My Grievances of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

[SeerSGB]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Ok, you guys have really got me on my window grievance. I understand where you all are coming from. (As I earlier admitted, I feel really really stupid for not considering the other ship windows.)

But theres the problem I have that a sudden burst of light (explosion etc. ) blinding the bridge crew during a serious situation. Its hard to operate a starship's controls when everything is whited out. And if no form of radiation got through the transparent aluminum, then you would not be able to see out of it, because no light would be coming in(its a type of radiation). BUt say thats the only radiation coming through, a sudden burst of light can blind the crew, even momentarily. (Captain Robou activates the "Sunglass"...even after the crew has been staring at the close sun the few minutes it takes him to get to the bridge.) I just think that the bridge is the one place you do not want a window. (I also had a problem with the top of the bridge in TNG being a window also-so its not just a NuTrek thing)

Old school tech: Polarized windows. Combine that with the ship's sensors and bingo problem solved.

And even using a view screen, the crew would get flash blinded in TOS

 

[Mycroft Maxwell]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

And even using a view screen, the crew would get flash blinded in TOS

Wow, you know I forgot about that-sad considering that was the first TOS episode I ever owned on VHS.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Ok, you guys have really got me on my window grievance. I understand where you all are coming from. (As I earlier admitted, I feel really really stupid for not considering the other ship windows.)

But theres the problem I have that a sudden burst of light (explosion etc. ) blinding the bridge crew during a serious situation. Its hard to operate a starship's controls when everything is whited out. And if no form of radiation got through the transparent aluminum, then you would not be able to see out of it, because no light would be coming in(its a type of radiation). BUt say thats the only radiation coming through, a sudden burst of light can blind the grew, even momentarily. (Captain Robou activates the "Sunglass"...even after the crew has been staring at the close sun the few minutes it takes him to get to the bridge.) I just think that the bridge is the one place you do not want a window. (I also had a problem with the top of the bridge in TNG being a window also-so its not just a NuTrek thing)

We've seen that very scenario. A big explosion. The entire crew covers their eyes. The light from the explosion recedes. The crew goes back to work. That's how Star Trek works. Same for your radiation theory. Starfleet tech allows for the bad stuff to be filtered out and the good stuff to go in and out.

So your "Greivence" is with Star Trek in general not NuTrek.

So windows are off the list. Fencing is off the list. Spock and Uhura are off the list. April is off the list. The launch date is off the list. What's left?

Ah, The "inconvenience" of building it on the ground. It's very convenient for the workers. No worries about things like breathing, Freedom of movement. Also gravity is under total control in the 23rd Century and can be turned off with the flip of a switch. One UFP member has cities that float in the air!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

And even using a view screen, the crew would get flash blinded in TOS

Wow, you know I forgot about that-sad considering that was the first TOS episode I ever owned on VHS.

What you forgot and don't know is getting to be quite a list.

 

[SeerSGB]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Ok, you guys have really got me on my window grievance. I understand where you all are coming from. (As I earlier admitted, I feel really really stupid for not considering the other ship windows.)

But theres the problem I have that a sudden burst of light (explosion etc. ) blinding the bridge crew during a serious situation. Its hard to operate a starship's controls when everything is whited out. And if no form of radiation got through the transparent aluminum, then you would not be able to see out of it, because no light would be coming in(its a type of radiation). BUt say thats the only radiation coming through, a sudden burst of light can blind the grew, even momentarily. (Captain Robou activates the "Sunglass"...even after the crew has been staring at the close sun the few minutes it takes him to get to the bridge.) I just think that the bridge is the one place you do not want a window. (I also had a problem with the top of the bridge in TNG being a window also-so its not just a NuTrek thing)

We've seen that very scenario. A big explosion. The entire crew covers their eyes. The light from the explosion recedes. The crew goes back to work. That's how Star Trek works. Same for your radiation theory. Starfleet tech allows for the bad stuff to be filtered out and the good stuff to go in and out.

So your "Greivence" is with Star Trek in general not NuTrek.

So windows are off the list. Fencing is off the list. Spock and Uhura are off the list. April is off the list. The launch date is off the list. What's left?

Ah, The "inconvenience" of building it on the ground. It's very convenient for the workers. No worries about things like breathing, Freedom of movement. Also gravity is under total control in the 23rd Century and can be turned off with the flip of a switch. One UFP member has cities that float in the air!

And it's not a new concept: "Flag Full Of Stars" (TOS novel) has the saucer section detached and refitted on Earth cause it would be easier to do the work on Earth; TNG "Paraelles" shows a Galaxy class ship under construction on the surface of Mars.

Edit: I had my copy of the Making Of Star Trek handy: Looks like building part of the ship on the surface and ferrying them into orbit was in the original ideas for the Enterprise's back story.

Giving anti-grave tech and the like, building a whole ship dirt side wouldn't be that hard

 

[trevanian]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Doing rebuilds on the part that does not have the warp drive in it on the ground is one thing (and I think such a move would be more of a PR stunt than a matter of practicality given how many people would by then be totally at ease working and playing in zero-gee and could work faster without gravity in the way, to say nothing of the advantages of zero-gee fabrication, which we've already gotten a taste of), building the whole thing with its m/am whoosiwhatsis on the ground has enormous potential for calamity.

Maybe that is why they do it in Iowa instead of SF, because it'll just be another huge hole in the ground if things go wrong, like the thing Kirk almost falls into during the car chase? Starfleet - protecting our borders, while leaving the homeland pockmarked with memories of OOPS!moment warp experiments in gravity wells.

It'd be interesting to see how many of the built-it-on-the-ground-is-fine-because-it-is-the-future-and-energy-is-free folks grew up as much on STAR WARS as TREK. Seems the generation that saw SW before 2001 (if they saw the latter at all) is much more inclined to give more credence to the fantasy aspect than anything even vaguely science-based (and they were, I suppose, rewarded with the starship SEAVIEW earlier this year.)

 

[SeerSGB]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Doing rebuilds on the part that does not have the warp drive in it on the ground is one thing (and I think such a move would be more of a PR stunt than a matter of practicality given how many people would by then be totally at ease working and playing in zero-gee and could work faster without gravity in the way, to say nothing of the advantages of zero-gee fabrication, which we've already gotten a taste of), building the whole thing with its m/am whoosiwhatsis on the ground has enormous potential for calamity.

Maybe that is why they do it in Iowa instead of SF, because it'll just be another huge hole in the ground if things go wrong, like the thing Kirk almost falls into during the car chase? Starfleet - protecting our borders, while leaving the homeland pockmarked with memories of OOPS!moment warp experiments in gravity wells.

It'd be interesting to see how many of the built-it-on-the-ground-is-fine-because-it-is-the-future-and-energy-is-free folks grew up as much on STAR WARS as TREK. Seems the generation that saw SW before 2001 (if they saw the latter at all) is much more inclined to give more credence to the fantasy aspect than anything even vaguely science-based (and they were, I suppose, rewarded with the starship SEAVIEW earlier this year.)

Maybe the core isn't fueled until the ship is tractored into orbit?

Only TOS treated energy as being a concern. From the movies forward, it wasn't a thing to worry about most times. Maybe once in a while when plot demanded, but other wise they never worried about it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

I was born in 1950s and saw Trek in the 60s and Wars in the 70s. So count me as a Trek first guy. And I saw 2001 when I was ten.

The hole in Iowa is a quarry.

We've no idea if an active warp drive was on the ship when at the Riverside shipyard. As I said they probably lifted the ship into space using Ardanese tech.

The workers are safer in Iowa than in orbit, no matter how skilled they are in zero g construction.

 

[Opus]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Everyone seems concerned about radiation from the damn windows, but apparently not concerned about workers exposed to radiation while working in space.

 

[SeerSGB]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Everyone seems concerned about radiation from the damn windows, but apparently not concerned about workers exposed to radiation while working in space.

Apparently there's no unions in the 23rd century. Can you imagine the shit storm over worker safety.

 

[Mycroft Maxwell]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Apparently there's no unions in the 23rd century. Can you imagine the shit storm over worker safety.

Yeah, those Redshirt would have formed a union ...that would have been disasterous XD

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

It'd be interesting to see how many of the built-it-on-the-ground-is-fine-because-it-is-the-future-and-energy-is-free folks grew up as much on STAR WARS as TREK.

It's been done, many times over. The notion that approval or disapproval of starships built on the ground is dictated by an age divide has been shown to be false - each and every time it's come up.

Seems the generation that saw SW before 2001 (if they saw the latter at all) is much more inclined to give more credence to the fantasy aspect than anything even vaguely science-based (and they were, I suppose, rewarded with the starship SEAVIEW earlier this year.)

And no, everyone's just fine on the lawn, right where they are.

... huge [OOPS!moment warp experiment] hole in the ground... like the thing Kirk almost falls into during the car chase...

The sign at the gate read "Danger - open quarry". Eastern Iowa has lots of quarries - for limestone, mostly.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

People call me a hater.

1.Lensflares- This is my most pressing issue.

I'm sorry but this is extremely funny.

 

[Kemaiku]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

You can see inside the nacelles while she's in the Riverside shipyard, and the coil mechanisms are in there, fully equipped. Also, why they would be welding the nacelles shut when they'd have to painstakingly skin them again to put the engines in then incase them *again* taking months is pointless.

She was built entirely on the ground and used the same antigravity system that took over from the thrusters in Into Darkness when she powered up.

Apparently, this causes no problems for Starfleet or the dockyards.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

No, he joined around 10 years after the date these movies occur.

This is a reboot. Chekov can join Starfleet anytime the writers like.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

1.Lensflares- A fair point to be sure. It doesn't bother me at all, but I can see why it would bother others. But! If it would make you feel better, JJ admits he has a problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNGMTcD_jY

2. TRANWARP TRANSPORTER- As another poster pointed out, without the destination known is basically makes exploration impossible. Also I thought they established in the first film that it wasn't exactly 100% safe either (ie Scotty materializing in the tube).

3. Cadet to Captain? - True, but it's a super hero origin story. Kirk saved the earth with that crew and that ship and in that logic it works, in the real world..... of course not. As much is Trek is a look at what could be, it is still really, really fake.

4. Windows - I think others have touched on it. But yeah maybe they have super futuristic space glass that protects them from such things....

5. Spock and Uhura.... Alternate timeline. Perhaps the flirty stuff we saw on TOS was just a shadow of a relationship they did have and never touched on (I mean do you think in the 60s they'd have a white guy in a relationship with an African American woman?), but this is an alternate timeline and that relationship did happen. I don't really see it as out of character at all, if they are the same people at their core, but slightly different otherwise.

6. Chekov - See above.... Alternate timeline. Different past events will ultimately change who you are.

7.Supernova- Superduper Nova. Honestly they just put it in laymen's terms so everyone can grasp the severity (see: 'load up your super ice cube'). They are trying to avoid getting over technical.

8.DRILL- Probably not, but the drilling and dropping it in the planets core feels more evil to me.

9.SUPER DUPER DUPER SPEED. Two words: Jump Cut. "A jump cut is a cut in film editing in which two sequential shots of the same subject are taken from camera positions that vary only slightly. This type of edit gives the effect of jumping forwards in time. It is a manipulation of temporal space using the duration of a single shot, and fracturing the duration to move the audience ahead."

10. The Enterprise - April only really existed in the cartoon, and he was featured in the comic book series leading up to this film, and Bob Orci said at one point they were even considering him as a potential character.

Outside of that Alternate Timeline, the Enterprise was built at a different time because history was altered. As for the size, my guess is that was stylistic choices that wanted to show just how big the ship was.

11. Fencing - Already been tackled.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

^That's some pretty foolish stuff. Building the shuttle on the ground has NOTHING to do with building a starship there.

Why not? A starship is just a spaceship the size of an aircraft carrier. We build aircraft carriers on the ground too.

The window business is equally stupid. The orbiter is essentially operated like an aircraft, of course it has windows.

So is the Enterprise, it turns out.

Why don't you link to a bunch of photographs of real operations centers that have got bright lights shining in the crew's eyes too, while you're at it?

Here's one.

Here's another.

How's this?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

But theres the problem I have that a sudden burst of light (explosion etc. ) blinding the bridge crew during a serious situation. Its hard to operate a starship's controls when everything is whited out.

It's even harder to operate the controls when somebody shoot a gigantic hole in the bridge. This begs the question of why the bridge is situated on top of the saucer in the first place.

At least the window finally gives us a logical reason for the bridge location: it's on the top of the saucer because the crew needs to be able to see outside with the naked eye. If you don't put a window on the bridge, you'd have no reason to leave it exposed to space in the first place and could stick it deep inside the saucer behind layers of armor plating and shock absorbers.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

Not the same Egg, not the same Sperm. Basically this Pavel is as much Pavel, as Pavel's older brother would be. So in essence, this Chekov is Pavel's older brother that ended up being named Pavel.

And that's why, in "The Day of the Dove", Pavel was so easily able to be convinced that the Klingons had murdered his older brother, Piotr. Phantom memories of alternate timelines.

 

[austen_pierce]

Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater...

But theres the problem I have that a sudden burst of light (explosion etc. ) blinding the bridge crew during a serious situation. Its hard to operate a starship's controls when everything is whited out.

It's even harder to operate the controls when somebody shoot a gigantic hole in the bridge. This begs the question of why the bridge is situated on top of the saucer in the first place.

At least the window finally gives us a logical reason for the bridge location: it's on the top of the saucer because the crew needs to be able to see outside with the naked eye. If you don't put a window on the bridge, you'd have no reason to leave it exposed to space in the first place and could stick it deep inside the saucer behind layers of armor plating and shock absorbers.

I think you're talking about Battlestar Galactica.