Lets Fix "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

[Outpost4]

^ Well, in that case, each episode needs a new bevy of green Orion slave dancers that have to be auditioned and err, umm, checked out.

 

[FalTorPan]

What would I change? Nothing.

 

[FatherRob]

^ Well, in that case, each episode needs a new bevy of green Orion slave dancers that have to be auditioned and err, umm, checked out.

Naaa... just Helen Noel as a series regular... (oops, should I have said that?) LOL!

Rob+

 

[larryman]

I am correcting my previous post (#16)... I have decided I would include two, not just one, original Robby robots in the background of the command deck aboard the SS Valient C-57-D's video message in the recorder-marker. This would show that the United Planets had been duplicating the original robot retrieved from Altair-4. Thus setting the foundation for including modernized humanoid robots in the later Federation (TOS) era. I think the TOS era robots would look something like Honda's 'Asimo' robot - but taller, and without it's large battery back-pak. Here is a Wikipedia like to see Asimo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimo

Asimo suits me for a TOS robot because:
1) it has no human face components to stupidly express emotions, and to be made 'cute'.
2) it has hands and fingers to manipulate real human tools.
3) it has legs for real mobility over rough terrain.
4) it is a 'real' and 'currently-existing' humanoid robot!

On a ship the size of the Enterprise, I think Scotty could use about 30 to 50 of those robots to assist his maintenance crews.

 

[UnknownSample]

Stop trying to "fix" great work from the past and just try to get work that good made in the present.

We wouldn't be Star Trek fans if we didn't have quibbles with various aspects of the various episodes: plot, effects, writing, acting, etc. It's fun and interesting for me to see what other people don't like.

And I especially enjoy it when they offer alternatives, which can bring up more questions/concerns from still others. Imaginations at work. (The conversation here in this thread about the different possibilities regarding the edge of the galaxy are interesting, no?)

It's perfectly understandable for you to not want to play along.

"Corbomite Maneuver" is next.

Joe, in production order

Actually, I do play along; I have taken part in some discussions like that. Talk is great, what alarms me now is that Paramount is listening. I have a sort of dark cloud hanging over me, because I'm afraid the original versions are going away.

As for Asimo the robot... I'm not sure in what context that came up, but....what about Awesom-O? Practical design, or not?

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/7/6/F/sp802_Awesome-O_2.jpg

Someone has even developed his own version, to help around the house:

http://www.mr-star.com/Halloween/Awesomo2.jpg

 

[Warped9]

I have a sort of dark cloud hanging over me, because I'm afraid the original versions are going away.

No, the originals will always be with us. Hey, I've refused to buy the TOS-R sets (unless I see them in a remainder bin for maybe five or ten bucks) because I object to a lot of their revisionism--a lot but honestly not all.

But I do believe that the forthcoming movie will essentially be a restart that picks selectively from TOS and then does its own thing. I've actually got no problem with that as long as they're honest about it and don't assert that Trek XI is actually of the same continuity as TOS. In like manner ENT is fine unto itself, but no way in hell do I accept it as being of the same continuity as TOS.

 

[Outpost4]

Warped9, you might want to clean up that quote. To my knowledge, Shatmandu doesn't feel that way. It should be attributed to UnknownSample.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

What would I change? Nothing.

Well said.

 

[Shatmandu]

Warped9, you might want to clean up that quote. To my knowledge, Shatmandu doesn't feel that way. It should be attributed to UnknownSample.

Outpost4 is correct.

Joe, old

 

[Warped9]

Warped9, you might want to clean up that quote. To my knowledge, Shatmandu doesn't feel that way. It should be attributed to UnknownSample.

Done.

 

[M'Sharak]

Warped9, you might want to clean up that quote. To my knowledge, Shatmandu doesn't feel that way. It should be attributed to UnknownSample.

Done.

Nope, not done -- the pointer ( ) is still going to Shatmandu's post and is, therefore, still a misattribution.

Here's what you should have:

I have a sort of dark cloud hanging over me, because I'm afraid the original versions are going away.

No, the originals will always be... (etc.)

 

[Warped9]

I didn't change a pointer or whatever. I just went back to my post and changed the name of the person I was quoting to UnkownSample. How Outpost4's name got there is weird.

I have a sort of dark cloud hanging over me, because I'm afraid the original versions are going away.

No, the originals will always be with us. Hey, I've refused to buy the TOS-R sets (unless I see them in a remainder bin for maybe five or ten bucks) because I object to a lot of their revisionism--a lot but honestly not all.

But I do believe that the forthcoming movie will essentially be a restart that picks selectively from TOS and then does its own thing. I've actually got no problem with that as long as they're honest about it and don't assert that Trek XI is actually of the same continuity as TOS. In like manner ENT is fine unto itself, but no way in hell do I accept it as being of the same continuity as TOS.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^ Well, in that case, each episode needs a new bevy of green Orion slave dancers that have to be auditioned and err, umm, checked out.

Naaa... just Helen Noel as a series regular... (oops, should I have said that?) LOL!

Rob+

Now, that would be an improvement in TOS. Actually, Noel would've been a better off-on love interest for Kirk than Rand turned out to be.

 

[larryman]

The edge of the galaxy is 15,000 light-years distant from Earth. Given that magnetic space storms can not propel objects F-T-L, and impulse engines can not propel objects F-T-L, and the combination of the two forces can not propel objects F-T-L... how did a 200-year old (pre-warpdrive) Earthship "Valient" cross 15,000 light-years in anything less than 15,000 years, without benefit of a faster-than-light mechanism?

Did the episode actually say the Valient didn't have warp drive, or simply that "the old type of impulse engines weren't powerful enough to get the ship out of the storm"?

I think it's pretty obvious, that if a ship from Earth was "out there", they'd have to have warp drive.

Possibly they couldn't engage the warp engines because of the storm, and that left them with their useless impulse engines?

You overlook the option of a 'hyperspace' driven ship when you assume the '200-year old SS Valiant'... "they'd have to have warp drive". I dont know of any thing in TOS that prohibits 'hyperspace' F-T-L ship existance, preceeding 'space warp' driven ships. The non-existance of older 'hyperspace drive' in ST:TOS is only 'assumed' by it's omission.

Is there any dialog statement in any TOS episode that states: 'spacewarp drive is the only F-T-L drive mechanism'?

 

[3D Master]

The only thing that ever bothered me was the galactic barrier thing. It was bad science even back in the '60s. Making more than a ribbon would be a start. Making it something real would be a further step.

Actually if I recall correctly a barrier of some sort was theorized by some around mid century so the Trek writers weren't being totally off the wall about the idea. That said I'd have envisioned it differently.

Actually, it still is, and not only that, evidence exists to support it, it's all but considered a fact. Although the real galactic barrier is not an energy barrier, but a belt of dark matter objects, called MACHO: MAssive Compact Halo Object. "MACHO belt" for short.

You overlook the option of a 'hyperspace' driven ship when you assume the '200-year old SS Valiant'... "they'd have to have warp drive". I dont know of any thing in TOS that prohibits 'hyperspace' F-T-L ship existance, preceeding 'space warp' driven ships. The non-existance of older 'hyperspace drive' in ST:TOS is only 'assumed' by it's omission.

Is there any dialog statement in any TOS episode that states: 'spacewarp drive is the only F-T-L drive mechanism'?

Uh, well, subspace is something we actually know about now. It's an actual scientific theoretical concept. Hyperspace however, is nothing but an imaginary idea. If Hyperspace exists, it is far more advanced, exotic and difficult to understand and use than subspace.

Indeed, future Trek has wormholes run through hyperspace, and the Federation has only very limited understanding of it.

 

[Plecostomus]

I was going to suggest a wormhole as the method for getting the Valiant out so far. This is before there is a good understanding of the unstable nature of wormholes.

I'd have the crew of the Valiant being sent to chart this wormhole and report back. However the trip through the wormhole badly damages the ship and all they can do is send a message back "hey we're all the way out here at the edge of the Galaxy."

After rigging the engines they encounter a ribbon or wave of energy, and the interaction alters several crew-members.

200 years later Kirk and Friends make it to the last know position of the Valiant and find the recorder-marker. Story proceeds from there.

 

[larryman]

The only thing that ever bothered me was the galactic barrier thing. It was bad science even back in the '60s. Making more than a ribbon would be a start. Making it something real would be a further step.

Actually if I recall correctly a barrier of some sort was theorized by some around mid century so the Trek writers weren't being totally off the wall about the idea. That said I'd have envisioned it differently.

Actually, it still is, and not only that, evidence exists to support it, it's all but considered a fact. Although the real galactic barrier is not an energy barrier, but a belt of dark matter objects, called MACHO: MAssive Compact Halo Object. "MACHO belt" for short.

You overlook the option of a 'hyperspace' driven ship when you assume the '200-year old SS Valiant'... "they'd have to have warp drive". I dont know of any thing in TOS that prohibits 'hyperspace' F-T-L ship existance, preceeding 'space warp' driven ships. The non-existance of older 'hyperspace drive' in ST:TOS is only 'assumed' by it's omission.

Is there any dialog statement in any TOS episode that states: 'spacewarp drive is the only F-T-L drive mechanism'?

Uh, well, subspace is something we actually know about now. It's an actual scientific theoretical concept. Hyperspace however, is nothing but an imaginary idea. If Hyperspace exists, it is far more advanced, exotic and difficult to understand and use than subspace.

Indeed, future Trek has wormholes run through hyperspace, and the Federation has only very limited understanding of it.

A wormhole through hyperspace makes no sense. That would be like a requiring a shortcut, through a shortcut; or requiring a ship to have space-warp drive to pass through a wormhole in 'normal space'. If you have a F-T-L drive, you dont need to use a wormhole - unless the wormhole's exit location is extremely distant, and 'coincidentally' in the same location as your destination. A wormhole has definite entry and exit locations in normal space. But if you want to go F-T-L to a location other than those two locations... the wormhole will not benefit you. F-T-L in any direction is available in hyperspace, just as it is via space-warp. IMO - hyperspace is a higher plane of existance, attached to normal space-time. Objects in hyperspace would be comparable to ghosts - to a 'normal space' point of view. And just like ghost... hyperspace objects can pass through 'normal space' objects at speeds faster than light, in any direction of travel they choose, and with no physical interaction. Hyperspace is almost like an alternate space-time dimensional existance (Mirror, Mirror). But not quite, as it is still attached to our 'normal' space-time dimensional universe. A ship in hyperspace would be comparable to the USS Defiant, as it phased out of our 'normal' space-time universe, in the "The Tholian Web" episode. Seems the Federation had a ship in hyperspace briefly, without ever knowing it. Unfortunate that the Defiant's crew was dead, and the ship did not have a proper drive mechanism to provide mobility in the hyperspace. I dont think thrusters, impulse engines, and certainly not space-warp fields, would work in a hyperspace environment. I think a hyperspace drive would need to be more 'etherial' in function. Possibly... an ectoplasm drive, lol. But, I'd prefer to call it a hyperdrive - as in a hyper-space drive - which is not so spoooky. Anyway... it is an alternate F-T-L mechanism that should co-exist in the Star Trek universe. Especially in a Forbidden Planet / Star Trek universe.

 

[3D Master]

Actually if I recall correctly a barrier of some sort was theorized by some around mid century so the Trek writers weren't being totally off the wall about the idea. That said I'd have envisioned it differently.

Actually, it still is, and not only that, evidence exists to support it, it's all but considered a fact. Although the real galactic barrier is not an energy barrier, but a belt of dark matter objects, called MACHO: MAssive Compact Halo Object. "MACHO belt" for short.

You overlook the option of a 'hyperspace' driven ship when you assume the '200-year old SS Valiant'... "they'd have to have warp drive". I dont know of any thing in TOS that prohibits 'hyperspace' F-T-L ship existance, preceeding 'space warp' driven ships. The non-existance of older 'hyperspace drive' in ST:TOS is only 'assumed' by it's omission.

Is there any dialog statement in any TOS episode that states: 'spacewarp drive is the only F-T-L drive mechanism'?

Uh, well, subspace is something we actually know about now. It's an actual scientific theoretical concept. Hyperspace however, is nothing but an imaginary idea. If Hyperspace exists, it is far more advanced, exotic and difficult to understand and use than subspace.

Indeed, future Trek has wormholes run through hyperspace, and the Federation has only very limited understanding of it.

A wormhole through hyperspace makes no sense. That would be like a requiring a shortcut, through a shortcut; or requiring a ship to have space-warp drive to pass through a wormhole in 'normal space'. If you have a F-T-L drive, you dont need to use a wormhole - unless the wormhole's exit location is extremely distant, and 'coincidentally' in the same location as your destination. A wormhole has definite entry and exit locations in normal space. But if you want to go F-T-L to a location other than those two locations... the wormhole will not benefit you. F-T-L in any direction is available in hyperspace, just as it is via space-warp.

:sighs:

The "mouths"/"holes" of the wormhole are in normal space, while the worm/tube section is embedded in hyperspace.

IMO - hyperspace is a higher plane of existance, attached to normal space-time. Objects in hyperspace would be comparable to ghosts - to a 'normal space' point of view. And just like ghost... hyperspace objects can pass through 'normal space' objects at speeds faster than light, in any direction of travel they choose, and with no physical interaction. Hyperspace is almost like an alternate space-time dimensional existance (Mirror, Mirror). But not quite, as it is still attached to our 'normal' space-time dimensional universe. A ship in hyperspace would be comparable to the USS Defiant, as it phased out of our 'normal' space-time universe, in the "The Tholian Web" episode. Seems the Federation had a ship in hyperspace briefly, without ever knowing it. Unfortunate that the Defiant's crew was dead, and the ship did not have a proper drive mechanism to provide mobility in the hyperspace. I dont think thrusters, impulse engines, and certainly not space-warp fields, would work in a hyperspace environment. I think a hyperspace drive would need to be more 'etherial' in function. Possibly... an ectoplasm drive, lol. But, I'd prefer to call it a hyperdrive - as in a hyper-space drive - which is not so spoooky. Anyway... it is an alternate F-T-L mechanism that should co-exist in the Star Trek universe. Especially in a Forbidden Planet / Star Trek universe.

What you're now describing is actually subspace. Hyperspace is an entirely different dimension, made out of something totally alien. Look at Babylon 5 and Stargate for examples of hyperspace.

 

[Timo]

I'm curious - what's this nonsense about "subspace existing" (apart from being the name of a mathematical construct that has got nothing to do with spaceflight as such)?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[larryman]

Actually, it still is, and not only that, evidence exists to support it, it's all but considered a fact. Although the real galactic barrier is not an energy barrier, but a belt of dark matter objects, called MACHO: MAssive Compact Halo Object. "MACHO belt" for short.



Uh, well, subspace is something we actually know about now. It's an actual scientific theoretical concept. Hyperspace however, is nothing but an imaginary idea. If Hyperspace exists, it is far more advanced, exotic and difficult to understand and use than subspace.

Indeed, future Trek has wormholes run through hyperspace, and the Federation has only very limited understanding of it.

A wormhole through hyperspace makes no sense. That would be like a requiring a shortcut, through a shortcut; or requiring a ship to have space-warp drive to pass through a wormhole in 'normal space'. If you have a F-T-L drive, you dont need to use a wormhole - unless the wormhole's exit location is extremely distant, and 'coincidentally' in the same location as your destination. A wormhole has definite entry and exit locations in normal space. But if you want to go F-T-L to a location other than those two locations... the wormhole will not benefit you. F-T-L in any direction is available in hyperspace, just as it is via space-warp.

:sighs:

The "mouths"/"holes" of the wormhole are in normal space, while the worm/tube section is embedded in hyperspace.

IMO - hyperspace is a higher plane of existance, attached to normal space-time. Objects in hyperspace would be comparable to ghosts - to a 'normal space' point of view. And just like ghost... hyperspace objects can pass through 'normal space' objects at speeds faster than light, in any direction of travel they choose, and with no physical interaction. Hyperspace is almost like an alternate space-time dimensional existance (Mirror, Mirror). But not quite, as it is still attached to our 'normal' space-time dimensional universe. A ship in hyperspace would be comparable to the USS Defiant, as it phased out of our 'normal' space-time universe, in the "The Tholian Web" episode. Seems the Federation had a ship in hyperspace briefly, without ever knowing it. Unfortunate that the Defiant's crew was dead, and the ship did not have a proper drive mechanism to provide mobility in the hyperspace. I dont think thrusters, impulse engines, and certainly not space-warp fields, would work in a hyperspace environment. I think a hyperspace drive would need to be more 'etherial' in function. Possibly... an ectoplasm drive, lol. But, I'd prefer to call it a hyperdrive - as in a hyper-space drive - which is not so spoooky. Anyway... it is an alternate F-T-L mechanism that should co-exist in the Star Trek universe. Especially in a Forbidden Planet / Star Trek universe.

What you're now describing is actually subspace. Hyperspace is an entirely different dimension, made out of something totally alien. Look at Babylon 5 and Stargate for examples of hyperspace.

I'm not describing subspace. Subspace has less dimensions than normal space. Therefore subspace can not accommodate 3-dimensional physical objects. It would require 'more' (not less) dimensions to accommodate physical objects, plus added features like F-T-L. Subspace only accommodates communications signals. Babalon 5 and Stargate has it wrong. The 'hyper' in hyperspace means above or beyond normal space. As in having more dimensions than in our normal space-time universe. Thus, hyperspace can accommodate anything of our 4-dimensional universe, plus added features, like F-T-L propulsion.