starships underwater.

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Ronald Held, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Chaos Descending

    Chaos Descending Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    Grand Canyon State
    Why does the rear of the nacelle have a "double decker" look to it?

    That argument isn't useful for the "other ship", the one that's crashing down, which everyone ALSO says isn't the Enterprise. So I dunno now. I bet neither of them are the Enterprise.

    Or else the Enterprise has been heavily refit/modified for this film.
     
  2. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Intercoolers.
     
  3. Chaos Descending

    Chaos Descending Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    Grand Canyon State
  4. SalvorHardin

    SalvorHardin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    Star's End
  5. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    ^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.
     
  6. Chaos Descending

    Chaos Descending Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    Grand Canyon State
    They look absolutely nothing alike to me.

    I can accept that there might be tricks of angle and so forth, but it just seems SO different that I can't buy it.
     
  7. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    Sydney class has quite the boat hull, could see her soft land on water, as for the various Enterprises, if needed it could be done, engineer might get annoyed though.
     
  8. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    Where do you even SEE differences? Take it element by element, use some images as reference.

    Aft end of the nacelle: downward angle, concave center.

    Top of the nacelle: flat rounded "fantail" with two low V-shaped "fins" that taper to flush with the nacelle tube a quarter of the way forward.

    Front of the nacelle: goldfish hump, tapers to flush with the tube a fifth of the way aft.

    The registry is in the right place and is the same size.

    What's probably tripping you up is that you're looking at the nacelle with a couple hundred tons of seawater still rolling off of it and thinking the seawater reflects the shape of what you're looking at. The Enterprise is over 700 meters long; each one of those nacelles is the size of an aircraft carrier, and in this clip they just went from a submerged position to about a hundred meters above it in three seconds flat. The water isn't gonna just roll off of it like a submarine (although even then it's often hard to make out the lines of the ship under all that water).
     
  9. zennie62

    zennie62 Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Good call. I too thought it was the SF Bay.
     
  10. Vito Corleone

    Vito Corleone Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in Space and Time...
    In some parts of it, anyway...

    I was wondering about those scenes involving ships going into/coming out of the drink. It looks like a Constitution class but, that doesn't necessarily mean the Enterprise went down. (I hope...)
     
  11. DredZed

    DredZed Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    I saw the same argument elsewhere about whether the ship coming up from the water was Enterprise. I put these pictures together to clarify the situation.

    Screenshot:
    [​IMG]

    Engine from MadMan1701's enterprise model:
    [​IMG]

    Composited together:
    [​IMG]

    They're clearly the same, the ship is definitely Enterprise's class (is it officially called Constitution class in the new timeline?) and would thus almost certainly be the Enterprise. After all, they've never had another ship of the same class as the Enterprise in any movie so far.
     
  12. SalvorHardin

    SalvorHardin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    Star's End
    It was called that in the ships dossier in the first movie's official site

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Chaos Descending

    Chaos Descending Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    Grand Canyon State
    Well, now I'm convinced.
     
  14. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    From someone who's seen the 9-minute preview of Into Darkness...

    It's hiding in an ocean on the red forest planet monitoring the opening mission-in-progress while Kirk and McCoy are visiting the locals undercover. Spock is in a volcano trying to prevent it's eruption.
    Also...
    :D

    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=97913
     
  15. jayrath

    jayrath Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2001
    Location:
    West Hollywood, Calif., USA
    I sure hope that Admiral Nelson, the Seaview and its Flying Sub put in an appearance.
     
  16. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I don't have an issue with starships operating under water. There could be technologies present in the 23rd century that would allow a starship to operate underwater for a period of time. I doubt that the film will go into the specifics on why the Enterprise is underwater.
     
  17. Anji

    Anji Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    Assisting in the birth of baby Horta on Janus VI
    Not necessarily. They could base the techobabble on current theories on how USOs function underwater.
     
  18. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Which is always a bad idea - when scifi tries to be contemporary, it only manages to annoy the enthusiasts in the know about contemporary tech, confuse those not in the know, look dated from the get-go, and technologically outdate itself in two months anyway. :(

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  19. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    Has anyone mentioned Insurrection's village-sized holoship yet? Was that film really so forgettable that no-one realized a starship has already been hidden underwater in a Trek movie?
     
  20. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    I'd think that the technological hurdles would be relatively low, but not nonexistent as per VOY "Thirty Days". The operational rationale is no doubt going to be debated for quite some time, though.

    The holotrap transport of ST:INS was hidden uncrewed and otherwise unattended, waiting for the conclusion of a rather monomaniacal mission. It's a good way to stash away something that's not needed for anything else and should go unobserved not only by natives but also by starfarers.

    No doubt a big starship can also hide underwater waiting for the conclusion of a recce mission or whatever. But shouldn't NCC-1701 have better things to do? If her capabilities are not needed for the mission, and she's there merely to pick up Kirk at the end of an adventure, a shuttle could be used instead, hidden underwater, on a mountaintop, buried in sand, cloaked, whatever. Why land the ship?

    I sort of doubt the movie will give us a rationale, such as transporters not being available and shuttles being undesirable for a clear-cut reason X. There's no big reason not to dip the ship, sure, but only if we postulate a short mission. If Kirk is gonna be gone for weeks, the ship should be free to depart.

    But I might be dead wrong. Apparently, and spoilers be damned, there are plenty of things going on at the planet where this dipping takes place. A center of operations close to all the action might be an operational necessity for a reason that becomes obvious once we see all the relevant scenes.

    Timo Saloniemi