[Spoiler] designing the Vengeance
- Thread starter Noddy
- Start date
I think the whole notion that the guy must be of help because he's genetically engineered is stupid. He might be more intelligent, but he did sleep for 300 years. If you brought Da Vinci into this time, he wouldn't be able to build a new aircraft carrier or aircrafts for the US Navy within a year.
This is sci fi, a genetic engineered human being can acheive whatever the writers want.
The fact that Khan is more than an ordinary human being is enough without going into all the boring details on how.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Those 'boring details' are probably what would have helped elevate this from fantasy to somewhat more credible SF. But I don't think they were going for that, or would have even recognized it as such.
AFAIK, the ONLY bit of Khan history that relates or supports his involvement with this uglyass ship is that he said he was something of an engineer in his day, back in SPACE SEED.
Move Sherlock Holmes from his beloved London to today's version of the city, and he'd be utterly helpless to solve even the simplest of crimes - until he had spent at least a few years learning the telltale details of modern life. Move Hercule Poirot to today, and he'd adjust far more quickly because he's a scholar of the criminal mind rather than the tools of crime. Move Dirty Harry, and he'd be equally at home (that is, not at all!) in all eras, and an efficient way to keep law and order once he learns to use the sidearm of the day.
Khan being a clever guy may mean several different things. "Space Seed" only showed him adapting to 23rd century technology in a few hours; ST:ID showed him achieving more after supposed several years of acclimatization. With just these two datapoints on the fellah, supposing he was the same guy in both cases, we can't readily assess what sort of a genius he was. But accepting that he was one should not be too difficult.
It won't be if they can build starships in a matter of weeks. Going even slightly von Neumann and having docks build further docks would allow them to field a million ships in no time flat.
Things that could plausibly keep down the numbers of starships so that "only one within reach" is still a possibility, just as observed:
1) Ships are expensive to build, the costs not being justified even by the danger posed to the Federation by the lack of naval power. But eventually, the costs would simply go down and the ships would get built by people working under minimum wages so that they might live to see tomorrow.
2) Ships are slow to build, and have limited lifespans that tie down construction resources in sustaining, rather than expansion. This might be a problem that goes away with UFP expansion, or then gets all the worse for it.
3) Ships are difficult to crew. But supposedly there are trillions of warm bodies available, and a good chunk of those might be found on those fancy arcologies we saw on Earth already. And it's not as if flying a starship is rocket science, from the looks of it.
4) Ships require a key physical resource that isn't available in any greater quantity even if one offers to pay a thousandfold price. Okuda and Sternbach sort of suggest that the warp coils might have such substances, plus their casting process is time-consuming and cannot be efficiently hastened by replicator trickery.
If the Vengeance is quick to build, then even if this speed is due to the application of exceptional resources, Starfleet should not be a "last-minute cavalry" in general. It could distribute those resources differently into ships a tad smaller than Kirk's and rule the skies with those.
Timo Saloniemi
Khan being a clever guy may mean several different things. "Space Seed" only showed him adapting to 23rd century technology in a few hours; ST:ID showed him achieving more after supposed several years of acclimatization. With just these two datapoints on the fellah, supposing he was the same guy in both cases, we can't readily assess what sort of a genius he was. But accepting that he was one should not be too difficult.
It won't be if they can build starships in a matter of weeks. Going even slightly von Neumann and having docks build further docks would allow them to field a million ships in no time flat.
Things that could plausibly keep down the numbers of starships so that "only one within reach" is still a possibility, just as observed:
1) Ships are expensive to build, the costs not being justified even by the danger posed to the Federation by the lack of naval power. But eventually, the costs would simply go down and the ships would get built by people working under minimum wages so that they might live to see tomorrow.
2) Ships are slow to build, and have limited lifespans that tie down construction resources in sustaining, rather than expansion. This might be a problem that goes away with UFP expansion, or then gets all the worse for it.
3) Ships are difficult to crew. But supposedly there are trillions of warm bodies available, and a good chunk of those might be found on those fancy arcologies we saw on Earth already. And it's not as if flying a starship is rocket science, from the looks of it.
4) Ships require a key physical resource that isn't available in any greater quantity even if one offers to pay a thousandfold price. Okuda and Sternbach sort of suggest that the warp coils might have such substances, plus their casting process is time-consuming and cannot be efficiently hastened by replicator trickery.
If the Vengeance is quick to build, then even if this speed is due to the application of exceptional resources, Starfleet should not be a "last-minute cavalry" in general. It could distribute those resources differently into ships a tad smaller than Kirk's and rule the skies with those.
Timo Saloniemi
You mean some technobabble like from average episode of Voyager or Enterprise?
It seems you rather kill off 99% of the audience by over elaborating things and ruining sharp story telling just to please the remaining 1%
trevanian
Rear Admiral
That's an era I call ModernTrek, and with the exception of about 4 TNG eps and about half of DS9, it's an utter & complete waste of time. Please don't make the mistake of tarring me with the feather of the undiscerning gusher who loves all TREK just because it has the brand stamped on the top of the show.
And BTW, sharp storytelling WOULD include aspects of the universe into the mix, rather than resorting to arbitrary technobabble. That's why BLADE RUNNER's environment plays into the story - it is part of it.
And BTW, sharp storytelling WOULD include aspects of the universe into the mix, rather than resorting to arbitrary technobabble. That's why BLADE RUNNER's environment plays into the story - it is part of it.
It is a discussion forum, opinions are supposed to be different, and contention is what drives members to debate things.
Debating, sure. Namecalling, half threats, shoutmatches..... Being disrespectfull to eachother. Yeah, we're living the true spirit of Star Trek here allright....
Jackpot!
Well if they do they're probably still better than 24rd century engineers not name Laforge, O'Brien, or Torres.
I mean seriously they can't design a fail safe that doesn't get conveniently taken out when it would be really useful like say when the ship is about to blow up.
Where are any of those things in this thread?
In all honousty..... I suppose you are right. At the moment of writing that, I had just browsed several threads where people were just plain rude to others. Someone was calling some of the writers of TrekLit incompitent hacks for example. In other topics I see people being almost hostile to people that have a different opinion. It got to me. Then I came in this topic, saw something developing (but not there yet) that reminded me of the hostile atmosphere in other topics, and I responded. And not in a way I should have.
As stated earlier in this topic, debating is nice and good. I love it. But most people seem to confuse debating for shouting and namecalling these days. And like I said, I sometimes find that for confusing on a forum devoted to a show that teaches us that people could and should life respectfully with eachother.
Again, my apologies for making a statement that was, at the moment, driven by emotions and that had almost nothing to do with what was going on this topic.
