I'm not sure I understand your point.
Spoilers What is a dealbreaker for me so far - Technology question
- Thread starter elkar
- Start date
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Was it ever said on screen when the first Consitution-class was launched?
The only thing I remember was when the Admiral in Search for Spock stated the Enterprise had been in service for 25 years (which would put it around the late 50's).
I think it was more that the Constitution-class was a deep space explorer. Given the ships we see in Discovery and even the TMP movies, it was much larger than most of it's contemporaries so the Federation probably didn't have the resources to build that many.
The only thing I remember was when the Admiral in Search for Spock stated the Enterprise had been in service for 25 years (which would put it around the late 50's).
I think it was more that the Constitution-class was a deep space explorer. Given the ships we see in Discovery and even the TMP movies, it was much larger than most of it's contemporaries so the Federation probably didn't have the resources to build that many.
There is no line that would be sufficient for making it look like the 60s. Even if the sets were recreated faithfully, down to the measurements, the uniforms the same material, and the like, there would still be something that would violate some preestablished lore and would be unacceptable as "Star Trek."
Npthing on screen said they were larger than most other ships. They are heavy crusiers, so they will,by default, be on the large end. But a military as large as Starfleet, with as much area as the fedration just would not build "13" of a class unless that class was replaced with something better before the order was finished. Or it was a fail or something.
He may have included an addendum (after the episode) blaming everything on the powerful Talosians. And Command may buy it because they clearly know how powerful the Talosians are, upholding the general order all those years.
Yeah, this wasn't a deal breaker for me but I gotta say, what the eff?
What's wrong with it? 2000km is barely anything in space.
In 10 minutes, or 200km a minute, or more than 3.3 kilometers a second (11,880km/h or Mach 9.7). In a heavy debris field that has that magic Star Trek only supergravity that can suck starships towards them from miles away at some speed.
It's a tad fast for human reaction times, or lazy computers.
It's a tad fast for human reaction times, or lazy computers.
In a space suit, in an asteroid field, that close to a star? 1240 miles?
Just sounds too ridiculous. There is a certain level of disbelief that I can't rationally suspend without ANY explanation as to how that makes sense.
I won't do the writer's job for them. It is their responsibility at some point to recognize "gee that's ridiculous we should probably address it a little bit if we're going to do that"
Asteroid fields as depicted in various space based science fiction franchises (from Star Trek to Star Wars) have always been ridiculous and none are actually as densely packed with debris like that. That said, yeah, 2000 KM in less than 10 minutes does seem fast - even for a thruster suit (not to mention how quickly/easily she decelerated at the end of the transit to the object.)
Last edited:
Transporters are ridiculous as well. I guess the suspension of disbelief varies from person to person, but astronomical distances have long been a struggle of Trek, and this strikes me as an odd line
Transporters are ridiculous as well. I guess the suspension of disbelief varies from person to person, but astronomical distances have long been a struggle of Trek, and this strikes me as an odd line
Very different. there is no frame of reference a human being has for such a concept and eventually, the concept was explained.
but the speeds being discussed in the vehicle being discussed so close to a star, which is something well understood by middle schoolers, there is an anchor there already.
A large ship with a reactor moving a ship is also, very different than us imagining that it's reasonable for her to go those distances in that suit.
im not saying it's utterly unbelievable. I'm saying that from a writing standpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense to do something like that without touching on reasonable disbelief.
Shooting someone at an object of vary dubious origin and nature, inside a ring of debris from a binary star collision, at extremely high levels of lethal radiation, at 12,000kph, with their DNA turning to gloop more every second was a bad idea?
I mean, if only someone on a starship on the edge of Federation space keeping the peace from entire evil empires had an notion that that was a "bad idea", or what one of those was.
I mean who could possibly have seen it ending badly?
I mean, if only someone on a starship on the edge of Federation space keeping the peace from entire evil empires had an notion that that was a "bad idea", or what one of those was.
I mean who could possibly have seen it ending badly?
Sorry, it's a line that wasn't crossed for me. No less than "slingshot effect" warp speed or any other physics bending that has been done before.
Hey, you enjoying it is the whole point aint it? As long as you liked it, that's what matters.
My problem isn't with the act itself, my problem is when you take the writing as a whole, especially science fiction, you have to establish some rules, some realistic sense of danger. Death used as just motivation, or a plot point, without any real intelligence put in robs us of the drama. For these things to land with me there really needs to be some limits, some rules.
Not only can the ship fly so fast and do so much, why the space suits can, don't worry if she gets that lethal dose of radiation, it's not really lethal, we can cure ANYTHING. And don't worry, whenever the ship is inches from total destruction, there's always a solution like teleporting a torpedo that no one can detect, it's alllll good.
it's like everyone is wearing a Wesley Crusher rabbits foot and no one told us. If there is no real risk, there is no real danger, then we're left knowing that death is only written in when it's convenient, not when it makes sense.
That to me just isn't exciting. To me it's lazy writing.
Fair enough. I just don't see it as any different than what Star Trek has done before, for good or for ill.
Same for me. And First Contact and Nemesis also, showed great Star Trek battles with phaser beams (slower, more powerfull).
There is a way to get around that. With a few minor alterations, You'd have a 2017 appropriate faithful TOS bridge.
That wasn't really my point, but I'll take the bridge artwork any day!There is a way to get around that. With a few minor alterations, You'd have a 2017 appropriate faithful TOS bridge.
