Will Trek XI repel old fans?

[3D Master]

No, they don't use rockets, but they use some kind of engines which we don't, so rockets will do as an analogue

No, they don't.

Why do I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of high-school dropouts, or less?

Do you know what a rocket is? A rocket is a tube, with a lot of explosive material, light the material, and hope for the best. There are no breaks, there are no second chances, there is no way to control thrust. It's simply lit, and it goes, and keeps going until the explosive material gone. THAT is a rocket.

We are ALREADY moving away from rockets. The next generation space vehicles are indeed no longer rockets. Rockets is the dark ages.

And whatever they'll be using in the 23rd century is nothing like it, not even close. To claim a rocket as an analogue for the 23rd century technology... it's like claiming a bicycle is an analogue for a jet-plane.

(since obviously they don't use warp or impulse to fly into and out of an atmosphere).

And why wouldn't they be using impulse to flying into and out of an atmosphere? There's really no reason why you wouldn't be able to use impulse. You'd have to set it to a really, really, really low setting, so you move slow enough to keep from crashing into things, but there's really no reason impulse engines can't be used.

I get your point about attaching the saucer to the neck, but I never meant that the whole ship would be put together on the ground and then ascend majestically into its first flight, I just don't see what's so difficult about making the major sections on the ground, where it would undoubtedly be safer and easier work, then using some of the plentiful, safe, and easy to use space-flight technology we know they have to get them into orbit where they can be assembled into the finished product.

:sighs: Did you see pieces to be assembled being worked on in the trailer, hmm? Nope, the Enterprise was intact.

And no, it would NOT be easier, nor safer to work on the Earth. Which part of zero-g don't you get of working in space? There's no air, there's no friction, there's no gravity. It's piss easy, in comparison, especially when you get with big and high things, to move things about. You don't need massive, powerful transporting machines, like trucks and the like that can drive over people, that can break down, and I've barely scratched the surface. Building large objects is FAR easier and FAR safer in space, than on the ground.

Because it's a waste, and makes thinks more difficult than they have to be. The moment you have space stations you simply don't build ships planetside.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand why this minor detail (and yes, it's a detail at most in my book) would be a deal breaker for you. To use the example I used earlier, why is building ships planet-side so much more unacceptable than warp drive? And, how would this one minor detail reduce the whole movie to idiocy or more fantasy and less SF?

In your book, maybe, but not in mine. I'm willing to overlook flaws in science that are cutting edge. Writers and even science advisers can't know anything. But this isn't cutting edge. This is basic highschool physics and engineering 101, anyone with a little bit of a brain should be able to figure this out. Building in space has SO many advantages it's not even funny: it's easier, it's safer, it costs less energy, there's more space to build things in, then there is Earth to build things on, and so forth, and so on, and on, and on, and on.

If they can't even get this simplistic thing correct, they obviously don't give a hoot about anything but guns firing.

And Star Trek has always been something more, something deeper, with something to say about among other things science. They're reducing Star Trek to Stargate. No substance, just guns blazing, meaningless threats, where they're always beamed out in the last second, and Armageddon weapons get dropped in their laps just at the right moment from the gods on high. See if you can find anyone that says, "Stargate made me go into science/engineering/etc." Nope, it's Star Trek that's in that sentence.

 

[M'Sharak]

Have you SEEN the Enterprise?

.

Why do I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of high-school dropouts, or less?

Why do you feel it necessary to throw insults in nearly every discussion in which you participate?

If you want to discuss the topic, then fine, discuss the topic, but the condescending, shouty tantrums and the personal jabs at Those Who Fail to See Things Your Way stop here.

 

[3D Master]

Have you SEEN the Enterprise?

.

Why do I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of high-school dropouts, or less?

Why do you feel it necessary to throw insults in nearly every discussion in which you participate?

If you want to discuss the topic, then fine, discuss the topic, but the condescending, shouty tantrums and the personal jabs at Those Who Fail to See Things Your Way stop here.

Science fact and engineering is not failing to see things my way, it's claiming the Earth isn't a sphere.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

First, 3D Master's definition (or rather, description) of a rocket is wrong - it leaves out solar thermal rockets and steam rockets, among other things. So much for the "high-school dropout" charge.

If old-time fans choose to be repelled, let them. That's an entirely separate issue from whether the film is a good one, after all - Trek fans admire a lot of stuff that's less-than-good.

 

[ancient]

I think we all need to remember that Star Trek is full of fantasy, with science taking a back seat. Now, as far as the ground vs. space thing, it's really impossible to tell which would work better within the rules of the ST universe, since the rules of the ST universe tend to be whatever the hell they need to be, especially when it comes to dealing with complete fantasy elements like star ships.

In a universe with antigravs (fantasy) and non-Newtonian thrusters (fantasy) and transporters (fantasy), and SIF (fantasy) and inertial dampners (fantasy), building something on the ground, then raising it into orbit would be yawn-inducingly easy.

We're like people in the 1700's discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built. And how many copper nails it would take to do it.

 

[3D Master]

I think we all need to remember that Star Trek is full of fantasy, with science taking a back seat. Now, as far as the ground vs. space thing, it's really impossible to tell which would work better within the rules of the ST universe, since the rules of the ST universe tend to be whatever the hell they need to be, especially when it comes to dealing with complete fantasy elements like star ships.

In a universe with antigravs (fantasy) and non-Newtonian thrusters (fantasy) and transporters (fantasy), and SIF (fantasy) and inertial dampners (fantasy), building something on the ground, then raising it into orbit would be yawn-inducingly easy.

None of them are fantasy. Star Trek has but very little fantasy, most of it is speculative science. Which is a completely different thing.

We're like people in the 1700's discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built. And how many copper nails it would take to do it.

Nope, we're not. We're like people in the late 1800s discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built, and whether or not we'd built it on land and then try to push it into the ocean, or whether we'd do it in a dry dock and let water flaw into it when we're finished.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I think we all need to remember that Star Trek is full of fantasy, with science taking a back seat. Now, as far as the ground vs. space thing, it's really impossible to tell which would work better within the rules of the ST universe, since the rules of the ST universe tend to be whatever the hell they need to be, especially when it comes to dealing with complete fantasy elements like star ships.

In a universe with antigravs (fantasy) and non-Newtonian thrusters (fantasy) and transporters (fantasy), and SIF (fantasy) and inertial dampners (fantasy), building something on the ground, then raising it into orbit would be yawn-inducingly easy.

We're like people in the 1700's discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built. And how many copper nails it would take to do it.

It would take 3 billion copper nails, good sir.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think we all need to remember that Star Trek is full of fantasy, with science taking a back seat. Now, as far as the ground vs. space thing, it's really impossible to tell which would work better within the rules of the ST universe, since the rules of the ST universe tend to be whatever the hell they need to be, especially when it comes to dealing with complete fantasy elements like star ships.

In a universe with antigravs (fantasy) and non-Newtonian thrusters (fantasy) and transporters (fantasy), and SIF (fantasy) and inertial dampners (fantasy), building something on the ground, then raising it into orbit would be yawn-inducingly easy.

None of them are fantasy. Star Trek has but very little fantasy, most of it is speculative science. Which is a completely different thing.

In fact, most of those things are fantasy. They are simply a list of magic words. Throw in "warp drive" and "subspace" (a word which actually has a "real" meaning that's nothing like its use in Trek) and there you go.

 

[Gagarin]

Do you know what a rocket is? A rocket is a tube, with a lot of explosive material, light the material, and hope for the best. There are no breaks, there are no second chances, there is no way to control thrust. It's simply lit, and it goes, and keeps going until the explosive material gone. THAT is a rocket.

Well, actually, only solid rocket boosters are like that. Liquid rockets can be throttled.

We are ALREADY moving away from rockets. The next generation space vehicles are indeed no longer rockets. Rockets is the dark ages.

What new generation?
I think you've been reading too mant Popular Mechanics / Popular Science magazines. NASA's next vehicles (to be ready AFTER the shuttle is supposed to be out of service) are all vehicles that use solid and liquid fueled rocket engines. And that's stuff into 2018. That's next generation. And amazingly, the Ares I rocket will use solid fuel - which can't be throttled, controled, or balanced as well, which seems like a big leap back in an era that demands saftey, but THAT's the next generation. Ignore whatever illustrations you're thinking of. There may be nuclear powered propulsion systems but they ain't gonna work without other rocket engines. Calling rockets dark ages is like saying the ICE is the dark ages since fuel cell cars have been invented.

And whatever they'll be using in the 23rd century is nothing like it, not even close. To claim a rocket as an analogue for the 23rd century technology... it's like claiming a bicycle is an analogue for a jet-plane.

That's what an impulse engine is described as by the people who dreamed up the Enterprise. "They are like our rockets and use the same principle, as opposed to the main engines, which use a space-warp"

None of them are fantasy. Star Trek has but very little fantasy, most of it is speculative science. Which is a completely different thing.

I think that's very, very, very reaching. I'm okay with things being impossible - it doesn't effect how I look at the fiction as long as it's a good story and it feels coherant and real.

 

[ancient]

I think we all need to remember that Star Trek is full of fantasy, with science taking a back seat. Now, as far as the ground vs. space thing, it's really impossible to tell which would work better within the rules of the ST universe, since the rules of the ST universe tend to be whatever the hell they need to be, especially when it comes to dealing with complete fantasy elements like star ships.

In a universe with antigravs (fantasy) and non-Newtonian thrusters (fantasy) and transporters (fantasy), and SIF (fantasy) and inertial dampners (fantasy), building something on the ground, then raising it into orbit would be yawn-inducingly easy.

None of them are fantasy. Star Trek has but very little fantasy, most of it is speculative science. Which is a completely different thing.

If any of those things ever get made, they will not work anything like their Star Trek counterparts. If they ever get made.

Nope, we're not. We're like people in the late 1800s discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built, and whether or not we'd built it on land and then try to push it into the ocean, or whether we'd do it in a dry dock and let water flaw into it when we're finished.

Yes, yes, roll eyes, post, roll eyes, post. Talking with you is a real pleasure.

Here's a more serious example, Mr. Science:

Airplanes that flap their wings to fly. Speculative science, you might call it, back in the 1800s. It was taken very seriously.

Star Trek's depiction of star-ship tech is essentially a pre-Wright-Bros. flapping-wing design. It looks workable and futuristic. But at the end of the day it's probably all complete bullshit, just like the flappy-wing airplane possibilities of yesteryear. So fighting over the physics of 23rd century ships strikes me as kind of funny. Ground or orbit, they both work fine for me. I don't see the point of getting all science-snob on this or on, say, what the best way to launch a flapping-wing airplane is. It's kind of pointless.

Now, what size popcorn should I get?...

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...We're like people in the 1700's discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built. And how many copper nails it would take to do it.

Nope, we're not. We're like people in the late 1800s discussing how nuclear-powered aircraft carriers might be built, and whether or not we'd built it on land and then try to push it into the ocean, or whether we'd do it in a dry dock and let water flaw into it when we're finished.

This has been brought up before, but it bears repeating here: If you told a shipbuilder in the early 1800s that in 200 years they will be building huge hunks of ships inside buildings then transporting them by crane to the drydock to be put together, he would have said you are crazy. He would argue that it would be much easier to build the thing from scratch in the drydock rather than build it someplace else that would require moving the large pieces by crane. Yet that's exactly how large ships are built today.

Shipbuilders in the 1800s didn't know we would have a crane large enough to lift incredibly heavy pre-fab pieces of a ship -- and we don't know what kind of technology they will have in the 23rd century...

...hell, we don't even know if this argument is relevant -- the construction issue may not be addressed by this film.

 

[ancient]

...hell, we don't even know if this argument is relevant -- the construction issue may not be addressed by this film.

Stop raining on my rage.

 

[3D Master]

I think we all need to remember that Star Trek is full of fantasy, with science taking a back seat. Now, as far as the ground vs. space thing, it's really impossible to tell which would work better within the rules of the ST universe, since the rules of the ST universe tend to be whatever the hell they need to be, especially when it comes to dealing with complete fantasy elements like star ships.

In a universe with antigravs (fantasy) and non-Newtonian thrusters (fantasy) and transporters (fantasy), and SIF (fantasy) and inertial dampners (fantasy), building something on the ground, then raising it into orbit would be yawn-inducingly easy.

None of them are fantasy. Star Trek has but very little fantasy, most of it is speculative science. Which is a completely different thing.

In fact, most of those things are fantasy. They are simply a list of magic words. Throw in "warp drive" and "subspace" (a word which actually has a "real" meaning that's nothing like its use in Trek) and there you go.

Those are not magic words, they are not fantasy. They're speculative science. There's a reason behind them why they work.

As opposed to fantasy, that is something that not only defies all known laws of physics, it even defies any logic, and nobody cares to explain it, it's simply: it's magic.

And as for Star Trek's subspace, there's actually a scientific theory out there that maps perfectly on Star Trek's subspace: the hyper-dimensional massless aether. I don't care about the exact naming conventions.

As for the warp drive, that's where you're wrong. It works EXACTLY like Star Trek says it does. In fact, if Star Trek and in particular Franz Joseph had not thought up the exact way that warp drive worked, we probably wouldn't have the actual scientific warp drive theory today. As it's a scientist Star Trek fan Albucierre (? I can never remember the name's spelling) that put the concept into the equations in 1995 and found that it works exactly as advertised.

 

[number6]

Back to the topic..
I don't think this film will repel all the old fans, just the ones who have rigid expectations of what they believe Star Trek should be.

Frankly I don't know if the film will repel this old fan. I have found at least something entertaining in all the incarnations of Trek. Certainly there have been disappointing moments in all of Trek:
Having waited in the freezing cold for hours on a December in 1979 to see TMP on its premiere and being underwhelmed with a rehash of The Changelling in the big screen was the first indication I had of feeling let down by Star Trek. But there was still a thrill of seeing the original cast back together, and I hung in there and wound up enjoying the subsequent films, except V.

I didn't get hooked on TNG until the third season. DS9 rocked me from the start. VOY had it's peaks and valleys and I probably enjoyed ENT more than anyone in this forum. I was sad to see it get the axe when it was really starting to find its feet and its own identity.

Thinking that Trek was over for good, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they were doing another one with a new creative team. Having seen some of Abrams' work and having read each of the interviews of everyone involved, I am optimistic about Trek XI, especially with Nimoy on board.

I would think that any forward thinking fan would be excited about Trek getting a new start.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think if Nimoy is involved, it looks good.

I don't think he would do it if it was just a straight forward, shoot-em-up, action adventure. I think it will have other content than that, and I have an idea, given some of the releases, what the moral of the story will be!

 

[archeryguy1701]

As opposed to fantasy, that is something that not only defies all known laws of physics, it even defies any logic, and nobody cares to explain it, it's simply: it's magic.

And that right there confuses me further... The Enterprise being built on the ground could have some logical explanations. You even mentioned two earlier for keeping the saucer section up: some big-assed cranes or anti-gravity lifts. And, who's to say that in 200 years, they don't have a different more efficient way of doing it?

 

[Cheapjack]

Surely, the point is, in the future they will have ways of doing things that we can't know. But, isn't an educated guess, or a well thought out guess, the best science fiction option? Isn't that good science fiction?

I don't think that NCC 1701 was built on the ground. It says quite clearly in Stephen Whitfield's 'The Making of Star Trek', that it was assembled in the San Fransisco space dockyards.It could be moved into space, but I would say they do everything in space in those days.

 

[3D Master]

As opposed to fantasy, that is something that not only defies all known laws of physics, it even defies any logic, and nobody cares to explain it, it's simply: it's magic.

And that right there confuses me further... The Enterprise being built on the ground could have some logical explanations. You even mentioned two earlier for keeping the saucer section up: some big-assed cranes or anti-gravity lifts. And, who's to say that in 200 years, they don't have a different more efficient way of doing it?

And they can break down and what not. Just one moment of interrupted power or damage, and CRASH. Like I already told you.

In space, you have no such problems. There's no gravity, there's no air, there's not friction. A saucer or any part, will just hang there. And if something fails, it will still just hang there. Even if there something pushing on it with enough force to make it move, it would still only slowly drift away, enough time for anyone to get out of the way, at worse bang gently against a space dock arm.

There simply are no advantages AT ALL for building a ship on the ground, so why would you?

 

[shapeshifter]

Are we talking 100% fabrication in space including the manufacture of all the parts?

Is a space smelter up there cooking metal for the beams and crosses? Are there separate fabrication stations for each and every kind of component used on board; plastic for consoles, a furniture factory, a carpet loom, etc?

On topic: I have been with Trek through thick and thin and do not see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Akiraprise]

This isn't the thread for debating where the Enterprise was built. Take your discussion there if you want to continue it. This is directed at numerous people, not just Uss Stardis.