Unresolved Trek trailer questions
- Thread starter RedSpar
- Start date
The ISS is a tinkertoy in comparison to a Constitution-class starship. They had to use rare, highly-trained professional spacewalkers to do it, too. Ask an astronaut sometime how dangerous it is to assemble things in free-fall. Did they also ask the astronauts to fabricate the sections in orbit? Of course not!
Not a chance. Clouds don't have sharp angles like that.They're clouds.
Rows and floes of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere;
Ive looked at clouds that way.
But now they only block the sun.
They rain and snow on everyone.
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way.
Ive looked at clouds from both sides now;
From up and down, and still somehow
Its clouds illusions I recall.
I really dont know clouds at all.
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere;
Ive looked at clouds that way.
But now they only block the sun.
They rain and snow on everyone.
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way.
Ive looked at clouds from both sides now;
From up and down, and still somehow
Its clouds illusions I recall.
I really dont know clouds at all.
Last edited:
I've seen the trailer again, just to make sure. They're not pylons, but buildings of some sort.
Maybe the archology theory is right...
FTW.
BTW, over at Trekmovie.com Roberto Orci has acknowledged being aware that Jimmy Kirk's jacket looks a lot like the "future jacket" that Marty McFly wears in part of "Back To The Future II."
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
They're clouds.
No, they're not, as will be obvious to all when screen caps from the official HD trailer start hitting the Web about mid-morning tomorrow.
Probably, but since when has James T. Kirk ever done anything the easier and safer way?
I'm puzzled here. Just because the ISS is smaller than Alpha or Freedom, you think the means of construction would change when something bigger is worked on? Are you honestly proposing that the larger stations designed years ago would have been built on the ground and launched in one piece? Because if you're not, I really can't make any sense of your point.
It sure is! So something bigger should be assembled on the ground? Yeah, I know, anti-grav, etc. But let's talk real world here: how would you build something approaching the size of the Enterprise if the government decided it needed a spaceship the size of an aircraft carrier?
I never suggested that they did. It doesn't even take careful reading of my statements to understand I'm talking about manufacturing components on the ground and assembling them in orbit. Just like the ISS. Just like Roddenberry and company proposed back in 1966.
Guys, given the energy at the disposal of a Federation starship and technologies like structural integrity fields, inertial dampers, and anti-grav, I openly concede that it is possible for a ship like the Enterprise to take off from the ground. I don't find it likely, however, because a mistake in construction could result in a critical loss of power during ascent, dropping a hunk of anti-matter fueled metal and advanced composites smack into our planet ... at best wasting billions of credits and the lives of those aboard. Modern ships don't roll off dry dock and start cruising the seven seas right away, there are a series of safe trials that take months to complete even after all systems are installed.
The maneuver seen in "Yesterday is Tomorrow" was performed by a seasoned starship not long after having been in for overhaul and repairs. She was presumably at the peak of her performance, and Sulu had to fight to get her to gain altitude (because of the slingshot or because of performing in a hostile environment isn't specified). A 20th Century jet caught up with her as she was doing this.
How is that relevant once it's shown on screen?
I don't find it likely Scotty would smack his head on a bulkhead but it's there right up on screen.
I don't find it likely that flying around the sun would send you back in time but it's there right up on screen.
It could be that, the ship is disassembled and then reassembled back in space -but if it isn't - well that's the end of it isn't it?
I look forward to you trying to maintain that confidence when the HD screen shots start to appear.
My point is that what the best means of successfully constructing big spacegoing structures will turn out to be remains more of an open and hypothetical one than you're suggesting, since it's neither been done nor is it successfully being done now.
The American space shuttle, after all, has turned out to be less than its designers had hoped and rather close to what critics of the nascent program in the 1970s feared.
I couldn't see any surface detail, they just look like big purple clouds to me too, but I guess they could be a 100 mile wide...uh...geometric art form.
Yes. They are clearly the feet of a giant SHATNER statue, over 10,000 miles tall. Shatner complained that it wasn't big enough for a star as big as he.
Yes. They are clearly the feet of a giant SHATNER statue, over 10,000 miles tall. Shatner complained that it wasn't big enough for a star as big as he.
But ... but ... it has been successfully done. You might disagree that the ISS performs any useful purpose beyond politics, but the damned thing most certainly has been built. For god's sake man, I've watched it go over with binoculars, and I could make it out as more than a spot. Here's its current configuration. Along it's biggest dimension, it's more than a quarter of the length of the Enterprise.
So how can you possibly say "it's neither been done nor is it successfully being done now."
They're just unusual clouds to make the scene look artsy. I can't believe that there's this much discussion over clouds. I can see the Enterprise if I stare at this photo long enough.
Bar code scanners so the hostesses have an easier time billing people when they deliver their drinks.
