ST-One
Vice Admiral
But he also said, that only the stuff shown on the screen is what we can consider 'canon' - nothing else.
The E-D was built on the ground, don't see why The 1701 couldn't
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
- Status
But he also said, that only the stuff shown on the screen is what we can consider 'canon' - nothing else.
*cough* forcefield *cough*
End of discussion.
Like debating a fundamentalist, they just keep pulling made up stuff into an argument. F'getaboutit.
Sorry, I'll leave out all the made-up stuff from now on.
Like The Enterprise, spacedocks, antigravs, shields, phasers, orion slave girls, warp draive, impulse drive, artificial gravity, starships, transporters...
AARGH! NONE OF IT IS REAL!
IT'S A LIE!
He also made a strong point that ships should never have three nacelles.
And yet, no one cares.
That's partly because Gene wasn't really an engineer, and never really created a plausible reason why having even numbers of nacelles was an absolute necessity for creating a stable warp field. He felt that having an odd number would be like a helicopter without a second rotor to balance the main rotor's force.
It's certainly not a bad idea, and it would seem that paired nacelles are indeed the optimum configuration since such ships seem to be more common. But there doesn't seem to be anything onscreen which suggests that you can't create a stable warp field with an odd number of nacelles, and a few designs certainly have that configuration.
It's certainly not a bad idea, and it would seem that paired nacelles are indeed the optimum configuration since such ships seem to be more common. But there doesn't seem to be anything onscreen which suggests that you can't create a stable warp field with an odd number of nacelles, and a few designs certainly have that configuration.
I don't really understand why it would be a big issue to build a starship planetside. It's been shown relatively frequently that gravity repulsion tech had become standard issue as early as the 22nd century. There's no reason why a ship couldn't be built on the surface and just floated into orbit with as much ease as sliding a newly built battleship into the ocean. The argument that it would be a huge hassle to get something to orbit doesn't really apply in the Trek universe, I don't think.
There would be benefits to building things planetside too. No EVAs. One wouldn't have to worry about keeping everyone in pressure suits. If an accident or disaster occured, the situation wouldn't be made more complicated by it all going down in a vacume.
Hell, perhaps the only reason why ships are predominately built in space by TMP/TNG is because everyone got tired of all the industrial drydock crap chewing up all the serene landscapes on Earth.
There would be benefits to building things planetside too. No EVAs. One wouldn't have to worry about keeping everyone in pressure suits. If an accident or disaster occured, the situation wouldn't be made more complicated by it all going down in a vacume.
Hell, perhaps the only reason why ships are predominately built in space by TMP/TNG is because everyone got tired of all the industrial drydock crap chewing up all the serene landscapes on Earth.
you mean the tail-rotor? tell that to the NOTAR, or Kamov and their double rotor'd helos or the Sea Knight and the Chinook...
trevanian
Rear Admiral
SF has science in there somewhere, you folks are talking fantasy. I'm talking extrapolation. Shit, I'm talking to walls.*cough* forcefield *cough*
End of discussion.
Like debating a fundamentalist, they just keep pulling made up stuff into an argument. F'getaboutit.
Yeah?
It is Science Fiction we are talking about. Pretty much everything is made up stuff.
That's sort of become the fan legend, but I'm not sure there was necessarily a huge fallout with Franz Joseph. Someone like Therin might be more qualified to give specifics than I am. It is true that this rule, which is the only genuine Roddenberry Rule, would naturally rule out some of the odd-numbered FJ designs. Some of the other rules (line of sight between the nacelles, and having the bussards visible from the front - no blocking their LOS) were developed by Andrew Probert.
The parts were built on Earth. They were taken into orbit on the inevitable space elevator. No doubt powered by whatever magical force is discovered by the Large Hadron Collider.
Come on, people. This isn't that hard.
Come on, people. This isn't that hard.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Considering that we never saw or heard about even a single Tsiolkovsky Tower functioning on 23rd century Earth, I imagine those structures which may have been built during the 21st/22nd centuries would have been gradually dismantled with the maturation of transporter technology.
TGT
Let's see. The Enterprise is one of the most bad-ass starships of the 23rd century, but it's so flimsy that hauling itself up against one lousy g through a little low pressure atmo is too much of an ask. Many people who have a problem with an all up surface launch must think this. I say the big lady wouldn't even break a sweat - and it would look way cool on screen, which is what the medium is all about.
Oooooh, could we have fire and smoke shooting out the rear of the nacelles, too? That would be rad!
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
It's not a question of structural flimsiness, but how "almost a million gross tons of vessel" (to quote Scotty in Mudd's Women) can be accelerated into an escape trajectory from standstill without the impulse engines incinerating a large chunk of Northern California. I am not even going to mention the nightmarish safety issues (as noted by trevanian) posed for Earth's population and biosphere by such a massive object - containing anti-matter, no less! - being unable to reach LEO and relative safety in the event of propulsion or guidance system failure during the boost phase. At best Starfleet would lose a brand new starship, its launch crew and the planet a sizable piece of real estate in the event of land impact. Now, compare that scenario to a space departure a la ST:TMP: The engineering crew can track down the fault while the Enterprise orbits Earth (or Sol, depending on her velocity at engine shutdown), replace the defective widget and then get back to their shakedown cruise without the ship suffering so much as a scratch.
I think that the NCC-1701's departure in TMP looked - and sounded - sufficiently "way cool" while also exuding an unmatched sense of technological verisimilitude. What Orci is implying, on the other hand, would merely look infantile no matter how well ILM renders the CGI.
TGT
Last edited:
Did Scotty light the shuttlebay on fire again? Boy, he's got to lay off the green.
Funny -- Voyager landed and took off several times, without doing any particular damage to the local area, and did a flyby of Los Angeles without damage. Enterprise (NX-01, that is) flew over New York without damaging anything they weren't trying to damage.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Ya just know when a post is going to get some dander up. 
As to surface launch safety, very mature, very redundant anti-grav tech would long since have made such events a yawn. We've also seen many trekships operating in atmo with somewhat less than continent-sized wakes of destruction. (I see AlanC9 and ST-One beat me to that point)
If you want the big E packin' anti-matter at launch (by no means a certainty), I bet the storage pods would probably be up to a pretty high velocity impact without the restraint fields letting the AM near the physical containment cell walls. Think about the tech that would have to preceed common use of AM as a power source.
I think some fireworks wouldn't be out of place to give a ship launch some fizz if the related mechanisms weren't too exciting - yah, maybe some big, flaming smoke trails out the arse of the nacelles - why not?
As to surface launch safety, very mature, very redundant anti-grav tech would long since have made such events a yawn. We've also seen many trekships operating in atmo with somewhat less than continent-sized wakes of destruction. (I see AlanC9 and ST-One beat me to that point)
If you want the big E packin' anti-matter at launch (by no means a certainty), I bet the storage pods would probably be up to a pretty high velocity impact without the restraint fields letting the AM near the physical containment cell walls. Think about the tech that would have to preceed common use of AM as a power source.
I think some fireworks wouldn't be out of place to give a ship launch some fizz if the related mechanisms weren't too exciting - yah, maybe some big, flaming smoke trails out the arse of the nacelles - why not?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
