Star Trek is rediculous...technically

[Anrypan]

No doubt, I'll ruffle a lot of feathers on this, but I am well qualified to comment on what Star trek, and Hollywood in general, feeds the public in regards to spacecraft design. I placed my two cents on YouTube, United Worlds Authority for YouTube, and explained the poor technical designs Star Trek (and Star Wars as well). Take a look at my comments. I would like to know (dread) what you think. Keep in mind, I have nearly 30 years as a civilian engineer for the US Air Force development programs for missiles and aircraft.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I doubt you'll see any feathers ruffled here. Most of Star Trek's technology is far-fetched, to say the least, and everybody knows that. We just don't care.

 

[EyalM]

Can you post a link?

 

[iguana_tonante]

No doubt I'll ruffle your feathers on this, but you should at least learn how to spell "ridiculous".

 

[RoJoHen]

No doubt I'll ruffle your feathers on this, but you should at least learn how to spell "ridiculous".

This.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I've been thinking the same thing since I was 10-years old -- it doesn't matter one whit. It's a TV show, get over it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Find me one television series where the science isn't ridiculous and we'll talk.

 

[sojourner]

This thread would have been much better in the trek tech forum. From a tro--, er, an argument standpoint.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, this isn't really the sort of forum where you'll find people defending the "realism" of Trek tech.

 

[scotpens]

Find me one television series where the science isn't ridiculous and we'll talk.

It's going back quite a few years, but the old Science Fiction Theater anthology series from the 1950s featured stories that were based more or less on known science, though many of the episodes are quite dated now. The 1959 one-season series Man Into Space was also nuts-and-bolts SF, very realistic for its time.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I agree with many of the posts above. I am probably not going to go read the OP's comments elsewhere, because the Enterprise in many ways is the vehicle that moves the story along. Some things about Trek design may be silly, but others aren't too bad and even pretty clever (like Heisenberg Compensators).

I assume that 22nd & 23rd century engineers and designers will discover some things that today's engineers and designers have not even be able to dreamed of.

The guy who designed and built Viking Longboats sure had some good skills that allowed him to do a neat job on his vessel, but I am not sure how useful most of his comments would be on how to design a nuclear sub.....

(I still can't swallow the idea of a brewery for an engine room, though, even in the future....)

 

[Lindley]

(I still can't swallow the idea of a brewery for an engine room, though, even in the future....)

Have ye not heard of "engine room hooch", laddie?

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Can you show me your youtube pages?

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Aye- right ye may be..... I may 'a been spending a wee bit too much time with the Photon Torpedo Juice up in the Forward Torpedo Bay.....

 

[Hedbergian]

Gene Rodenberry himself admitted that the beaming effect was designed because it would have been too expensive to land the Enterprise on a planet every week.

And though you still have to suspend your disbelief while watching Trek, over the years the writers have (for the most part) tried their best to make the tech seem plausible. That alone deserves some praise.

 

[TheGodBen]

No doubt, I'll ruffle a lot of feathers on this, but I am well qualified to comment on what Star trek, and Hollywood in general, feeds the public in regards to spacecraft design. I placed my two cents on YouTube, United Worlds Authority for YouTube, and explained the poor technical designs Star Trek (and Star Wars as well). Take a look at my comments. I would like to know (dread) what you think. Keep in mind, I have nearly 30 years as a civilian engineer for the US Air Force development programs for missiles and aircraft.

I am outraged by this post, absolutely outraged.

 

[JTK1]

This thread would have been much better in the trek tech forum. From a tro--, er, an argument standpoint.

You have my vote

 

[SVD]

... I placed my two cents on YouTube, United Worlds Authority for YouTube, and explained the poor technical designs Star Trek (and Star Wars as well). Take a look at my comments....

I caint feyend it easy, must not exist.

 

[Anrypan]

As for my spelling of ridiculous...hey, I'm an engineer...we can't spell or do math. I do stand corrected and will use 'spell check' more.

In regards to the YouTube link, I'm new to Trek BBS and not sure how it can be done. Enter into the internet search, United Worlds Authority for YouTube. If anyone knows how I can provide the link, please let me know.

I'll take your advice an enter my comment into Trek Tech.

By the way, I have a bunch of graphics that are great screen savers showing what the world of Anrypa (from the novel United Worlds Authority) is like. How do I do that?

 

[Anrypan]

I guess my rediculous was ridiculous. Thanks for the correction...I'm no spelling wiz. There's no spell check for messages. Now I'm in trouble.

Thanks for the advice. I'll put my comments in Trek Tech.

I am new and do not know how to add the link to YouTube. Access via the internet is by entering onto Search: United Worlds Authority for YouTube.