Give and take regarding the younger fans
- Thread starter Ampris
- Start date
- Status
I'll thank you not to assume that just because I don't care about this stuff that I do not know about it. I did, in fact, express that view in terms of serving the story, not what I find more believeable nor your twisted sense of what's appropriate and what isn't.
No, some Trekkies' assumption.
NASA has to work with limitations. Fanaticals claim there are no limitations in Star Trek as it is a perfect Genetopia society, therefore, they would have no problems building the ship on the ground and getting it up into space.
the face of.... nothing worth worrying about.
When that scene comes up, I'm going to boo and throw Raisinets at the screen.
Look, in Trek's world, the Enterprise is one of the SMALLER things being built for outer space. There are space stations up there that must be two miles or more across. Now, I would roll my eyes and say, "Fail," at the prospect of those being built (entirely) on the ground.
So, maybe it's an issue of scale. Maybe it's easier or more efficient economically to build a ship the size of the Enterprise on the ground and ferry it up into space somehow. I mean I can buy that. That explanation (rationalization) works for me, at least.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
I'm pretty sure that backs up the second half of my post
...again, you're talking about clips. CLIPS! Something that's been drawn to gathering (shock and horror) a GENERAL audience as well as the inner clique of nerds who'll go regardless.
You bypassed the story I mentioned and headed straight for science. Something which we haven't seen anything of, aside from story points no more ridicukous or unscientific than anything seen in TOS. Which to be fair is expected, things age and date and you can often tell the age of a sci fi by the science theory behind it. Just as much as you can tell by the set design, or the props.
There is no story, friend, THAT's the PROBLEM! Visuals and science or lack there of depicted in it, make or break a SCIENCE FICTION story or film. I watch Lord of the Rings, or some other piece of fantasy my mind is on zero and don't care if it could function like that, or if it's just bullshit. When however one watches Science Fiction like Star Trek, one's mind is ON. It's the whole point of Science Fiction; to explore possible future science and the universe we might find there, how it may impact our world; it's all about thought, about using your mind, actively on to let it impact you thus. The moment something is used that breaks all believability, the moment your thrown out of the story; the story no longer matters; it's broken.
One looks at something as ridiculous as a ship being built on the ground, for the world Star Trek is supposed to be, it breaks it; and the rest of the story, no longer matters; not to mention that for it to work, Star Trek would have to become a distopian horror, instead of a positive future.
Your story doesn't work, if it is not believable. The story no longer matters. It's the moment you reach the "you've got to be ffing shitting me moment" when you close the book, and toss it out the window.
Not to mention; that it tramples and destroys the major them / story of Star Trek; namely a positive future.
When that scene comes up, I'm going to boo and throw Raisinets at the screen.
Look, in Trek's world, the Enterprise is one of the SMALLER things being built for outer space. There are space stations up there that must be two miles or more across. Now, I would roll my eyes and say, "Fail," at the prospect of those being built (entirely) on the ground.
So, maybe it's an issue of scale. Maybe it's easier or more efficient economically to build a ship the size of the Enterprise on the ground and ferry it up into space somehow. I mean I can buy that. That explanation (rationalization) works for me, at least.
And if you understand what space is, and is not; you'll know it isn't, and never will be; especially considering all the materials you'll have to bring from outer space down toward the planet, instead of keeping it simply in space.
Not to mention; what do you think all those massive space stations, are for, eh?
Nothing? They just sit there empty? Cause that's about the only way you could say that building something on the ground might be more efficient: if there's not enough people in space to build those ships; which means all those massive space stations would have to be: EMPTY.
You have people living in these space stations; you have people that are intimately familiar with living and breathing in space, people who would need jobs... building space ships perhaps? They seem to be pretty perfectly equipped to do so. Making use of this population, would make building in space only more efficient.
Last edited:
You're way too far gone and way too biased.
Any sense of realism went out the window when I first saw the transporter and shields, and you're just now talking about "possible future" over something as trivial as building ships on the ground?
This movie isn't for you, and I hope I don't see you in theaters when May 8th comes.
Any sense of realism went out the window when I first saw the transporter and shields, and you're just now talking about "possible future" over something as trivial as building ships on the ground?
This movie isn't for you, and I hope I don't see you in theaters when May 8th comes.
In "Star Trek's" time, human beings have complete control over the effects of mass and inertia. They also have unlimited energy sources.
If either of those things aren't true, Trek's starflight technology can not work as depicted.
So, they can do pretty much anything they like. Case closed.
If either of those things aren't true, Trek's starflight technology can not work as depicted.
So, they can do pretty much anything they like. Case closed.
Why you guys still bother arguing with 3DMaster about the "ship built on the ground" thing or any other thing for that matter, I'll never know...
That would be so cool! Especially if they sparked like bugs hitting a bug zapper.
Polaris has it right in the end. (I probably could've phrased that better.) It's fiction, and technology has more or less been adapted to the story in Trek from time to time, and we don't have to (and can't) like everything. Just in the movies, if I can believe Project Genesis and the crash-landing of the Enterprise saucer in GEN, I can take almost anything.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Which is the reason why building in space makes it so incredibly much more safer and efficient than building it on the ground.
Makes no difference at all, actually. They can build it on Earth and lift it into space, build it in space and land it - whatever they want.
So where they build it is a matter of convenience and might just as well be dictated by non-engineering considerations altogether. Right now, why some planes get built in Washington and some in Alabama has relatively little to do with engineering - though the folks who work for different companies will insist otherwise.
Since where the Enterprise was constructed has never been a part of the onscreen continuity, that's the least of considerations.
So where they build it is a matter of convenience and might just as well be dictated by non-engineering considerations altogether. Right now, why some planes get built in Washington and some in Alabama has relatively little to do with engineering - though the folks who work for different companies will insist otherwise.
Since where the Enterprise was constructed has never been a part of the onscreen continuity, that's the least of considerations.
How do you figure that???
QFT, and yet, a lot of the completely made up, unscientific rubbish (that still makes a good story) that I mentioned upthread is part of continuity, but apparently gets a free pass. It makes no sense.
Stuff's grandfathered in, which is cool - basically, if it was good enough conceptually for TOS I'm fine with it. That doesn't mean that there's a reason to get bent out of shape when something's changed or improved, though.
It's entertaining.
Yeah that makes sense - its just pretending that Star Trek is a deadly serious, scientifically accurate show that's also filled with Romans and Nazis and Abraham Lincoln that confuses me.
Note, this might come off as sounding like I don't like Star Trek. I do, I think its brilliant, and better than all of the modern Treks, but I'm under no illusions about its fidelity to science.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Which means you build it in space, because that is the most convenient. You have a large, existing, already trained workforce there of the days starships needed to be built in space before all the technology allowed you to build it anywhere; it's safer - there's precious little in space that can hurt you, and the only thing that can seriously hurt you navigational shields will completely block, all other things are extremely slow killers that you can be easily saved from; something breaks down, nothing really happens.
Something breaks down on Earth though; that ship or parts of it comes crashing down with 9.81 m/s^2, and on Earth if you are careless a moment, and you stumble, you fall to your death in less than a few seconds; in space, no such problems.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
