State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

[BigJake]

And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever land, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere?

"Tomorrow is Yesterday". The Enterprise is identified as a UFO against blue sky.

Where, however, it only spends a brief amount of time. Generally speaking, you would nevertheless agree that long spells in atmosphere = bad for starships the size of the Enterprise, right? (Voyager in fact made a specific point about this by giving its starship the then-never-before-seen ability to land in atmospheres.)

In fact, the creators agree. Hence the thrilling sequence at the end of STID where the Enterprise is about to break up on reentry if Kirk doesn't save it. Which, I know this is gauche but still, some might say was perhaps slightly inconsistent with the ship being able to hide on the bottom of oceans.

 

[BigJake]

It can withstand wormholes, nebulas, giant amoeba and other space anomalies, but would "break apart" just by entering atmosphere?

I would actually say the canon explanation for this is pretty consistent on the grounds of spaceships being designed for space, and equipped to handle space-related hazards, whereas the attempts to discard it because SQUEEEE are rather more questionable.

It is called Great Movie Blockbuster Writing.

I'm honestly not arsed if you like the movie. It's cool to like processed sandwich spread, too; it's just not cool to claim it is caviar and denounce the rest of us as snobs when we tell you that is not the case.

That question has been answered by several people and in various ways.

I am sure it has. Unfortunately there is a difference between an answer and a good answer. How do you know where you're transporting to, for instance? Anything from telescopy to satellites to robot ships would suffice. You just flat-out would not need a ship like Enterprise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Explain to me why showing a new technology based on a previously seen technology is wrong

If your new technology makes the basic premise of your whole setting and franchise -- adventuring in a starship -- completely redundant, it is probably a bad idea. (It doesn't help that it also completely breaks the internal consistency of depicting that technology in the timeframe one is supposedly "re-booting." But even that's a problem that pales in comparison.)

The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future. Once it gets perfected it's possible that Starships as a mode of transportation might become obsolete. But that doesn't need to happen anytime soon. There also might be bugs in the tech that might render it impractical on a large scale.

and why hiding a starship under an ocean is dumb.

Um, because a starship has all of space to hide in? Where it's designed to be and wouldn't be discernible as anything other than a bright dot from below? Whereas it is not designed to be under the ocean? And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever landed, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere? How many more do would you like?

The first one makes sense. I forget if there was a reason in the film why they were in the ocean.

The second one. I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.

Where is it stated the the Enterprise would break apart when entering an atmosphere? It worked fine in the atmosphere of Earth in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" and managed to get out of Earth's atmosphere without any trouble.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeMNXQBzd8[/yt] This is a ship with shields and antigrav ability. A little atmosphere and gravity is water off ducks back.

Other ships like the Bird of Prey, the Voyager and the Vulcan ship from First Contact didn't seem to have any problems with atmospheres.

The only reason the Enterprise has transporters is landing the ship every week would have been expensive SFX wise. So "design wise" it could land if the budget allowed it.

 

[BigJake]

The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future.

A future in which it was never seen before an Abrams film either, because previous creators were smarter than to effectively break the setting and premise by introducing it.

The first one makes sense. I forget if there was a reason in the film why they were in the ocean.

It looks cool when they come out, and Zoe Saldana looks hella sexy in a wetsuit. Far as I can tell, those are the reasons.

(And they're understandable reasons, just insufficient ones. I hear tell space is a pretty reliable source of cool visuals, and you don't need an ocean sequence to put Zoe Saldana in a sexy outfit.)

I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.

It is stated incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon that a ship the size of the Enterprise cannot and does not land. Yes, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" notwithstanding. The nacelle-and-saucers design not being particularly aerodynamic or grav-friendly would be a pretty good reason.

Have this here Voyager featurette on the topic if you don't believe me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBhLOrzFs4g

The Bird of Prey can because it is small and aerodynamic. Voyager can because it is -- relative to the Enterprise -- likewise. Voyager made a big deal out of how it was a ship that could land, unlike larger starships that could not land.

And again: when not tempted by cool sea visuals and Zoe Saldana in a wetsuit, the creators of STID agree with this. That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere. Breaking canon is one thing, but they couldn't even manage it self-consistently.

There is again a term for that. It is Bad Writing.

 

[M'Sharak]

It can withstand wormholes, nebulas, giant amoeba and other space anomalies, but would "break apart" just by entering atmosphere?

I would actually say the canon explanation for this is pretty consistent on the grounds of spaceships being designed for space, and equipped to handle space-related hazards, whereas the attempts to discard it because SQUEEEE are rather more questionable.

It is called Great Movie Blockbuster Writing.

I'm honestly not arsed if you like the movie. It's cool to like processed sandwich spread, too; it's just not cool to claim it is caviar and denounce the rest of us as snobs when we tell you that is not the case.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already and we've yet to see even one person denounce you as a snob (nor, I suspect, will we. I do hope that won't come as too much of a disappointment.)

That question has been answered by several people and in various ways.

I am sure it has. Unfortunately there is a difference between an answer and a good answer.

Well, then - it should be no trouble at all for you to simply run down the answers already tendered and point out which ones are the good answers and which are not. Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.

 

[drt]

The transwarp beaming seems to be a one-way trip, from everything presented in '09 and ID, a very precise transporter lock is needed to beam someone up but not down, so it appears you can send somebody to another planet with the transwarp beaming, but I'm not sure there's a way to bring them back.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Now I just wanna rerun that "The Onion" report on the 2009 film one more time!

 

[BigJake]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already . . . Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.

Quoted without comment. I will leave who is actually "getting defensive" in this scenario as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already . . . Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.

Quoted without comment. I will leave who is actually "getting defensive" in this scenario as an exercise for the reader.

Umm, M'Sharak was offering you some advice, in his position as Mod. AFAIK.

 

[BigJake]

Well, not really my place to debate M'Sharak's moderating style, in that case. Sorry if it seemed like I was being a dick.

We can at least agree that that old Onion piece was darned funny. The line "Gene Roddenberry was the hack who created Star Trek like way back in the Forties or something..." is immortal.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future.

A future in which it was never seen before an Abrams film either, because previous creators were smarter than to effectively break the setting and premise by introducing it.

It comes from a point in the future we've never seen. (post Nemesis)

Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.

The concept of sub-space transporting (which also covers vast distances) was explored in TNG:Bloodlines.

Unlike a normal transporter, which sends its signal through normal space and thus limited to a much shorter range, this transporter uses subspace. Compared to a normal Federation transporter, which had a range of about 40,000 kilometers, it has a range of several light years. A probe was once transported from a distance of approximately 300 billion kilometers this way.

Spatial trajector

The spatial trajector was a technology utilized by the Sikarians, a species native to the Delta Quadrant, which allowed them to transport to planets up to 40,000 light years away.

Sub-quantum transporter

The sub-quantum transporter was a flawed technology invented by Emory Erickson and studied by the Vulcan Science Academy. It was intended to be the replacement for the transporter used in the mid-22nd century. The sub-quantum transporter would beam an object or person from planet-to-planet, or any other distance, since the device had unlimited range. The system also required much less power to operate.

Translocator

The translocator was an extremely advanced high-energy transporter device created by the Nyrians of the Delta Quadrant.
It had a transportation range of ten light years.

I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.

It is stated incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon that a ship the size of the Enterprise cannot and does not land. Yes, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" notwithstanding. The nacelle-and-saucers design not being particularly aerodynamic or grav-friendly would be a pretty good reason.

TIY is canon.

Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?

Does a ship with shields and anti-grav really need to worry about being aerodynamic or even subject to gravity?

And again: when not tempted by cool sea visuals and Zoe Saldana in a wetsuit, the creators of STID agree with this. That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere. Breaking canon is one thing, but they couldn't even manage it self-consistently.

There is again a term for that. It is Bad Writing.

I think a controlled entry into an atmosphere in an undamaged ship is different than an uncontrolled one in a damaged ship.

 

[BigJake]

Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.

Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)

You will notice that all of the other examples you list are either specifically designed to have a fatal flaw in order that they not render starships superfluous, or are in the hands of non-Federation actors. There is a reason for that.

TIY is canon.

It is also not an example of the Enterprise landing, just of its surviving a very short spell in an atmosphere. It's really not as much of a counterexample as some are wont to make of it.

Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?

In fact I provided you a link to one of many quite unequivocal examples, from the promotional material for Voyager. You may have missed the edit, so have a look again.

 

[Harvey]

That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere.

No. The final act was based on the Enterprise (nearly) crashing on the surface of the Earth because it lost all power after battling the Vengeance.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.

Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)

Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.

You will notice that all of the other examples you list are either specifically designed to have a fatal flaw in order that they not render starships superfluous, or are in the hands of non-Federation actors. There is a reason for that.

Yep and a fatal flaw can be found for Scotty' transwarp beaming too. It doesn't have to be the automobile.

TIY is canon.

It is also not an example of the Enterprise landing, just of its surviving a very short spell in an atmosphere. It's really not as much of a counterexample as some are wont to make of it.

I used it as an example of the ship operating in an atmosphere. Which you said couldn't be done. The ship also escaped said atmosphere.

Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?

In fact I provided you a link to one of many quite unequivocal examples, from the promotional material for Voyager. You may have missed the edit, so have a look again.

Promotional material does not count. That was just some hey look at this hand waving trying to prove Voyager was "different". What else you got? Especially referring to the Enterprise in-universe.

 

[plynch]

Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV

 

[BigJake]

Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.

Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)

Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.

Except that it eliminates any reason for Starfleet to exist, no. But since it does, prior creators did not do so. Wisely.

Yep and a fatal flaw can be found for Scotty' transwarp beaming too.

Scotty's transwarp beaming seems to work quite reliably.

I used it as an example of the ship operating in an atmosphere. Which you said couldn't be done. The ship also escaped said atmosphere.

As it had to. Very quickly. Because canonically that is not where starships are supposed to be.

Promotional material does not count.

That is rather conveniently selective of you, and kind of doesn't make me feel like you're engaging the conversation in good faith, to be honest. But here, have some science.

Note in particular something he says that I think is very worth paying attention to:

I suppose you could technobabble your way out of any criticism like this with structural integrity fields and blah, blah, blah, but come on - that's the sort of thing that eventually killed the TNG-era run of Trek. If we're already at that point two movies into the reboot, we're in real trouble.

 

[Khan444]

Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV

No, NONE of the MOVIES were focused on exploration, sorry to disappoint you. TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially. The TV SHOWS were about exploration and discovery. You can do that in a twenty plus episode season better than a two hour movie. The films have always been geared more towards a mass audience, so this is nothing new.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Promotional material does not count. That was just some hey look at this hand waving trying to prove Voyager was "different".

Yep. I almost mentioned "Planet of the Titans", a proposal for TMP, in which we were to learn that, at the end of the 5YM, the Enterprise saucer had separated and softlanded on a planet, and was considered lost for a decade. IIRC.

The Mego model of TMP's Enterprise even incorporated a separation feature, and four legs on the saucer so it could land on planets.

TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially.

No, it ended up doing very well financially. Probably from so many fans going back time after time.

 

[drt]

TMP wasn't a failure financially - corrected for inflation, it out performed every ST movie until '09.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)

Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.

Except that it eliminates any reason for Starfleet to exist, no. But since it does, prior creators did not do so. Wisely.

Does it? As someone mentioned so far its a one way trip. Its great for transport but what about Starfleet's other duties? They arent exclusively in the transportation business.

Scotty's transwarp beaming seems to work quite reliably.

Well it's two for two. Though attempt one did have a hiccup.

As it had to. Very quickly. Because canonically that is not where starships are supposed to be.

Which doesn't mean they can't spend time in an atmosphere

Promotional material does not count.

That is rather conveniently selective of you, and kind of doesn't make me feel like you're engaging the conversation in good faith, to be honest. But here,

It been a long held rule that promotional material is not canon. Canon is filmed Trek authorized by the copyright holder. Books, both fiction and non fiction are not canon. Even TAS isn't canon.



[

URL="http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/11/a-scientist-explains-why-the-enterprise-cant-go-underwater/"]have some science.[/URL]

Note in particular something he says that I think is very worth paying attention to:

I suppose you could technobabble your way out of any criticism like this with structural integrity fields and blah, blah, blah, but come on - that's the sort of thing that eventually killed the TNG-era run of Trek. If we're already at that point two movies into the reboot, we're in real trouble.

You won't like this, but blog entries with quotes from a scientist aren't canon either. I asked for in-universe evidence that a starship can't operate in an atmosphere. That they would break apart trying to enter the atmosphere. The "incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon" evidence you mentioned.

The statement you quoted seems to want to dismiss the pseudo-science in Star Trek, though in a selective manner. If we are tossing out "structural integrity fields" why not transporters, universal translators, artificial gravity and warp drive too? It's a house of cards really.

This quote made me chuckle

Matt Jefferies' original design was a true spaceship, and all the design elements were focused around a ship harnessing powerful and dangerous forces to travel between stars.

I'm not sure how much thought Jeffries put into the Enterprise's space worthiness. It's basically a mash-up of the two prevalent space ship designs of the 50s and 60s: the rocket and the saucer. And as others wiser than me have pointed out the struts the nacelles sit on might as well be Papier Mâché. It's a good looking design from a visual standpoint but I'm wary of it's engineering.

This scientist argument rests on Trek's ships being built with 21st Century technology. No futuristic metals, no shields, no structural integrity fields, no anti grav tech... well you get the idea. We do know that the Delta Flyer and the NX-01 managed to survive the atmospheric pressure of gas giants. Which even at higher altitudes might have more pressure than the Nibiru ocean.

And "bad ass digest" just isn't a source I can take seriously. Which is petty of me, I know.