangar pod. It's an engineering hull. It has all the characteristics of an engineering hull... it looks like an engineering hull, it's got the nav-deflector on the front, it has a shuttlebay in the back...


RoJoHen,

Even if the saucer of the Kelvin did somehow separate, where the hell was it supposed to go? The Narada would have blow it out of the sky before it had a chance to get away! Not exactly the kind of lifeboat I would want to be trapped in.
Which presents another interesting point, why didn't the Narada just blow up all the shuttles?

If the shuttles any warp capability, it probably wasn't all that high, and the Narada in most likelyhood could outrun them no matter what they did, and it had the firepower to blow up the Kelvin, let a lone a few shuttles...


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 03:29 PM   #79
pookha
Admiral
 
pookha's Avatar
 
Location: pookha
View pookha's Twitter Profile
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

if you count on the saucer as being your primary life boat then there a lot of cirumstances when the crew would be out of luck.
heck the function to seperate quickly could have been off line along with the autopilot/.

and if you are in a combat situation it might make sense to present a lot of smaller targets instead of one big target with failing shields.

i think saucer seperation was ment more for things going wrong in engineering where getting to the shuttles would have been too risky or in some event where the ship is crippled but no other outside threat is present.

as to why didnt the narada just blow up the shuttles..
uh that is shown in the film.

kirk senior is blowing up the weaponry before it hits the shuttles though one still gets destroyed.

and the collision of kelvin and narada ketp the narada from going after the narada.

though i suspect that going through the singularity affected certain systems on the narada including warp drive.

other wise when the jelly fish came out of the singularity spock could have attempted to go to warp and he didnt.
__________________
avatar by
?
pookha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 05:18 PM   #80
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Newtype_Alpha,

Is this supposed to be funny? The entire ship is just a saucer with a nacelle and a hangar/cargo pod attached to it. What the hell would the saucer separate FROM?
Am I, like, talking to a wall or something?

The engineering-hull is not a cargo/hangar pod. It's an engineering hull.
You do not actually know this, it's an assumption you make. It's entirely possible that Kelvin's warp core is actually in the SAUCER, equidistant from the navigational deflector and the huge single warp nacelle it has to power. "Separation" is unnecessary in this case, since in the event of a problem you can simply dump the warp core.

If on the other hand you are correct and the warp core is in the engineering pod, separation is still unneccesary since you can still eject the core without also ejecting your cargo bays and shuttlebays. Enterprise-D's saucer basically separated from the half of the ship that contained ALL of its main drive systems and offensive weapons; Kelvin doesn't have a drive section, and all its weapons are on the saucer.

It has all the characteristics of an engineering hull... it looks like an engineering hull, it's got the nav-deflector on the front, it has a shuttlebay in the back...
The only characteristic that makes something an "engineering hull" (of the term is even applicable) is the presence of an ENGINE. Do you actually know that Kelvin's warp core is in that pod or are you just assuming that because it "looks like an engineering hull"?

Which presents another interesting point, why didn't the Narada just blow up all the shuttles?
Because George Kirk used the Kelvin as a shield, first covering them with the ship's bulk and then putting up a phaser barrage to shoot down its torpedoes (and we actually see several torpedoes being vaporized within meters of the shuttle, so clearly Nero was AIMING for them).
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 06:02 PM   #81
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post

RoJoHen,

Even if the saucer of the Kelvin did somehow separate, where the hell was it supposed to go? The Narada would have blow it out of the sky before it had a chance to get away! Not exactly the kind of lifeboat I would want to be trapped in.
Which presents another interesting point, why didn't the Narada just blow up all the shuttles?

If the shuttles any warp capability, it probably wasn't all that high, and the Narada in most likelyhood could outrun them no matter what they did, and it had the firepower to blow up the Kelvin, let a lone a few shuttles...


CuttingEdge100
I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of the opening scene.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 06:42 PM   #82
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: State of Maryland/District of Columbia
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

I for one rather like the fact that, for once, a Federation starship doesn't look like it's all immaculately clean and fresh from spacedock. I like seeing a ship that looks like it's got some actual history to it.
__________________
This dream must end, this world must know:
We all depend on the beast below.
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 09:22 PM   #83
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

But after the Kelvin was destroyed, why didn't the Narada then destroy all the shuttles?

I mean the Kelvin's gone... the shuttles can't outrun the futuristic Narada...
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 09:35 PM   #84
CinC_UFPForces
Rear Admiral
 
Location: With the Cylons in a Coffee Shop
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
But after the Kelvin was destroyed, why didn't the Narada then destroy all the shuttles?

I mean the Kelvin's gone... the shuttles can't outrun the futuristic Narada...
Because George Kirk drove a starship into the Narada's gut, crippling it.

I'm sure this will lead to an extended discussion about the potential energy of an early 23rd Century matter/anti-matter explosion dispersed in a vacuum environment over the external structure of a 24th-Century triple-reinforced duranium hull squared times pi, with footnotes derived from the honored Matt Jeffries through a Ouija board, but were you watching the opening scene? At all?
__________________
I am so very thankful for Battlestar Galactica.

2008.
CinC_UFPForces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 10:35 PM   #85
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CinC_UFPForces wrote: View Post
CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
But after the Kelvin was destroyed, why didn't the Narada then destroy all the shuttles?

I mean the Kelvin's gone... the shuttles can't outrun the futuristic Narada...
Because George Kirk drove a starship into the Narada's gut, crippling it.
Yeah, that sucker's engine lights were fading in and out and it was sloughing off quite a bit of debris while listing. Narada seemed pretty well done-in at that point.
__________________
"I've eaten breakfast cereals tougher than you! For reference, they were the ones with little marshmellows in them."
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2009, 03:05 AM   #86
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CinC_UFPForces wrote: View Post
but were you watching the opening scene? At all?
No kidding. All of this was pretty straight forward in the movie.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2009, 09:58 AM   #87
Vicki
Lieutenant Commander
 
Vicki's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Crusher Disciple wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
While Gene Roddenberry is dead, all the way until Nemesis, you didn't see rocket like exhaust shoot out the backs of the warp-nacelles...
ST: XI had bright flashes coming from the nacelles. Not terribly different from TNG in that respect really, except that the thingy is on the back.

Nemesis had literal exhaust coming out the the nacelles when the Enterprise jumped to warp.

Dude, that was farting.
<wipes water off moniter> I have got to stop reading online while I'm drinking something. And really glad I gave up Pepsi a long time ago.
Vicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2009, 10:06 AM   #88
Vicki
Lieutenant Commander
 
Vicki's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Praetor wrote: View Post
I'll echo what trampledamage said: my main sticking point on the 800 number is the idea of cramming 800 people into those few shuttles. The only place we get 800 from is from Pike, not from any of the Kelvin personnel. I think that gives us some happy wiggle room.

Certainly there had to have been something else in the system that could account for more of those people? A small colony nearby? I mean, the shuttles had to flee to something, right?

I still like the idea of some small, defenseless ships nearby. "We're alone out here" is plural, after all.
Modern cruise ships cram 5000+ people in less than 40 lifeboats. And you'd be supprised how small those things look from the outside.
Vicki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2009, 06:58 PM   #89
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

That is a very good point, Vicki.

Objection retracted.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2009, 08:01 PM   #90
Lightbulb Sun
Ensign
 
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

I've always loved the fan who's Suspension of Disbelief includes:
Alien races that are all very humanoid, and nearly-equally developed
Faster than light travel
Sound in space (which in the beginning, this movie seemed to point out that there's no sound in space, but then it sorta gave up on the idea)
etc. etc.

But change the ship design, or bending the rules of the made up physics in the Trek Universe? That's crazy.

Seriously, it's fiction. Just watch it for the story telling, and discuss it on that level (yeah... this movie lacked in that regard, admittedly. But hey. Shit blow'd up, woooo-wheee!)
Lightbulb Sun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
kelvin, uss kelvin

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 02:18 PM.

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