starships underwater.

[Chaos Descending]

Why does the rear of the nacelle have a "double decker" look to it?

And the fact that they wouldn't waste such a money shot on any other ship than the Enterprise.

That argument isn't useful for the "other ship", the one that's crashing down, which everyone ALSO says isn't the Enterprise. So I dunno now. I bet neither of them are the Enterprise.

Or else the Enterprise has been heavily refit/modified for this film.

 

[Forbin]

Intercoolers.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Here is a post from another thread that illustrates perfectly what I am talking about.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7356997&postcount=370

 

[SalvorHardin]

Here is a post from another thread that illustrates perfectly what I am talking about.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7356997&postcount=370

Even that guy reconsidered a few pages later, if I remember correctly.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.

 

[Chaos Descending]

^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.

They look absolutely nothing alike to me.

I can accept that there might be tricks of angle and so forth, but it just seems SO different that I can't buy it.

 

[Santaman]

Sydney class has quite the boat hull, could see her soft land on water, as for the various Enterprises, if needed it could be done, engineer might get annoyed though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Since even from that it's pretty obviously the same engine and same ship.

They look absolutely nothing alike to me.

I can accept that there might be tricks of angle and so forth, but it just seems SO different that I can't buy it.

Where do you even SEE differences? Take it element by element, use some images as reference.

Aft end of the nacelle: downward angle, concave center.

Top of the nacelle: flat rounded "fantail" with two low V-shaped "fins" that taper to flush with the nacelle tube a quarter of the way forward.

Front of the nacelle: goldfish hump, tapers to flush with the tube a fifth of the way aft.

The registry is in the right place and is the same size.

What's probably tripping you up is that you're looking at the nacelle with a couple hundred tons of seawater still rolling off of it and thinking the seawater reflects the shape of what you're looking at. The Enterprise is over 700 meters long; each one of those nacelles is the size of an aircraft carrier, and in this clip they just went from a submerged position to about a hundred meters above it in three seconds flat. The water isn't gonna just roll off of it like a submarine (although even then it's often hard to make out the lines of the ship under all that water).

 

[zennie62]

That's not the JJprise rising from underwater. It looks totally different. It's a different ship, or I need new glasses.

The JJprise does appear to be splashing down in one scene though.

Watch the trailer in HD, the rising scene is the Enterprise on an alien ocean, the splash down is a small frigate in the SF bay area.

Good call. I too thought it was the SF Bay.

 

[Vito Corleone]

Improvization is done when necessary, but crazy preparedness is how our US military trains so they can deal with just about any situation.

In some parts of it, anyway...

I was wondering about those scenes involving ships going into/coming out of the drink. It looks like a Constitution class but, that doesn't necessarily mean the Enterprise went down. (I hope...)

 

[DredZed]

I saw the same argument elsewhere about whether the ship coming up from the water was Enterprise. I put these pictures together to clarify the situation.

Screenshot:

Engine from MadMan1701's enterprise model:

Composited together:

They're clearly the same, the ship is definitely Enterprise's class (is it officially called Constitution class in the new timeline?) and would thus almost certainly be the Enterprise. After all, they've never had another ship of the same class as the Enterprise in any movie so far.

 

[SalvorHardin]

They're clearly the same, the ship is definitely Enterprise's class (is it officially called Constitution class in the new timeline?) .

It was called that in the ships dossier in the first movie's official site

 

[Chaos Descending]

Well, now I'm convinced.

 

[F. King Daniel]

From someone who's seen the 9-minute preview of Into Darkness...

Spoiler: Why the Enterprise is underwater

It's hiding in an ocean on the red forest planet monitoring the opening mission-in-progress while Kirk and McCoy are visiting the locals undercover. Spock is in a volcano trying to prevent it's eruption.

Also...

We also get enough humor (particularly from Simon Pegg) that manages to make light of exactly the kind of fan over-analysis that the film is sure to generate (i.e. Can the Enterprise even operate underwater?)

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=97913

 

[jayrath]

I sure hope that Admiral Nelson, the Seaview and its Flying Sub put in an appearance.

 

[throwback]

I don't have an issue with starships operating under water. There could be technologies present in the 23rd century that would allow a starship to operate underwater for a period of time. I doubt that the film will go into the specifics on why the Enterprise is underwater.

 

[Anji]

Not necessarily. They could base the techobabble on current theories on how USOs function underwater.

 

[Timo]

Which is always a bad idea - when scifi tries to be contemporary, it only manages to annoy the enthusiasts in the know about contemporary tech, confuse those not in the know, look dated from the get-go, and technologically outdate itself in two months anyway.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

Has anyone mentioned Insurrection's village-sized holoship yet? Was that film really so forgettable that no-one realized a starship has already been hidden underwater in a Trek movie?

 

[Timo]

I'd think that the technological hurdles would be relatively low, but not nonexistent as per VOY "Thirty Days". The operational rationale is no doubt going to be debated for quite some time, though.

The holotrap transport of ST:INS was hidden uncrewed and otherwise unattended, waiting for the conclusion of a rather monomaniacal mission. It's a good way to stash away something that's not needed for anything else and should go unobserved not only by natives but also by starfarers.

No doubt a big starship can also hide underwater waiting for the conclusion of a recce mission or whatever. But shouldn't NCC-1701 have better things to do? If her capabilities are not needed for the mission, and she's there merely to pick up Kirk at the end of an adventure, a shuttle could be used instead, hidden underwater, on a mountaintop, buried in sand, cloaked, whatever. Why land the ship?

I sort of doubt the movie will give us a rationale, such as transporters not being available and shuttles being undesirable for a clear-cut reason X. There's no big reason not to dip the ship, sure, but only if we postulate a short mission. If Kirk is gonna be gone for weeks, the ship should be free to depart.

But I might be dead wrong. Apparently, and spoilers be damned, there are plenty of things going on at the planet where this dipping takes place. A center of operations close to all the action might be an operational necessity for a reason that becomes obvious once we see all the relevant scenes.

Timo Saloniemi