That was my favorite part.
Starships underwater WTF???
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
That was my favorite part.
We're supposed to believe a huge Federation starship can come down through a planet's atmosphere, descend into a large body of water and submerge itself completely? And remain functional? And then just rise up into space again?? This is completely contrary to anything in established Trek history. Starships go in SPACE, they're not submarines. Only an idiot would think a starship could pull a stunt like that and not be CRUSHED by the crushing forces of H20, nature's deadliest liquid. Every ship that ever sank did so in WATER! And they were built for it! Look what happened to the Klingon ship in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for more proof!
The Trek I knew is dead, replaced with this unjustified nonsense. Star Trek: Insurrection is not true Star Trek. Screw Rick Berman and his idiotic "kewl" popcorn-movie stunts. Gene Rodenberry would be rolling in his grave. I'm through with Star Trek
Why not? They're structurally superstrong, made of advanced materials, air tight, use both exterior shields and structural integrity fielkds, and on top of that, anti-gravity technology is well established in Star Trek. Quite frankly its almost shocking you're asking this question, because out of the 4-5 most exotic technologies on the Enterprise, going underwater is probably the LEAST impossible of them.
====Whoosh
Yes, I didnt see that till afterwards, but the answer is still the same for all the zillions of others questioning it.
RAMA
That could not be sarcasm, could it?
With this bunch it's often impossible to know for sure.
I was getting all ready to make a snarky remark about mercury or snake venom or lava before I realized the OP wasn't being serious.
Can submarines they build in the 23rd century go into space as well?
Yes. Happy now?
I don't know, but Voyager established that in the Star Trek Universe, starships can be relatively easily modified to go miles and miles underwater.
Which makes sense, since they have to be airtight.
I don't have an issue with water - the ship survived the pressure of a black hole without even slightly buckling its pylons, water pressure is nothing by comparison. But actually, now that I think about it, two wrongs don't necessarily make a right... I suppose we have to assume that the structural integrity field holds the ship together at the limits of pressure.
I do however have an issue with a ship of that shape and size being able to take off and land on a planet though. They haven't set down on land - which would look very silly (although even by TMP, the saucer section was designed with the intention that it could detach and land). Surely the energy required to escape planetary gravity for something of that size and density is going to do a lot of damage to marine life? Massacreing plant and animal life for miles around isn't really Starfleet.
I do however have an issue with a ship of that shape and size being able to take off and land on a planet though. They haven't set down on land - which would look very silly (although even by TMP, the saucer section was designed with the intention that it could detach and land). Surely the energy required to escape planetary gravity for something of that size and density is going to do a lot of damage to marine life? Massacreing plant and animal life for miles around isn't really Starfleet.
Considering that either they succeed in the mission or the whole planet is dead anyway from what we've seen, some marine life can probably be sacrificed.
Yet there was a Sub Commander Tal in "The Enterprise Incident." Talk about being out of one's element.
"Take us to periscope depth!"
"Sir?"
Similar threads
