Details of 9 Minute Preview Revealed *SPOILERS*

[SalvorHardin]

It's interesting that on and off the "internets," there is so much controversy as to weather a star ship can go underwater. In the Voyager Episode Thirty Days, Paris takes the Delta Flyer underwater for a protracted period of time. So why couldn't another ship also go underwater?

There might be a difference between a Delta Flyer and a big starship.

Yes there is.
The starhip has more powerful shields & hull structure, so it's even easier to withstand the underwater pressure.

But this is "a starship built on the ground???" 2.0, and the suggested solution there has been "it's on screen, it's canon, shut the fuck up". So I know already how this debate will end.

Actually, there have been plenty of solutions & explanations given over the years by people here, you just chose to conveniently ignore them. So we already know how this new debate will end too.

 

[indranee]

but what about the Constitution class ships?

 

[JarodRussell]

Yes there is.
The starhip has more powerful shields & hull structure, so it's even easier to withstand the underwater pressure.

Cool story, bro.












Haha, always wanted to say that. Let's just agree to disagree here. Have fun with the film. I'll wait for the free TV or the youtube or something.

 

[urbandk]

on issue of operability underwater, wouldn't it make sense that a spaceship impervious to vacuum and other extreme conditions could probably hack it underwater?

 

[EyalM]

Can someone explain why the enterprise can't operate underwater?
I keep seeing reasons to why it can, but not to why it can't.

 

[Icemizer]

Great more forced humor. Hopefully Scotty still has his metal eyeball midget from the last movie. That made for some great scenes(groan). Perhaps we will get lucky and we get all the "humor" out in the first nine minuets.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Because grown men in pyjamas in space is SERIOUS BUISNESS!

 

[Flake]

In the ep where the enterprise flies into a giant space amoeba, surely whilst inside it is flying through plasma/fluid etc? The stuff that is inside a cell! So even TOS-Ent has been submerged before.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Cool story, bro.

Haha, always wanted to say that.

How sad for you...

I also like how this throws to the garbage bin TNG's approach of "we must stand by while the pre-warp aliens are horribly killed due to the prime directive".

Kirk gets in some trouble with Pike for one thing that he does here.

I think the enterprise is on a starfleet sanctioned mission, otherwise it wouldn't be there.

O-kay...

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Do we know for sure the villain is canon? I mean, what if they are all fucking with us in terms of THAT info?

Well, he is now.

 

[Robert_T_April]

[/QUOTE]
One preview said that Cumberbatch's mystery villain approached the family at the hospital offering "healing abilities" to help with their daughter. Which character, if they are, from the series had those kind of powers or access to them?[/QUOTE]

Lord Garth

 

[urbandk]

Garth of Izod. Maybe there will be a Lacoste tie-in.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One preview said that Cumberbatch's mystery villain approached the family at the hospital offering "healing abilities" to help with their daughter. Which character, if they are, from the series had those kind of powers or access to them?

Lord Garth

Nope.

 

[The Doctor]

Much like Trek '09, this sounds like so much fun! A rescue mission, a light moral quandary before lunch and Kirk in trouble with his superiors. I like it.

 

[Vektor]

You know, given the state of starship technology presented in the Trek universe all the way from the days of the Original Series, the ability to withstand incredible forces of gravity acceleration, pressure, etc, there's really nothing implausible about the Enterprise being built on Earth or being able to go underwater.

In the TOS episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday," the Enterprise was cruising around in Earth's atmosphere only a few thousand feet above ground and slowly enough for a jet fighter to briefly keep up with it. Granted, they weren't there on purpose and they made it sound like it was something they would generally prefer not to do, but it does establish that the Enterprise will not actually collapse under its own weight in planetary gravity, that it can achieve orbit without being built there and so forth.

Certainly the questions can be asked, "Why build an enormous space-going vessel on the surface of a planet?" or "Why hide an enormous space-going vessel underwater from a primitive culture incapable of detecting it in orbit?" but the ability to do either of those things within the established technology of the Trek universe isn't really in question.

 

[DarthTom]

Certainly the questions can be asked, "Why build an enormous space-going vessel on the surface of a planet?" or "Why hide an enormous space-going vessel underwater from a primitive culture incapable of detecting it in orbit?" but the ability to do either of those things within the established technology of the Trek universe isn't really in question.

Well the simple answer to both is they are visually awesome for a film goer to see, and Abrams is concerned with producing and directing bankable and popular Trek that appeals to those outside of the traditional Trek fan-kingdom.

 

[Franklin]

You know, given the state of starship technology presented in the Trek universe all the way from the days of the Original Series, the ability to withstand incredible forces of gravity acceleration, pressure, etc, there's really nothing implausible about the Enterprise being built on Earth or being able to go underwater.

In the TOS episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday," the Enterprise was cruising around in Earth's atmosphere only a few thousand feet above ground and slowly enough for a jet fighter to briefly keep up with it. Granted, they weren't there on purpose and they made it sound like it was something they would generally prefer not to do, but it does establish that the Enterprise will not actually collapse under its own weight in planetary gravity, that it can achieve orbit without being built there and so forth.

Certainly the questions can be asked, "Why build an enormous space-going vessel on the surface of a planet?" or "Why hide an enormous space-going vessel underwater from a primitive culture incapable of detecting it in orbit?" but the ability to do either of those things within the established technology of the Trek universe isn't really in question.

Yep.
Today, there are non-aerodynamic military aircraft that fly and maneuver as they do only because of on-board computers. Without them, they're rocks.
By extrapolation, why should the ability of a 23rd century starship to fly in the atmosphere, or even go underwater, be seriously questioned? Silly? Maybe. Plausible? Why not?

 

[M'Sharak]

I agree with Vektor's assessment.

After watching it, some of my 'fears' have been dismissed. I still have one or two niggling in the back of my mind, but of course have to watch the film first before passing judgement. Cumberbatch seems suitably menacing.

 

[RAMA]

One good thing...the reviews are almost all positive or even raves so far...we have space, scale, intimacy, family, space battles and Cumberbatch!

RAMA

 

[Shilliam Watner]

I mean, hide behind a moon? Geosynchronous orbit above a sparsely populated pole? Or in orbit but just outside of visual or telescopic range? But no. Hide in the ocean of the planet your covertly visiting. Its stupid.... but cool? Doesn't sit well with me thats for sure :P

Oh well :/

Well.....maybe since the planet is having volcanic problems, the Enterprise is needed underwater to use its phasers at close range to drill down and open up some faults to release pressure from the volcanic magma in order to save the planet. As a geologist myself, it would seem likely.