SPY PHOTOS at AICN
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
Not to be an apologist, but as an amateur pilot, I happen to know that aircraft are kept clean to prevent dirt and dust and such from interfering with mechanical and electrical components which, even now, are becoming increasingly more ruggedized and, in many cases, solid state. The shuttle, as far as we've been shown, has almost no real moving parts in it's mechanical systems, and particularly not in the interior, which should, if the designers were sane, be as isolated from any mechanical bits as possible while still making them available for maintenance. In fact, given that this is a shuttle and therefore frequently in an atmosphere, most service is likely performed on the ground, largely under removable exterior panels like on my LongEZ. Given these facts, I find it somewhat unlikely that the systems onboard could be significantly effected by something as simple as dirt, particularly when the majority of the moving parts are likely in the propulsion system. Given the type of energies the propulsion system would, as a matter of necessity for operation in a manner consistent with what we have seen so far, be built to withstand regularly, I find it doubtful that some dirt would cause difficulties.
Last edited:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/space-shuttle-glass-cockpit2.jpg
Here's a high-tech look at the main controls for Space Shuttle Atlantis.
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/cockpit_-_panel.jpg
And the link above shows the control panel for an F-16 fighter jet.
Both of these vehicles are 'cutting-edge' scientific and military vehicles. The Star Trek shuttle pics are comparative to each.
Here's a high-tech look at the main controls for Space Shuttle Atlantis.
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/cockpit_-_panel.jpg
And the link above shows the control panel for an F-16 fighter jet.
Both of these vehicles are 'cutting-edge' scientific and military vehicles. The Star Trek shuttle pics are comparative to each.
Last edited by a moderator:
That sounds very plausible. Well done!
I really don't think we'll be spending any appreciable time dealing with the construction of the Enterprise. It probably won't be addressed at all.
Why not?
As , of course, designed in the early 1970s.
As, of course, designed in 1974, with modifications through the last decade. The F-16 has been cut from production for 15 years now.
Actually, neither of each are, and are you honestly saying that since this shuttle which is still 200 years old looks like them, it's accurate?
Because it simply ain't that dramatic. Odds are the trailer was more of a thematic exercise, showing the Star Trek legacy 'under construction' as it were. I doubt they're going to want to waste story time on its construction, at least no more than a scene or two, or a cheesy montage. With the extensive list of characters, they've got enough to do fitting all of them in, without unnecessary shipbuilding scenes.
I think Vektor stated the point quite well. My brother does NOT like Star Trek. He always thought Trekkies were "freaks and weirdos (sic)" because my ex-girlfriend would bore us for hours about some nit-picky thing. These days he actually discusses it with me occasionally or will ask a question about something he heard that was sci-fi related. His reasoning came out one day... "Your not as fanatic about it as Kim always was. I can actually ask a question and you don't roll your eyes at me."
By the way: I always thought it was a little unrealistic that they never got dirty. When I went outside to play ST I always had to shake off the dirt after my landing party missions.
Having served in combat, I can tell you that the only time troop carriers and other equipment was perfectly clean was before we left the ship and/or base, not after.
I do agree that the trailer was done almost entirely as what it was INTENDED TO DO... get the audience excited about SOMETHING, then, at the end, spring it on them that it's (GASP!)... Star Trek.
I would be deeply surprised if we saw that sequence in the film. It was created to do a job... and it's done it remarkably well, I think. The studio has gotten their money's worth out of it.
I can't see any way, in a real STORYTELLING CONTEXT, that seeing the ship put together would be exciting for "general audiences," or even for most Trek fans for that matter.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
That's what all trailers (are supposed to) do.
Bullshit. If it is part of an overall compelling story and wasn't just an extra 20 minutes tacked on for the sake of tacking on, it would be included.
I just have a hard time getting worked up over any of this. If we're going to use the "200 years old" argument against the design, then there's really no point in doing the movie at all.
I guarantee that, in 200 (or 300) years, the "future" as imagined in 1966 and the "future" as imagined in 2008 will look equally silly. For that matter, you'd probably have to be an expert even to tell which is which.
I would've agreed with you prior to Orci's statements at "Grand Slam", but it seems that Orci implied that they would perhaps be showing the assembly of the pieces of the Enterprise in space.
I do agree that its not an imortant part of the film, and maybe only a couple of minutes of screen time (if any) should be dedicated to the ship's construction.
This film is about the crew's backstory, not the ship's.
Why is that wrong? Maybe they are building the Enterprise? We don't know yet ...
The only place I saw the "delta insignia" in those nine photos was the one photo that showed the gray unifom jacket. Do you have other photos?
Those blue-overalled "miners/refinery/construction workers" could not be seen wearing the delta (however their backs were to the camera). There were red-uniformed cadets (?) in those photos, but again we could not see their fronts.
The delta appeared nowhere else in those nine photos besides on that gray uniform.
Last edited:
Well, "antiquated" is a pretty... subjective... term.
Touch-screens are nice in some circumstances... but they are NOT desirable in others. Power switches NEED to have real mechanisms inside of them. It's most efficient to have the power switching hardware right there with the manual control which operates the switch, rather than having a little "touchpad" which then has to operate a remote actuator in order to operate the switch.
Pushbuttons give a level of tactile feedback that you simply don't get with touchpanels. There was a time, back in the early 80s, when touch-keyboards were tried with computers. And that went away VERY quickly, because they were damned nearly IMPOSSIBLE TO USE.
The real model to be used, as far as I'm concerned, for anything we do today, is the basic "glass cockpit" model seen in airliners and fighter jet cockpits. Why that? I mean, isn't it going to be "antiquated" in the future? Oh, yes, I'm sure it will be... but it's the best solution our best minds have come up with so far, and as a result anything that a movie production-designer might come up with is probably going to be LESS servicable... simply due to far less "critical review" from less places... if a movie "cockpit" isn't right, nobody dies.
SO... what does a modern "glass cockpit" look like? It has several configurable control screens. Some have "touch pad" functionality, but as a rule, they are set up as MFDs... ie, they are ringed with buttons but the buttons aren't actually ON the screen. Labels for the function of the button in the mode it's in are shown along the edges of that screen.
You also have lots and lots of physical switches. Even for computer hardware, it's typically stuff that requires a bit of effort to operate (keyboards are much stiffer than your home keyboard, typically, too!) Why? Well, think about it... do you really want to risk hitting the wrong button or turning the wrong knob or throwing the wrong switch ACCIDENTALLY?
This image represents TODAYS STATE OF THE ART in terms of cockpit design... this is a top-of-the-line cockpit with the most advanced technology and design available.
(go look at this page)
http://69.5.85.148/cgi-bin/ltdp.cgi?page=a-citationx.html&cart_id=
Now, based upon this conversation, many of you will look at this and say "that looks SOOOO 1970s." If you say, or think, that... it merely proves that you have no grasp on REAL LIFE... and have somehow substituted a trick used in TNG to make for CHEAP SET DESIGN (putting a transparency between two layers of plexiglass to represent control consoles) for "more advanced technology."
(FYI, if anyone has a quick connection, look at this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odJnoRLW9eg&feature=related
