Official Trailer Review & Comments Thread!! [Spoilers, of course]

[JuanBolio]

I think the ship would probably be finished in space, to make sure the hull is air-tight and calibrate it for space.

I like TGT's explanation that what we saw in the trailer was an all-up systems test before being broken down into component sections, boosted into orbit, assembled, and completed.

Correct me if I'm wrong

- Assuming an impule engine can accelerate the Enterprise to c/2, whre c is the speed of light.

- Assuming the Enterprise has 600,000 metric tonnes, which is 6.0 x 10^11 g, the energy required to get it into a 36,000 Km orbit is:

delta Eg = Eg (orbit) - Eg (ground), where Eg = Gravitational Potential Energy

Given:
Radius of Earth = 6,378 km ~= 6.4 x 10^6 m
Orbit = 3.6 x 10^7 m

= mgh (orbit ) - mgh (ground) = mg(hg - ho)

= 6x10^11g * 9.81 m/s/s * ( 3.6 x 10^7 m - 6.4 x 10^6 m)
Eg= 1.74 x 10^20 J

Withoug going into relativity, and using simple kinematics (v =c/2, rlativistic effects can be ignored), to get the Enterprise from rest velocity to c/2 we need the following energy:

Ek = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*m*(c/2)^2 = 0.125*m*c^2 = 6.75 x 10^27
Ek = 6.75 x 10^27 J

Now, as you can see the energy required to get to half the speed of light is 10 million times grater than to get into standard geosyncronous orbit. Think about that.

Also consider the fact that firing an engine like that on the Earth's surface would lay waste to a vast area of land, to say nothing about the radiation a sustained fusion reaction would put out.

 

[sebialex]

I don't know what impulse technology is, I just remember reading somewhere that impulse engines were capable of c/2 velocities. I just wanted to show that the Enterprise is capable of producing the required energy to get into orbit.

What if they went to warp directly from earth? In every episode that I've seen ships have gone to warp a couple of km away from other ships, without damaging them. Why not in atmo?

 

[Psion]

I think the ship would probably be finished in space, to make sure the hull is air-tight and calibrate it for space.

I like TGT's explanation that what we saw in the trailer was an all-up systems test before being broken down into component sections, boosted into orbit, assembled, and completed.

I do too, but I don't think that's what we'll actually see. It'll be launched as one unit from the surface, taking off on anti-grav like the big Republic Star Destroyers did in the Star Wars prequels. Given the existence of such technology, I won't spit out "Boulderdash!" when the scene plays, but I'll probably frown a bit and shake my head at the sadly limited vision of the folks who planned such a sequence.

 

[Starfury]

Correct me if I'm wrong

- Assuming an impule engine can accelerate the Enterprise to c/2, whre c is the speed of light.

- Assuming the Enterprise has 600,000 metric tonnes, which is 6.0 x 10^11 g, the energy required to get it into a 36,000 Km orbit is:

delta Eg = Eg (orbit) - Eg (ground), where Eg = Gravitational Potential Energy

Given:
Radius of Earth = 6,378 km ~= 6.4 x 10^6 m
Orbit = 3.6 x 10^7 m

= mgh (orbit ) - mgh (ground) = mg(hg - ho)

= 6x10^11g * 9.81 m/s/s * ( 3.6 x 10^7 m - 6.4 x 10^6 m)
Eg= 1.74 x 10^20 J

Withoug going into relativity, and using simple kinematics (v =c/2, rlativistic effects can be ignored), to get the Enterprise from rest velocity to c/2 we need the following energy:

Ek = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*m*(c/2)^2 = 0.125*m*c^2 = 6.75 x 10^27
Ek = 6.75 x 10^27 J

Now, as you can see the energy required to get to half the speed of light is 10 million times grater than to get into standard geosyncronous orbit. Think about that.

Thank you. I'm terribly frightened now. 8[

 

[JuanBolio]

I don't know what impulse technology is, I just remember reading somewhere that impulse engines were capable of c/2 velocities. I just wanted to show that the Enterprise is capable of producing the required energy to get into orbit.

What if they went to warp directly from earth? In every episode that I've seen ships have gone to warp a couple of km away from other ships, without damaging them. Why not in atmo?

Because warp drive warps the fabric of space. It doesn't thrust. Remember the scene in the first episode of Firefly where they turn on their main drive in the atmosphere of Whitefall and burn the Reaver ship to a crisp in a big thermonuclear blast? Yeah - impulse in an atmosphere would be like that, only more. IF its a reaction drive.

 

[ancient]

No ... underestimating. Capiche?

No capiche. You compared it to making Kirk bullet-proof - i.e. turning it into a looney tune.

Uh ... no I didn't. Perhaps you were distracted while reading my first post. I was referring to JoeZhang's casual dismissal of technical concerns, implying that just because time travel is a story element, scientific accuracy is of little concern. If he's willing to accept one fantasy element (time travel), can we keep piling on more? After all, wouldn't a bullet-proof Kirk be cool? To put it in other terms, should we argue with a cop who is ignoring speeders that he shouldn't pull anyone over for running a red light?

I fail to see your point. Time travel is an oft-used scifi device. If Kirk were an alien I could see him being bullet-proof, but he's human. So what?

I think the ship would probably be finished in space, to make sure the hull is air-tight and calibrate it for space.

I like TGT's explanation that what we saw in the trailer was an all-up systems test before being broken down into component sections, boosted into orbit, assembled, and completed.

Taking it apart seems a totally extraneous middle step that accomplishes nothing.

Also consider the fact that firing an engine like that on the Earth's surface would lay waste to a vast area of land, to say nothing about the radiation a sustained fusion reaction would put out.

So use a tractor beam, or a thruster that just acts as a tractor beam in reverse. They don't need to use rockets.

 

[SonicRanger]

... It'll be launched as one unit from the surface, taking off on anti-grav like the big Republic Star Destroyers did in the Star Wars prequels. Given the existence of such technology, I won't spit out "Boulderdash!" when the scene plays, but I'll probably frown a bit and shake my head at the sadly limited vision of the folks who planned such a sequence.

Since gravity generators, anti-gravity devices, tractor beams, and force fields occurred throughout TOS, there should be no problem with their use in the film. You can't fault the filmmakers for using technology seen throughout TOS.

 

[JuanBolio]

Taking it apart seems a totally extraneous middle step that accomplishes nothing.

Depends. They might have payload limitations on their anti-grav boosters.

So use a tractor beam, or a thruster that just acts as a tractor beam in reverse. They don't need to use rockets.

Sure, but we were discussing using impulse engines.

 

[sebialex]

To put things in perspective:

One megaton is equivalent to 4.18 x 10^15 J
Energy required to get the Enterprise into orbit = 1.74 x 10^20 J

This is equivalent to 831 50Megatonne nukes.


Edit: I completely forgot about anti-grav. That should work, energy is certainly not a problem when antimatter reactions are possible.

 

[Captain Fine]

They didn't show the trailer with QoS when I saw it. But I have since seen it. Personally I'm really liking it so far. I can't believe how side-tracked this thread has gotten regarding where the Enterprise was built. Canonites should be accepting that it's not canon it was build ON Earth. Canon is what is shown on screen, so by definition, it's part of canon.

That said I still think Pine's Kirk is hot. And I love Scotty's line.

 

[ancient]

Taking it apart seems a totally extraneous middle step that accomplishes nothing.

Depends. They might have payload limitations on their anti-grav boosters.

I don't see any reason for this to be true.

So use a tractor beam, or a thruster that just acts as a tractor beam in reverse. They don't need to use rockets.

Sure, but we were discussing using impulse engines.

Impulse engines are kinda overkill. There's no reason they'd have to use them to make orbit.

 

[JuanBolio]

Impulse engines are kinda overkill. There's no reason they'd have to use them to make orbit.

Such was my argument.

 

[sebialex]

You know, in the end, the best place to built the Enterprise is the one that invokes the strongest emotions for the film. I was definitely mesmerized by that shot. It allows you to see the ship as you would, if it was real.

 

[Psion]

No capiche. You compared it to making Kirk bullet-proof - i.e. turning it into a looney tune.

Uh ... no I didn't. Perhaps you were distracted while reading my first post. I was referring to JoeZhang's casual dismissal of technical concerns, implying that just because time travel is a story element, scientific accuracy is of little concern. If he's willing to accept one fantasy element (time travel), can we keep piling on more? After all, wouldn't a bullet-proof Kirk be cool? To put it in other terms, should we argue with a cop who is ignoring speeders that he shouldn't pull anyone over for running a red light?

I fail to see your point. Time travel is an oft-used scifi device. If Kirk were an alien I could see him being bullet-proof, but he's human. So what?

Because it was, as I said, JoeZhang's apparent contention that the use of time-travel implied that all kinds of silly science could come into play. And to some degree, he's right. Time travel isn't just oft-used, but over-used and not exactly hard science. At least the way it's usually portrayed. But let me make sure you understand, I'm not saying it isn't Star Trek if there's time travel involved. I want to go that extra step so that you don't misunderstand me here. See everyone, I'm turning around and holding out my hands here. Star Trek can do time travel once in a while.

Oy.

... It'll be launched as one unit from the surface, taking off on anti-grav like the big Republic Star Destroyers did in the Star Wars prequels. Given the existence of such technology, I won't spit out "Boulderdash!" when the scene plays, but I'll probably frown a bit and shake my head at the sadly limited vision of the folks who planned such a sequence.

Since gravity generators, anti-gravity devices, tractor beams, and force fields occurred throughout TOS, there should be no problem with their use in the film. You can't fault the filmmakers for using technology seen throughout TOS.

No, but I can fault them for seeing only the use of the gizmos and not the consequences of the gizmos or their implications. When I see the technology presented in Star Trek, I get excited by the amazing world that must exist unseen beyond and behind that captured by the camera. Don't you?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well ... again, the ISS was assembled in space. That's a pretty good example of the future of big, space projects.

Right now that's yet to be demonstrated.

That's partially because of the implication that all industry is on the planet's surface. I'd hope that by Star Trek's time, we'd take advantage of the resources in space and begin moving industry off the planet for the good of the environment and more efficient construction. There should be facilities in close Solar orbit for antimatter generation. Mining operations on the Moon and in the asteroid belt. L4 and L5 refining operations using solar energy to melt or and manufacture alloys that can't be mixed on a planet's surface.

Roddenberry told us that Earth in the 23rd century is a garden ... a paradise. It's hard to contrast that with the notion that an interstellar empire is being supplied with materials removed from the planet's crust and refined on its surface.

Those are all inferences, however, based on a single interpretation of a few words. This kind of stuff is on a par with GR insisting that "there's no need for money" in the future. That's fine, but different people can come to very different conclusions about what kind of a world that means.

I'd be willing to bet that we'll figure out less destructive ways of getting materials out of the Earth and manufacturing "responsibly" down here centuries before we actually develop space mining and industry - if we ever do the latter.

 

[Sector 7]

Correct me if I'm wrong

- Assuming an impule engine can accelerate the Enterprise to c/2, whre c is the speed of light.

- Assuming the Enterprise has 600,000 metric tonnes, which is 6.0 x 10^11 g, the energy required to get it into a 36,000 Km orbit is:

delta Eg = Eg (orbit) - Eg (ground), where Eg = Gravitational Potential Energy

Given:
Radius of Earth = 6,378 km ~= 6.4 x 10^6 m
Orbit = 3.6 x 10^7 m

= mgh (orbit ) - mgh (ground) = mg(hg - ho)

= 6x10^11g * 9.81 m/s/s * ( 3.6 x 10^7 m - 6.4 x 10^6 m)
Eg= 1.74 x 10^20 J

Withoug going into relativity, and using simple kinematics (v =c/2, rlativistic effects can be ignored), to get the Enterprise from rest velocity to c/2 we need the following energy:

Ek = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*m*(c/2)^2 = 0.125*m*c^2 = 6.75 x 10^27
Ek = 6.75 x 10^27 J

Now, as you can see the energy required to get to half the speed of light is 10 million times grater than to get into standard geosyncronous orbit. Think about that.

To put things in perspective:

One megaton is equivalent to 4.18 x 10^15 J
Energy required to get the Enterprise into orbit = 1.74 x 10^20 J

This is equivalent to 831 50Megatonne nukes.


Edit: I completely forgot about anti-grav. That should work, energy is certainly not a problem when antimatter reactions are possible.

I haven't the slightest clue if you are right, but.... DAYUM! I nominate you for the prestigious UBER-GEEK OF THE YEAR AWARD!!
I think you out geeked all the other geeks on TrekBBS (and that is saying something).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As I mentioned further up thread, Roddenberry originally went out of his way to make the science in Star Trek as plausible as possible.

He was neither as concerned nor as successful on that score as trekkies like to pretend.

 

[Psion]

That's partially because of the implication that all industry is on the planet's surface. I'd hope that by Star Trek's time, we'd take advantage of the resources in space and begin moving industry off the planet for the good of the environment and more efficient construction. There should be facilities in close Solar orbit for antimatter generation. Mining operations on the Moon and in the asteroid belt. L4 and L5 refining operations using solar energy to melt or and manufacture alloys that can't be mixed on a planet's surface.

Roddenberry told us that Earth in the 23rd century is a garden ... a paradise. It's hard to contrast that with the notion that an interstellar empire is being supplied with materials removed from the planet's crust and refined on its surface.

Those are all inferences, however, based on a single interpretation of a few words. This kind of stuff is on a par with GR insisting that "there's no need for money" in the future. That's fine, but different people can come to very different conclusions about what kind of a world that means.

Yeah, I've never been excited by that "no need for money" nonsense. Maybe that's where *I* lack vision, because I can't imagine how a society actually works without money unless there's massive robotic assistance and the only people who work do so because they're bored out of their minds and willing to put up with all sorts of nonsense just to have a sense of purpose. If you were Sisko's dad, would you open a restaurant if you didn't get paid?

I'd be willing to bet that we'll figure out less destructive ways of getting materials out of the Earth and manufacturing "responsibly" down here centuries before we actually develop space mining and industry - if we ever do the latter.

Oh, I'm sure we'll figure out the former, and possibly well before the latter. BUT if we never achieve the latter, I just can't see how a civilization like that shown in Star Trek can ever happen. Is anti-matter produced on Earth in large quantities? One accident and Chernobyl comes out looking like a Turkish sauna.

 

[JuanBolio]

Correct me if I'm wrong

- Assuming an impule engine can accelerate the Enterprise to c/2, whre c is the speed of light.

- Assuming the Enterprise has 600,000 metric tonnes, which is 6.0 x 10^11 g, the energy required to get it into a 36,000 Km orbit is:

delta Eg = Eg (orbit) - Eg (ground), where Eg = Gravitational Potential Energy

Given:
Radius of Earth = 6,378 km ~= 6.4 x 10^6 m
Orbit = 3.6 x 10^7 m

= mgh (orbit ) - mgh (ground) = mg(hg - ho)

= 6x10^11g * 9.81 m/s/s * ( 3.6 x 10^7 m - 6.4 x 10^6 m)
Eg= 1.74 x 10^20 J

Withoug going into relativity, and using simple kinematics (v =c/2, rlativistic effects can be ignored), to get the Enterprise from rest velocity to c/2 we need the following energy:

Ek = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*m*(c/2)^2 = 0.125*m*c^2 = 6.75 x 10^27
Ek = 6.75 x 10^27 J

Now, as you can see the energy required to get to half the speed of light is 10 million times grater than to get into standard geosyncronous orbit. Think about that.

To put things in perspective:

One megaton is equivalent to 4.18 x 10^15 J
Energy required to get the Enterprise into orbit = 1.74 x 10^20 J

This is equivalent to 831 50Megatonne nukes.


Edit: I completely forgot about anti-grav. That should work, energy is certainly not a problem when antimatter reactions are possible.

I haven't the slightest clue if you are right, but.... DAYUM! I nominate you for the prestigious UBER-GEEK OF THE YEAR AWARD!!
I think you out geeked all the other geeks on TrekBBS (and that is saying something).

What about me for pointing out the implications of such power?

 

[Sector 7]

What about me for pointing out the implications of such power?

NO.