• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

General Trek Questions and Observations

I want to know the Great Untold Story of Lieutenant Leslie. Killed as dead as a rock in Obsession only to reappear later alive and well. Hugh Culber had the mycelial network, Spock had the Genesis device, Shaxs had the Black Mountain and three faceless apparitions of his father. But what's Leslie's story?

I know that there was an unfilmed scene in which McCoy would find a miracle cure for the red shirts, and that explanation works as well as any, but it's not as fun as coming up with some sort of existential epic. ;)
 
I want to know the Great Untold Story of Lieutenant Leslie. Killed as dead as a rock in Obsession only to reappear later alive and well. Hugh Culber had the mycelial network, Spock had the Genesis device, Shaxs had the Black Mountain and three faceless apparitions of his father. But what's Leslie's story?
1)Romulans messed up the timeline
2)the first one was a LMD
3)Mother Talzin
4)he was only mostly dead
 
I want to know the Great Untold Story of Lieutenant Leslie. Killed as dead as a rock in Obsession only to reappear later alive and well. Hugh Culber had the mycelial network, Spock had the Genesis device, Shaxs had the Black Mountain and three faceless apparitions of his father. But what's Leslie's story?

I know that there was an unfilmed scene in which McCoy would find a miracle cure for the red shirts, and that explanation works as well as any, but it's not as fun as coming up with some sort of existential epic. ;)
There's a million of them
5Z0zC1x.jpg
 
How far does holodeck simulation go?

Would the holodeck be able to recreate a game like any of the Forza Horizon games, and would the cars be real, and if the cars are real would any pollution from racing be real?

I just wonder how far simulations would go in regards to the holodeck and how much could re replicated for real without being actual holograms? For example could you recreate a real car if you wanted to say learn about them, or any other kind of earth vehicle from the past?
 
I just wonder how far simulations would go in regards to the holodeck and how much could re replicated for real without being actual holograms? For example could you recreate a real car if you wanted to say learn about them, or any other kind of earth vehicle from the past?

Tom Paris was working on a 1969 Camaro on the holodeck.

As long as the safetys functioned properly harmful pollutants would not be produced.
 
How far does holodeck simulation go?

Would the holodeck be able to recreate a game like any of the Forza Horizon games, and would the cars be real, and if the cars are real would any pollution from racing be real?

I just wonder how far simulations would go in regards to the holodeck and how much could re replicated for real without being actual holograms? For example could you recreate a real car if you wanted to say learn about them, or any other kind of earth vehicle from the past?
Just far enough to almost kill you.
 
Tom Paris was working on a 1969 Camaro on the holodeck.

As long as the safetys functioned properly harmful pollutants would not be produced.

Then Forza Horizon 5 it is....... only set it so you can win almost every race and no rubber banding, cheating AI.

Next I'd play Horizon Zero Dawn
 
Matt Jeffries concept was the nacelles were self contained. His idea originated from the WWII bombers where the power came from each turbine. The rotating red caps on the nacelles evoked the idea of rotating propellers.
I'm quite sure there were no turboprop bombers in World War II.
 
But there were turbochargers. Also superchargers. There was a British Mathematician whose specialty was computational fluid dynamics - before computers. Who took one look at what had to be done with either system and jettisoned the turbochargers due to the bulk of the ducting required for them to work. He went instead to the mechanical supercharger, but two of them on a single drive shaft. What this meant for the Supermarine Spitfire, was that this fighter plane was no longer a low to medium attitude fighter, but could now handle high attitude. Thus, becoming a truly effective fighter.

But why not the turbocharger? First off the ducting. But secondly the weight of the turbo/compresser system, which as you now know was too heavy to be easily spun up unless the engine was at a high throttle setting. Then there was the problem of highly compressed air...being too hot, requiring "intercoolers" to cool it down for usability. Exploding your engine is a bad idea...

The point being that high energy systems should have similar problems. Hence Scotty.
 
But there were turbochargers. Also superchargers. There was a British Mathematician whose specialty was computational fluid dynamics - before computers. Who took one look at what had to be done with either system and jettisoned the turbochargers due to the bulk of the ducting required for them to work. He went instead to the mechanical supercharger, but two of them on a single drive shaft. What this meant for the Supermarine Spitfire, was that this fighter plane was no longer a low to medium attitude fighter, but could now handle high attitude. Thus, becoming a truly effective fighter.

But why not the turbocharger? First off the ducting. But secondly the weight of the turbo/compresser system, which as you now know was too heavy to be easily spun up unless the engine was at a high throttle setting. Then there was the problem of highly compressed air...being too hot, requiring "intercoolers" to cool it down for usability. Exploding your engine is a bad idea...

The point being that high energy systems should have similar problems. Hence Scotty.
With the P47, the Americans said, why not both?
aea4f68bbd489e9845cf8b33207edc97-3543541088.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top