Starship water landing

[Ghostface1701]

Is this thread title a spoiler? Seriously?

The title isn't, but the goddamn question in the goddamn opening post is.

Only if you assume that you're going to remain so spoiler-free that you won't even seen the teaser trailers. And won't be going to any movies between now and next summer (because it's been mentioned that this scene WASN'T pulled from some spoiler chat, but from the teaser trailer).

Of course, if that's the case, TrekBBS.com is NOT a safe place for you to be until the movie comes out.

If all that's valid, this may be considered a minor spoiler.

Since you're not going to close your account here, may end up in a movie theater between now and summer, and will see the trailer (and likely several follow-up trailers) before the movie, i don't see the harm here. Back down on the outrage. Hell, there's even someone with an image of this water landing as their avatar already...

Thanks for addressing this Scout101. I didn't know spoiler rules applied to teaser trailers. Should I not talk about the poster either? The scene in question will be an iconic moment, and it's one that JJ and Co. are clearly eager for everyone to know about. Only 18 hours or so to go...

 

[Forbin]

Okay, I hadn't seen the trailer or any images from the film yet. This thread was the first place I'd heard anything about it. Didn't know it was out there already. Never mind. And thanks for the long-winded and pompous lecture in place of just saying "Relax, it's in the teaser."

 

[Scout101]

Okay, I hadn't seen the trailer or any images from the film yet. This thread was the first place I'd heard anything about it. Didn't know it was out there already. Never mind. And thanks for the long-winded and pompous lecture in place of just saying "Relax, it's in the teaser."

6 sentences is "long-winded" for you? Guess I could have just posted a fail pic and skipped the explaination?

And it's impressive you can call someone else pompous from way up on the high horse you posted the previous internet outrage post from. When you go off on someone without knowing what you're talking about, suppose you're risking someone pointing out that you missed the obvious. That the scene was in the teaser was addressed in the OP, didn't feel it was worth repeating it if you ignored it the first time. Since your post was pretty clearly referring to the "goddamn question in the goddamn opening post", kinda seemed like you read the entire sentence.

Edit: just think, could have skipped another long-winded 6 sentences if you had just posted "ah, missed that it was in the teaser, my bad". Instead, we've got a fun circle where you got your info wrong and attacked someone because you didn't read the post, then got corrected, then attacked the guy that corrected you. And don't think you were in the wrong. Yay internet!

 

[Forbin]

Feel better now?

 

[Scout101]

was never MY problem, so yeah, I feel just fine. You?

Don't try and turn it around on me, YOU tossed in the attack that begged for a response. Had you ended your last post a sentence early, the "sorry i missed it, my bad" post ends it. You threw in a bonus insult to cover the mistake, and now wanna keep poking, though, so don't pretend you have high ground. If you want it to go away, feel free to drop it. You don't get to keep taking potshots and claiming you're not in the wrong, though.

Perfectly happy to drop it and move on if you can resist poking it again

 

[Forbin]

Not poking at all, just amazed that you claim to NOT be long-winded, but you can't seem to stop lecturing. All this from ONE sentence I posted out of admittedly misplaced anger.

Scout will now be unable to resist having the last word - aaaaand GO:
(Okay, THAT was a poke).

 

[throwback]

I checked the transcript site. The dikornium cloud creature entered the ship through the radioactive disposal vent for impulse engine number 2.

http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/47.htm

I am hesitant to say that the Enterprise is in either shot. The first shot shows the rearmost portion of a nacelle. I compared the nacelle of this ship and the nacelle of the Enterprise - they don't match. I think we are looking at a new ship here.

As for the second shot, this Federation starship doesn't have the shape of the Enterprise.

As a fan of ships, I am hyped to see new ships.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Agreed there. Here's Trekcore's cap of the ship crashing into water in the first place:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xii/teaser/startrekintodarkness_hd_47.jpg

Mark

 

[SicOne]

^ Hmmm...how certain are we that THAT'S the Enterprise? Overall configuration matches, but the nacelle struts wrong. The JJPrise has upward-curved nacelle struts.

 

[throwback]

I did some more examination of the two screenshots. The first shot, of the nacelle, shows that the ship is a Federation starship (NCC) and that the first two numbers are 17. The rest of the registry is obscured by lighting and water conditions.

As for the second pic, that ship is having a hard crash into the water. (A hard crash is one where the ship is no longer under the control of the personnel aboard.) The left nacelle is badly damaged, and is on fire. Smoke is pouring out of the nacelle. It appears that the collector has been totally destroyed. The angle of the crash supports that this is a hard crash.

We have seen a soft crash of a ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The ship maintained level flying until it hit the water.

As for the ship in pic #1 and pic #2 being the same, I disagree. Again, I am basing this on the nacelle shape. The crashing ship has a nacelle with a flat upper surface; it lacks what the Enterprise has or what the ship in pic #1 has.

The ship that is hard crashing has a saucer like a Galaxy-class Starship and nacelles like a Sovereign-class Starship. A portion of the port saucer can be seen below the port nacelle. There appears to be an indent in the saucer.

 

[SicOne]

The only screenshot I've seen is the one that Mark Nguyen put up the link to.

 

[Ghostface1701]

Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.

 

[Captain_Amasov]

Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.

Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?

 

[Ghostface1701]

Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.

Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?

It's strange that it would need to. Transporters? Or does it go down there to fire a tow cable and haul the other ship out? Seems a bit pointless...

 

[Albertese]

Yeah, I agree about the second ship. I had only seen the teaser once before it came out today, and one quick shot of it wasn't enough to identify it properly. Looking at the nacelles alone, it clearly isn't Enterprise.

The ship rising out of the water is definitely Enterprise though. Nacelles are identical and you can at least see NCC-170 on the side. That means more than one ship ends up in water, which is...odd.

Maybe the second ship crashes after the attack on Starfleet, and the Enterprise performs an underwater rescue operation?

Wouldn't there be, like, i dunno, submarines for that sort of thing?

--Alex

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ If Federation starships were capable of operating under water, why would they NEED submarines?

 

[Timo]

Jet planes can drive along a highway, but they make for poor tow trucks. And there would be all sorts of interfacing issues that get complicated when the space between the two sides is filled with water rather than with nothing. Dedicated underwater rescue gear might indeed be vital and in existence. But probably not of great relevance in a fast-paced action sequence involving a villain making his escape to space. Or whatever.

How deep can transporters penetrate into ordinary seawater? Two klicks of basic if cave-ridden bedrock is already a problem ("Bloodlines"), and water might be worse - but San Francisco Bay isn't all that deep. We just don't have much data. Scotty's whale-saving operation involved depths of a dozen meters only...

The dikornium cloud creature entered the ship through the radioactive disposal vent for impulse engine number 2.

And then proceeded through the ventilation system to Garrovick's cabin. So, the cabin was directly open to space all the time?

Apparently, the cloud creature getting in involved going through some structure or material that didn't let air out. And I doubt it was a classic mechanical two-door airlock, as the creature never demonstrated an ability to operate machinery. But a random gas cloud probably wouldn't get in; it would need intellect, the ability to exert force, and possibly also some of the dikironium critter's special tricks for that.

That crash looks like a relatively low-speed one. A ship falling all the way from space would probably create a drastically different-looking impact mark in reality, but we can forgive Hollywood for that. Yet a ship falling from space would be unlikely to hit San Francisco Bay rather than some other random area of the Pacific or of dry Californian land. Do starships in nuTrek regularly operate from the surface of Earth, perhaps? Or does the protecting of SF Headquarters from anticipated threat routinely involve lowering a starship or three to rooftop level?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[jayrath]

^ If Federation starships were capable of operating under water, why would they NEED submarines?

Agreed. In TAS, if you accept it as canon, we saw special shuttles capable of landing on water. If you need a special shuttle for that, then it's likely that a conventional shuttle cannot. Probably the same for a starship.

In TNG's "Brothers," Picard is lured by some odd underwater project. Why is that a special undertaking performed by a different organization, if Starfleet can't just go underwater with a starship and -- presto! -- instant sea colony?

Not canon, but one of the Shatnerverse novels stated that ships can go under just fine. The problem is coming back out to space, when the water turns to ice and cracks the vents, etc.

Finally, if you can adjust screens to go underwater, why do we distinctly see weathering on the TOS Enterprise? It appears that at least navigational deflectors leak a bit, to create the gray streaks on the hulls and pylons. I've never thought of shields cranked up to max as impenetrable bubbles, possible of screening out all dust, all water, and so on.

And what's the fun of such super-shields, anyway? It reminds me of Superman in 1940s radio drama. The writers were stuck with such an invulnerable character that they had no suspense. That's why Kryptonite was invented.

Anyway, we'll all know the truth when the next nu-Trek opens.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Jet planes can drive along a highway, but they make for poor tow trucks.

Depends on the jet.

That crash looks like a relatively low-speed one. A ship falling all the way from space would probably create a drastically different-looking impact mark in reality, but we can forgive Hollywood for that. Yet a ship falling from space would be unlikely to hit San Francisco Bay rather than some other random area of the Pacific or of dry Californian land. Do starships in nuTrek regularly operate from the surface of Earth, perhaps?

I would guess so, primarily because that's a trope that's become more and more common in sci-fi these days.

In-universe, though, there's something to be said for your ability to extend your shields around the city you're protecting, use your phasers to intercept incoming missiles and torpedoes, quickly beam/shuttle people and equipment to and from the surface without having to worry about orbital positions and travel times and so on.

Of course, there's also the fact that San Francisco is supposedly the home of a major shipyard, so this could be interpreted as a starship getting suckerpunched by the bad guys just as it begins to take off for its maiden voyage.

 

[Scout101]

That makes the most sense, in-universe. Not a crashing out of orbit, but trying to launch and crashing.