Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Saratoga NX-3842, Aug 16, 2008.
FASA's Nelson-class scout has the two dorsal arrangement you're describing.
Okay, another Contra-argument...
That was my point... it's SILLY to have gravity done put into place in locations where it's HARMFUL. That's sort of like... well, does anyone here remember the Steve Martin's "Cruel Shoes?" Why would you spend a lot of energy and effort to create something that just causes you more difficulties?
Of course, both TNG and ST-V gave us turboshafts with gravity. But remember, I am NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THINGS NOW. All I'm talking about is what I would have done had I been there in 1964/65 alongside MJ.
It was a bad decision for the TV show and the movie to do that... but it's done. We now know that "lift shafts have gravity" (for whatever bizarre reason) in the post-TOS world. Realize that there's no FUNCTIONAL reason that has to be the case (as Dennis correctly points out, all artificial gravity is, is "magic" and it can, and has, been portrayed very differently depending on the needs of any particular story).
Like creating questions about the internal consistency of fictional technology?
Not presented as such, merely to illustrate that the concept has been around for a number of years.
Well, I think that ST-One's comment was intended to say "well, yeah, but that also looks like shit in my opinion." He's being universally negative about anything being said. Yet, it's not due to him not wanting to see the design rethought in any way. So it must be due to either (1) ANYONE else but him suggesting "rethinking" ideas, or (2) specific people who he's got personal issues with. Not sure which... but I've never seen anyone be so unversally negative.
Now, to YOUR point... the FASA design wasn't really the same thing, although it looks similar. Why? Because the two slanted bits in that ship are engine supports... probably full of mechanical hardware and "wiring" (whether that's copper wire or "plasma conduits") and so on, but not intended for regular "people-moving" purposes. At most, it probably would have a few of those slanted Jefferies tubes like we saw Scotty crawling up into throughout the original series. It DOES have the advantage of the "rigid triangle" shape, though... so from that standpoint, the comparison makes sense.
Didn't Redjack put the lift in free-fall? That seems to support the idea that he shaft has gravity or rather, that the entire ship has a gravity field that works as if the ship were a skyscraper on earth. So while it makes sense for the shaft not to have greavity, it behooves us to remember the original creators had neither the time nor inclination to think things through as obsessively as we do.
Of course, that every deck has gravity plating, rather contradicts that. If the skyscraper analogy were correct, only the lowest deck would have gravity plating that work for the entire ship. The thing is, that Redjac could indeed make a lift go in "free-fall' without there being a skyscraper gravity. It turns off the propulsion, and the lift will simply keep going in the direction it was going - essentially free-falling - until it slams into something. Give it a little push with its propulsion if it were standing still at the moment of turning things off.
Well, it does look like shit, as do many of these FASA-designs I have seen (the big exeption being the Loknar).
BTW: 'Being negative about anything being said' is, in your little world, disagreeing with you. I've seen it time and again in TrekArt-forum. So...
It could be that in certain emergency situations, say loss of contact with the main computer, all ship's gravity systems automatically revert to a default 1G setting. This gets us turbo-shafts that work the way we'd expect them too most of the time, but a plausible scenario for gravity (and air) in the shaft in Disaster. and any other time we want it.
In Trek V the gravity may have been turned on simply as part of whatever maintenance was being performed at the time.
There would be no gravity in the shafts AT ALL. Why would you even put gravity generators in there? There's no point. It only endangers people.
And STV the whole scene with the turbo lift shaft is just humorous fluff.
You're really, really trying to goad me into responding to your perpetual "personal attacks" in here, aren't you?
Every single post you've made here has included some form of personal attack on me. It's really tiresome. I've noticed a VERY OBVIOUS lack of response from the moderator in here as well.
Yet, I'm sure that if I were to respond with a "fuck off" type comment, I'd get an immediate warning, wouldn't I?
MODERATOR, why is this the case? Care to comment?
Unless the deck plating just "evens out" the gravity from the main gravity generators. So that you don't get 2G near the generator or .5G on the bridge. In a small scale, they can give their own gravity for things, but on a large scale it is better to use them in conjugation with other equipment? Just a guess, not canon.
Well, that could apply to the basic "deck plating," sure. You'd be defining "deck plating" as a form of wave-guide that would channel gravity and cause it to flow as desired. Sort of like how the deflector "grid" on the hull isn't what creates the shielding (that's the "shield generators") but it IS what causes the shielding to be distributed evenly over the hull.
However, there's on-screen evidence that's worth considering regarding the lifts. We know how big the ship is, and we see, several times, the lifts moving from inside, yet the passengers aren't being jarred and jolted when the lift starts, stops, changes directions, etc, etc. The explanation, in-universe, is that the lift cars each have their own internal gravitation and acceleration-compensation fields.
If this weren't the case, the people in the cars would have to lean from side to side when the car shifted direction, have to "lift up" or "scrunch down" or whatever... they'd have to react to acceleration forces. They don't... so there is none as far as they're concerned, inside... right? You've been in elevators which move MUCH more slowly... or been in airport shuttle-buses where you'd have to stand. You know what I'm talking about, don't you?
SO... if there was gravity in the shafts... you'd then need to have antigravity on each car to move the car... and then another internal gravity system inside. THREE systems present, with two serving no purpose but to cancel each other out, and only one serving any useful purpose.
We all know why the stuff was presented as it was in TNG and in ST-V. It was being written about by people who were thoroughly grounded in "earthborne" mindsets... and HERE, elevator shafts are dangerous things you can fall down. They just didn't think things through on a practical level for a spaceship.
FYI... another thing I'd do if I were going back to 1964/65... I'd make the little ladderways also be "zero-g." You wouldn't have to do anything with them very often, but just a few "wire" sequences in those little zero-G ladder alcoves would've sold the "they're in space" idea very effectively, I think.
I can't argue with he logic of that, I just think the "earthbound" thinking extended all the way back to TOS and that scene in "Wolf in the Fold."
Actually, this might make for an interesting spin-off-thread....
"If you could go back to the 1960s and change things about Trek... what, if anything, would you change?"
Not sure which forum that would belong in, though. In the context of THIS forum, it's really "well, they're changing things now... how do we feel about the changes being made?" In Trek-Tech, it'd be a different set of ideas, though, I presume... and in Trek Art, yet another... and so on.
Right now, it works very well within the context of this thread, of course... since the topic is about "redesign being a good thing."
This much is true: if you were there (or The God Thing, say), Trek would have been much more rigorous on the scientific front--that is, if GR wouldn't have vetoed all your suggestions (he never let the science get in the way of the fiction).
I think this goes back to what someone said far up-thread, about how the designs of Trek differed in philosophy from the designs of 2001. The Enterprise, however, wasn't simply a marriage between the rocket and the saucer, the two separate pulp/B-movie design lineages of the 30s, 40s and 50s. The subtle changes in the contours (compare the primary hull to the Jupter 2 or the C-57D and a warp nacelle to the Hugo Award) and even the choice in the surface color--an almost-white gray rather than silver or gunmetal--served to make those iconic, romantic shapes seem rigorously engineered and thus "tricked" a lot of us into thinking Trek was hard SF when it was really very naive on that front. (My favorite SF author, Philip K. Dick, makes Trek look like a lecture series given by Richard Feynman so this is not a criticism--my degrees are in literature and history so I am likewise scientifically naive.)
If you were to be so injudicious as to direct a "fuck off" comment at anyone, then you would be correct in assuming that it would earn you a warning. However, all I'm seeing here is that ST-One has been disagreeing with you on certain aesthetic points, which does not in any way, shape or form constitute a personal attack; he's just disagreeing, which is a perfectly ordinary and allowable part of the sort of discussion which goes on here.
You, on the other hand, made a direct accusation of trolling here, which is not something you are supposed to do in open discussion; that's what the Notify Mod button is for, should you feel it necessary to call attention to anyone's actions. Since discussion had already moved on by the time it came to my attention, and ST-One had clearly declined to get excited about it, we opted to let that one slide.
He does not appear to me to be looking for a fight, but you sure are. Here's some friendly advice: back off the shouty, ALL-CAPS thing and back off the posturing.
And just have a discussion.
He should be able to disagree with you, as you should be able to disagree with anything anyone else posts, without any of it getting personal. This is a discussion board, not an "agree with me or die" board. There is room for more than one opinion, and he has indicated that he doesn't agree with yours in this instance.
It's no big deal, so stop making it a big deal. Let it be fun, Cary. Don't be anti-fun.
M'Sharak... shall we do a count... of every insulting or hostile post ST-One has made in this thread, and then one of mine?
And you have the audacity to say that I'm "out of line" for pointing out what's obvious... that he's trying to start a fight (which is, as you ought to know, being a "moderator" here, the DEFINITION of "trolling").
All you've just done is demonstrated what I already knew. I'm trying to have a civil conversation, he's trying to start a fight, it's OBVIOUS... and you're playing along with him.
I'll still keep playing by the rules and trying to have a decent conversation... but it's clear that there are, once again, two sets of rules being enforced. Thanks for clarifying that again.
(One thing I liked about the old BBS software was the fact that there was a way to "ignore" people who you didn't want to read. I'm not aware of any way of doing that in software. Shame, that... )
Click on the poster's name, click on "View public profile", click on "User lists", click on "Add to ignore list."
Separate names with a comma.