Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater?

[BillJ]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

But then I would be engaging in the kind of exposition I usually complain about when it comes from characters.

Spoiler: possible spoiler about 9 minute intro to new Trek film

Kirk and McCoy are running away from the natives wearing some sort of costume that hides their appearance completely (until late into the running away), so they don't want to be seen. Kirk is carrying something (a scroll of some sort) that the natives desperately want back (hence the chase) and that is deliberate as Kirk announces via communicator to both the Enterprise and the shuttlecraft that the natives are out of the immediate "kill zone"). The shuttlecraft experiences problems coping with the volcanic emissions and Sulu and Uhura are forced to abandon the craft while Kirk and McCoy are forced to jump into the water to escape being seen clearly by the natives. Aboard the Enterprise, we learn via dialogue that Spock cannot be beamed out directly from the volcano to their position because of some sort of magnetic field interference (what? a planet with an environmental component that interferes with the transporter? How could Abrams violate canon like that? ).

Inference: The field that interferes with the transporter could also wreak havoc with sensors (quite likely as sensors and transporter seem to work in conjunction), so the ship must be much closer than usual to the planet. Hiding underwater is easiest way to hide from the natives.

Simple, really.

But in that same nine-minute preview, don't they say they could beam him up if they had a better line of sight?

 

[Ovation]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

But then I would be engaging in the kind of exposition I usually complain about when it comes from characters.

Spoiler: possible spoiler about 9 minute intro to new Trek film

Kirk and McCoy are running away from the natives wearing some sort of costume that hides their appearance completely (until late into the running away), so they don't want to be seen. Kirk is carrying something (a scroll of some sort) that the natives desperately want back (hence the chase) and that is deliberate as Kirk announces via communicator to both the Enterprise and the shuttlecraft that the natives are out of the immediate "kill zone"). The shuttlecraft experiences problems coping with the volcanic emissions and Sulu and Uhura are forced to abandon the craft while Kirk and McCoy are forced to jump into the water to escape being seen clearly by the natives. Aboard the Enterprise, we learn via dialogue that Spock cannot be beamed out directly from the volcano to their position because of some sort of magnetic field interference (what? a planet with an environmental component that interferes with the transporter? How could Abrams violate canon like that? ).

Inference: The field that interferes with the transporter could also wreak havoc with sensors (quite likely as sensors and transporter seem to work in conjunction), so the ship must be much closer than usual to the planet. Hiding underwater is easiest way to hide from the natives.

Simple, really.

But in that same nine-minute preview, don't they say they could beam him up if they had a better line of sight?

Spoiler: more on the inference re: 9 min. preview

If they hover over the volcano at a short distance--still within the atmosphere, still potentially in view of the natives (hence the concern with the prime directive. Hiding in the water and using the shuttle as a first option (in the water to monitor the situation at close range with sensors to offset planet's natural interference with sensors, using shuttle to get Spock to volcano's interior, with a cable attached [so shuttles appear not to have transporters at this point--as was the case with TOS shuttles], and doing so from within the cloud of volcanic emissions (source of shuttle's eventual fatal problems) so the natives do not see them).

Inference remains intact.

 

[YARN]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I'd be more interested in the explanation for why the Enterprise even needs to go underwater.

I think they realized that they created a cool visual moment when the Enterprise warped into the atmosphere of Titan (apparently starships jump into and out of warp BSG style now) and they though, "How can we do a moment like that again?"

In the next film we see her rise out of the sands of some desert next to some alien pyramid.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

In the next film we see her rise out of the sands of some desert next to some alien pyramid.

Oooh! I like that!

 

[CorporalClegg]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

There doesn't need to be.

 

[Arpy]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Jackson_RoyKirk, I don't know or care if you're a man or a woman: marry me.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Jackson_RoyKirk, I don't know or care if you're a man or a woman: marry me.

Man.
Straight.
Married.


But we can still be friends

I suppose maybe that is in response to my "Shatner's Gremlin" reply to you?

 

[chardman]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

The OP wants to know if they'll explain how the Enterprise can go underwater? Well, perhaps they will, but until they do, I suggest that the OP get in line, and wait his turn, as there's already a very long line of us who are still waiting to get "treknical" explanations for stunts that Trek pulled in TOS back in the sixties.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

In the next film we see her rise out of the sands of some desert next to some alien pyramid.

Oooh! I like that!

Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

In the next film we see her rise out of the sands of some desert next to some alien pyramid.

Oooh! I like that!

Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?

Is that a dare?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Oooh! I like that!

Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?

Is that a dare?

Maybe something like this:

...Deanna's generous bosom heaved beneath her uniform, uplifted by the corset that formed her wasp-like waist, as she slowly inhaled after her lungs were momentarily and suddenly evacuated by the unexpected sight of the Enterprise rising from the depths of the windswept desert dunes -- dunes like golden ripples of water having been stilled by a temporal anomaly.

Worf sauntered up to her from the direction of the suns setting behind the expanse of sand adjacent to the ancient stone edifice; a monument long abandoned by the race who once dwelled on this planet, but whose mummified kings still remain entombed within. Worf approached Deanna slowly, but deliberately, with a desire in his eyes that burned greater that the red orbs of this world's two stars descending on the horizon behind him. His brown sinewy chest bare except for his chainmail sash, which was framed by his expansive pectoral muscles like fleshy, but heavy, bronze bookends.

"Commander Riker will be quite occupied tonight with extracting sand grains from the nacelle vents", he boomed in a voice of which a baritone opera singer would be jealous, as Deanna turned away, feigning rejection to his obvious, but at the same time sublime, advances, and looked vacantly at the sheer veil of the nebula rising in the eastern sky beyond...

....or is that not quite your genre, Mr. Cox?

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Ha, but you can't put that scene into a novel, can you?

Is that a dare?

Maybe something like this:

...Deanna's generous bosom heaved beneath her uniform, uplifted by the corset that formed her wasp-like waist, as she slowly inhaled after her lungs were momentarily and suddenly evacuated by the unexpected sight of the Enterprise rising from the depths of the windswept desert dunes -- dunes like golden ripples of water having been stilled by a temporal anomaly.

Worf sauntered up to her from the direction of the suns setting behind the expanse of sand adjacent to the ancient stone edifice; a monument long abandoned by the race who once dwelled on this planet, but whose mummified kings still remain entombed within. Worf approached Deanna slowly, but deliberately, with a desire in his eyes that burned greater that the red orbs of this world's two stars descending on the horizon behind him. His brown sinewy chest bare except for his chainmail sash, which was framed by his expansive pectoral muscles like fleshy, but heavy, bronze bookends.

"Commander Riker will be quite occupied tonight with extracting sand grains from the nacelle vents", he boomed in a voice of which a baritone opera singer would be jealous, as Deanna turned away, feigning rejection to his obvious, but at the same time sublime, advances, and looked vacantly at the sheer veil of the nebula rising in the eastern sky beyond...

....or is that not quite your genre, Mr. Cox?

I take it you haven't read my vampire novels . . . .

 

[Tombfyre]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

[Image converted to link. Please be sure that images posted inline are hosted on your own web space. - M']

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

You cannot simply chalk it up to yet another Scotty Miracle?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.

Someone should tell Gene Roddenberry.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeMNXQBzd8[/yt]

The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

^
^^Exactly. Roddenberry wanted the Enterprise to be able to land, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. The fact still remains that in Roddenberry's original view of what he wanted Star Trek to be, the ship would land.

To tell you the truth, though, I like the idea of having smaller landing craft (shuttles), but I have no real philosophical issues with a big ship landing, either.

 

[Tombfyre]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.

Haha, well i'm glad for that. I just really like the idea of parking in orbit of a planet and conducting whatever operations are needed using runabouts and such. It means you are restricted on resources, firepower, manpower, ect.

Gene Roddenberry was a great visionary of his time... but star trek developed its style because of some of those initial compromises.

I'm sure the movie will still be a blast to watch. Just prefer the old TNG\DS9 time. If JJ abrams really said that rerun comment.... that just arrogant. He'd have no movie to make if it wasn't for those reruns and those who enjoy them.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

Rerun comment?

 

[Arpy]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

What they meant to do in TOS doesn't matter as much as what they did do.

There's nothing wrong with the preference of capital ships not being atmosphere-capable, and it does add a dash of faux verisimilitude that Trek's so famous/loved for.

I used to like the idea that ships couldn't travel in atmosphere, but it does make more sense to me that soooo advanced ships would be able to. Of course, it makes more sense that such ships wouldn't be welded together hull plate by visible hull plate but what can you do?

 

[marksound]

Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater

You cannot simply chalk it up to yet another Scotty Miracle?

You need something done, you call the man who can do it. He'll bitch and moan and tell you it can't be done, but he'll figure it out.

I don't post often, however I felt I should weigh in on this.

I'm with the camp that doesn't necessarily like the idea. I view star trek like this:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/images/1492home.jpg

To me, it adds more depth to the universe if the big capitol ships CAN'T go into an atmosphere. It takes away some of the risk involved if you can just park your space battleships anywhere you please. Its not so much a Grrr.. technobable needed. Its more of a I don't want to see the universe diminished. I feel that the character of star trek is that you arrive in your big ship. You have a problem to solve, but you're going to have to go down in small parties to solve it.

No matter how you explain it... why they would need to bring the ship into a planet for anything other than an emergency doesn't make sense. They have shuttles, transporters...

I'm sure it'll look cool and be fun. But to me... its a blow to star treks core. Just saying because it looks cool... isn't to me the mark of a great director.

Someone should tell Gene Roddenberry.



The only reason the Enterprise didn't land in TOS was the cost was too prohibitive. The transporters and shuttlecraft were cost saving measures.

Sidebar: I like the cheesy old TOS effects much better than the cheesy new TOS-R effects. Just sayin'.

What they meant to do in TOS doesn't matter as much as what they did do.

There's nothing wrong with the preference of capital ships not being atmosphere-capable, and it does add a dash of faux verisimilitude that Trek's so famous/loved for.

I used to like the idea that ships couldn't travel in atmosphere, but it does make more sense to me that soooo advanced ships would be able to. Of course, it makes more sense that such ships wouldn't be welded together hull plate by visible hull plate but what can you do?

I want to know why we weren't told decades ago that these ships are watertight. Airtight in the vacuum of space, even where there are no windows or doors, damn straight! But watertight? Dude. If they don't say it, it ain't so. Right? Right?