QonoS and its moon

[Set Harth]

^^Don't worry, it's not chaotic enough for Abrams standards.

And not nearly enough lens flare.

 

[Zeppster]

^^Don't worry, it's not chaotic enough for Abrams standards.

And not nearly enough lens flare.

I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.

 

[Maurice]

Of course, such gutted planets are pretty but unrealistic. The body's own gravity pull would quickly crunch the remaining hulk back into a sphere.

Well, maybe it was on its way to doing that.

I think it would happen almost immediately as the weight of miles of rock under gravity would overcome its tensile strength pretty fast, crack and fall towards the gravitational center. It might be lumpyfor a while, but it's not going to to be a half-hollow shell.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Of course, such gutted planets are pretty but unrealistic. The body's own gravity pull would quickly crunch the remaining hulk back into a sphere.

Well, maybe it was on its way to doing that.

I think it would happen almost immediately as the weight of miles of rock under gravity would overcome its tensile strength pretty fast, crack and fall towards the gravitational center. It might be lumpyfor a while, but it's not going to to be a half-hollow shell.

I guess the only thing worth adding to all this is that, in TUC, the Praxis explosion generated a subspace shock wave. There was some of that magic science fiction technology at work, to "explain" how the shock wave could so dramatically and immediately reach Excelsior, many light-years away.

So, one could apply some of that same handwavium, so that other forces, perhaps originating in subspace, are holding the moon's particles near each other in a way that conventional gravity would not. The space around the moon could be lethal; the particles not hanging in space the way they normally should could be taken as a sign to keep away. "Ill space, do not enter."

 

[throwback]

For an explosion to have a subspace shockwave, wouldn't that imply that the cause was somehow subspace related?

In ST VI, Praxis is identified as a Klingon moon.

I have thoughts about this moon.

Valtane:

Yes, sir. I have confirmed the location of Praxis, sir, but...

Sulu:

What is it?

Valtane:

I cannot confirm the existence of Praxis.

...
Rand:

Captain, I'm getting a message from Praxis.

What's happening? Some of the ship's sensors can't detect the moon, but other sensors can visualize the moon. Then there is the message from a moon that was destroyed. How did Kerla transmit from a destroyed moon that doesn't exist?

Later, in the briefing I learned, from Spock:

The moon's decimation means a deadly pollution of their ozone.

I am led to believe by some sources that the moon's explosion caused this event. Yet, wouldn't the explosion have devastated the atmosphere, by blowing a portion of it off the planet? Early, I learned that Praxis was a key energy production facility. Was this facility manufacturing a product not found elsewhere that continually replenished the ozone layer of Qo'noS? And, when this source was destroyed, the Klingons didn't have a second location for this product, and the planet would be using the reserves to replenish the ozone layer?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Rand:

Captain, I'm getting a message from Praxis.

What's happening? Some of the ship's sensors can't detect the moon, but other sensors can visualize the moon. Then there is the message from a moon that was destroyed. How did Kerla transmit from a destroyed moon that doesn't exist?

I assumed that the visualization of the whole moon was simply a computer overlay that showed where the moon would be, if it still existed.

The actual transmission from Praxis was immediately before Kerla's. It was of a Klingon desperately saying something amidst a fire. His transmission gave out, I'd say probably when he was killed and his transmitter was destroyed (though perhaps maybe the Klingon government jammed it or otherwise cut it off).

Kerla came on when the first Klingon's transmission gave out, to warn the Federation away, and from Kerla's words (not to mention, the fact that he was not in the process of dying as he spoke), one can infer that he himself was not on Praxis.

Later, in the briefing I learned, from Spock:

The moon's decimation means a deadly pollution of their ozone.

I am led to believe by some sources that the moon's explosion caused this event. Yet, wouldn't the explosion have devastated the atmosphere, by blowing a portion of it off the planet? Early, I learned that Praxis was a key energy production facility. Was this facility manufacturing a product not found elsewhere that continually replenished the ozone layer of Qo'noS? And, when this source was destroyed, the Klingons didn't have a second location for this product, and the planet would be using the reserves to replenish the ozone layer?

Handwavium has lots of interesting properties, doesn't it?

 

[throwback]

I am re-reading the script. According to the script, when they show where the moon was located, there was "Nothing there.". Furthermore, the message came from the Klingon High Command, not from Praxis.

In the briefing, Spock states the issue and a possible solution.

Bold - what was said in the movie
Italics - what was added
Underlined - what was omitted

Two months ago a Federation starship monitored an explosion on the Klingon moon Praxis. We believe it was caused by over mining and insufficient safety precautions. The moon's decimation means an almost eighty percent loss of available energy and a deadly pollution of their ozone. They will have depleted their supply of oxygen in approximately fifty years. Due to their large enormous military expenditures, the Klingon economy does not have the resources to combat this catastrophe.is in a very weakened condition. They do not have sufficient resources to manufacture air shelters in large enough quantities to sustain anything like their current population. Last month - at the behest of the, uh, Vulcan Ambassador - I opened a dialogue with Gorkon, Chancellor of the Klingon High Council. He proposes to commence negotiations at once.

http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/tuc.txt

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Screencaps of what I've mentioned are here.

computer-enhanced image of Praxis:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuchd/tuchd0129.jpg

the actual transmission from Praxis, before Kerla comes on:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuchd/tuchd0138.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuchd/tuchd0141.jpg

 

[Zeppster]

For an explosion to have a subspace shockwave, wouldn't that imply that the cause was somehow subspace related?

In ST VI, Praxis is identified as a Klingon moon.

I have thoughts about this moon.

Valtane:

Yes, sir. I have confirmed the location of Praxis, sir, but...

Sulu:

What is it?

Valtane:
...
Rand:

Captain, I'm getting a message from Praxis.

What's happening? Some of the ship's sensors can't detect the moon, but other sensors can visualize the moon. Then there is the message from a moon that was destroyed. How did Kerla transmit from a destroyed moon that doesn't exist?

Later, in the briefing I learned, from Spock:

The moon's decimation means a deadly pollution of their ozone.

I am led to believe by some sources that the moon's explosion caused this event. Yet, wouldn't the explosion have devastated the atmosphere, by blowing a portion of it off the planet? Early, I learned that Praxis was a key energy production facility. Was this facility manufacturing a product not found elsewhere that continually replenished the ozone layer of Qo'noS? And, when this source was destroyed, the Klingons didn't have a second location for this product, and the planet would be using the reserves to replenish the ozone layer?

Well we probably don't need to use scientific fact into this. Losing atmosphere would be the least of the worries if we had our moon blow up. We would basically lose the tidal pull the moon gives us changing the earths rotation completely. In the long run the atmosphere would probably be replaced eventually but we would have drastic planetary climate changes because and gravitational shifts on the planet. We would see climate changes in a few days not over thousands or millions of years like we've had the last half a billion years or so. But again this is fake science not real science.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Don't worry, it's not chaotic enough for Abrams standards.

And not nearly enough lens flare.

I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.

Take a look at the action scenes in the Abrams movies. It's all shaky cam, quick cuts and busy as fuck. Take the Kelvin scene for example, all it is is missiles and phaser railguns going off amongst explosions, with each shot lasting a fraction of a second while the camera shakes. Trying to figure out what's going on is hard enough, but whatever you do happen to see is obscured by all the lens flares. Nothing before Abrams took over was anywhere near that chaotic. Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene doesn't mean I'm some kind of dinosaur clinging to TNG's technobabble discussions.

 

[CitizenjaQ]

As long as it doesn't end with this shot, we're good:

I shot out of my chair in shock at that visual.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^^Don't worry, it's not chaotic enough for Abrams standards.

And not nearly enough lens flare.

I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.

Clearly you do not understand the Khancept of humor.

And not nearly enough lens flare.

I don't get this criticism from Star Trek fans. Especially Original Series era. Star Trek as it was made was pretty much all about being over the top chaos featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy most of the time. And there were a lot of stories far more ridiculous in TOS and even in the Original cast movies, The Search for God in STV, Whales saving the Earth in IV, and I won't even go into how ridiculous some of the TOS episodes story lines were. That's what made them great though. Being chaotic and over the top is pretty much what Star Trek is for me. I don't like discussion/technobabble resets that pretty much became almost all of TNG era.

Take a look at the action scenes in the Abrams movies. It's all shaky cam, quick cuts and busy as fuck. Take the Kelvin scene for example, all it is is missiles and phaser railguns going off amongst explosions, with each shot lasting a fraction of a second while the camera shakes. Trying to figure out what's going on is hard enough, but whatever you do happen to see is obscured by all the lens flares. Nothing before Abrams took over was anywhere near that chaotic.

Or that fun to watch, really. Even the Nemesis space battle was relatively tame by comparison and is almost quaint by today's standards.

More importantly, this pattern is pretty much the way space battles have been filmed since at least 2007, in a pattern that was basically pioneered by Transformers and Battlestar Galactica (though the latter does it much better than the former). It's not just Star Trek, it's the way sci-fi is done now; 2010s style is pretty ubiquitous, and I suspect you're going to see something very similar in Ender's Game.

Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene...

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.

 

[Richard Baker]

Ever wonder why the subspace shockwave was perfectly circular but the moon clearly shows the blast went off to one side?

 

[DonIago]

This is a reach, but if we assume the moon was actually oriented so that it was the "upper half" that was destroyed, is it possible the physical blast went "upwards" while the subspace shockwave radiated outward as shown?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This is a reach, but if we assume the moon was actually oriented so that it was the "upper half" that was destroyed, is it possible the physical blast went "upwards" while the subspace shockwave radiated outward as shown?

So that the shock wave and the part of the moon that's left share a common axis of symmetry? Sure! Why not!

 

[Kevman7987]

Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene...

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.

They only did that because they didn't have the money to show it with a VFX shot.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Just because I want to know what's going on in a scene...

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.

They only did that because they didn't have the money to show it with a VFX shot.

Which would have been a good excuse if "Star Trek: Generations" hadn't been made.

By the time we got to "First Contact" there is literally no reason whatsoever for starships to still be firing phaser banks exactly one at a time, or for that matter, for starships engaged in combat to NOT be constantly firing at each other every possible second that they are within firing range of each other.

Kelvin vs. Narada has that kind of realism to it: it's the kind of fight you'd see if, say, USS New Jersey got into a skirmish with the Kirov. Should the Captain really have to specifically order every single discharge by every single weapon on the ship every time he wants those weapons to fire? "Fire phasers! Fire them again! And again! And fire again! And now one more time! And still another time! And fire phasers again! And fire two torpedoes with those phasers! Okay, now... fire phasers! And another torpedo! And now another phasers!"

Captain says "Fire all phasers" then it ought to look like this.

 

[The Wormhole]

As long as it doesn't end with this shot, we're good:

I shot out of my chair in shock at that visual.

I think FKnight was commenting on how that shot was reused in Generations.

More importantly, this pattern is pretty much the way space battles have been filmed since at least 2007, in a pattern that was basically pioneered by Transformers and Battlestar Galactica (though the latter does it much better than the former). It's not just Star Trek, it's the way sci-fi is done now; 2010s style is pretty ubiquitous, and I suspect you're going to see something very similar in Ender's Game.

And that's one of the reasons I don't care for the Transformers movies. And while BSG may have had too much fun with the shaky cam, it at least was able to stay focused on something for longer than 3.7 seconds and didn't have two dozen simultaneous lens flares going off.

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.

I'm not saying the whole thing has to be on the bridge with the captain shouting orders and the officers describing everything that happens. That does get tedious. I want to see the battle, see the ships fly around each other firing weapons at each other. In all honesty, I can't really make sense of any of the fights in the Abrams movies, it's just mindless shooting and explosions. More realistic, maybe. But it doesn't engage the audience. To engage the audience you need beauty shots consisting of crisp clear visuals. That is an entertaining battle to me.

 

[RyanKCR]

As long as it doesn't end with this shot, we're good:

I shot out of my chair in shock at that visual.

I think FKnight was commenting on how that shot was reused in Generations.

More importantly, this pattern is pretty much the way space battles have been filmed since at least 2007, in a pattern that was basically pioneered by Transformers and Battlestar Galactica (though the latter does it much better than the former). It's not just Star Trek, it's the way sci-fi is done now; 2010s style is pretty ubiquitous, and I suspect you're going to see something very similar in Ender's Game.

And that's one of the reasons I don't care for the Transformers movies. And while BSG may have had too much fun with the shaky cam, it at least was able to stay focused on something for longer than 3.7 seconds and didn't have two dozen simultaneous lens flares going off.

You KNOW what's going on. There's an exchange of fire, one ship is getting shot at and shooting back. The play by play "He shot us with a phaser beam sir!" "Return fire with forward phasers, then turn five degrees starboard!" "Phasers fired! We hit his starboard bow and weakened his shields by ten percent!" isn't all that interesting and takes a lot more time to do, which is why nobody does it that way anymore.

I'm not saying the whole thing has to be on the bridge with the captain shouting orders and the officers describing everything that happens. That does get tedious. I want to see the battle, see the ships fly around each other firing weapons at each other. In all honesty, I can't really make sense of any of the fights in the Abrams movies, it's just mindless shooting and explosions. More realistic, maybe. But it doesn't engage the audience. To engage the audience you need beauty shots consisting of crisp clear visuals. That is an entertaining battle to me.

How exciting were the battles in TWOK?

 

[The Wormhole]

How exciting were the battles in TWOK?

The Mutara Nebula is awesome to look at! James Horner's music also enhances it so much. That is a wonderfully done battle scene.