Why has warp core safety regressed so much in 80 years?

[enterprisecvn65]

Really? So you don't see even the slightest hint of bad taste in Star Trek naming a ship...

I take the point you're making, but, I think you have the benefit of hindsight and are failing to see this from the perspective of the people making TSFS back then. They have no knowledge that there will be another 9 movies, and they just want to honor Grissom somehow. There's FOUR Federation starships of the movie era - Enterprise, whose name was a given, Reliant, which was named in the last movie and can't be named for anyone else now, another ship (Excelsior), which is going to get disabled by one of the heroes, and a peaceful science ship destroyed before its time. Which one would YOU name after him?

You might say "none", but now let's figure out what to name the ship. Naming it something like the Callow or similar would have been the worst sort of writing - when the ship was commissioned, the builders LIKED her, and they certainly had no idea what a dunsel her captain would be or how she would meet her end. So she's GOING to be named after someone or some ship from the past worthy of naming a starship after. Since the class is Oberth, and that was a scientist, one can conclude that the ships in the class will also be named after people that advanced science, not past ships. So now you're down to whom to choose to HONOR. And they chose Grissom.

And given that they were going to name it after *someone* in their honor, it's pretty much a given that whether they had named her the Curie or the Copernicus or the Marconi, there was GOING to be a poster on the Internet like you fussing about how disrespectful that was, right about now.

My issue is not that destroying any starship named after a person is disrespectful to that person.

But in this case the fact that Gus Grissom was killed in a fire where the whole crew perished and the ship in the movie is destroyed in a big fireball where the whole crew perishes.....I'm sorry if I find that just somewhat in bad taste and in some ways disrespectful. Had they named it after Alan Shephard or John Glenn or Neil Armstrong, someone who didn't die in a NASA fire I wouldn't have a problem with it.....Call me a whiny bitch if you want. But that's the way I see it.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

My issue is not that destroying any starship named after a person is disrespectful to that person.

Moments later...

But in this case the fact that Gus Grissom was killed in a fire where the whole crew perished and the ship in the movie is destroyed in a big fireball where the whole crew perishes.....I'm sorry if I find that just somewhat in bad taste and in some ways disrespectful.

Setting aside the fact that the entire crew did not perish (Saavik was still alive), it seems to me that's exactly what your beef is.

Had they named it after Alan Shephard or John Glenn or Neil Armstrong, someone who didn't die in a NASA fire I wouldn't have a problem with it.....Call me a whiny bitch if you want. But that's the way I see it.

FYI, there was eventually another USS Grissom that was destroyed (off-screen) during the Dominion War, which means that at least two vessels bearing the name were lost; are you going to argue that the writers of DS9 were also being disrespectful?

--Sran

 

[Timo]

Doesn't the enterprise actually shatter the top of the Reliant warp core early in TWOK yet this only damages it?

Sulu's phasers blast to bits the blue dome atop the Reliant, after which Joachim says they have damaged the ship's "photon controls" and "warp drive". We don't know if the dome is related to the warp core and whether such a piece of equipment is even included aboard the Reliant, but we might deduce that the dome did have something to do with warp drive anyway (despite being nowhere near the warp nacelles).

Then again, a dome might be associated with a fire control system, like today (even if weather covers in space might not be all that necessary), and Sulu blew up the photon controls there.

The Reliant never goes to warp after that fight, so we could also argue that Sulu's hit triggered warp core ejection and Khan was stranded for good. Of course, being stranded in a sublight-only ship had not significantly inconvenienced him before, and he could still feel confident that he could take over the universe somehow.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Myk]

Foreign labor and cheaper materials. It's what happens when you outsource jobs to the Pakled homeworld.

That's why I have my "Buy Terran" and "Out of a job yet? Keep buying Vulcan." stickers on my shuttle pod.

Vulcans are a bitch when it comes to contracts. They always say "There are literally thousands or millions of people who can do what you do, so it is illogical to pay you much since you are easily replaceable."

And of course the Vulcan employees can't argue with their employers hard line stance because they see that it's totally logical as well.

Hate to ruin your joke, but the ships are from the United Federation of Planets not Earth. Vulcan is a UFP member. So its a bit like complaining about cars made in California instead of Michigan.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

My issue is not that destroying any starship named after a person is disrespectful to that person.

Moments later...

But in this case the fact that Gus Grissom was killed in a fire where the whole crew perished and the ship in the movie is destroyed in a big fireball where the whole crew perishes.....I'm sorry if I find that just somewhat in bad taste and in some ways disrespectful.

Setting aside the fact that the entire crew did not perish (Saavik was still alive), it seems to me that's exactly what your beef is.

Had they named it after Alan Shephard or John Glenn or Neil Armstrong, someone who didn't die in a NASA fire I wouldn't have a problem with it.....Call me a whiny bitch if you want. But that's the way I see it.

FYI, there was eventually another USS Grissom that was destroyed (off-screen) during the Dominion War, which means that at least two vessels bearing the name were lost; are you going to argue that the writers of DS9 were also being disrespectful?

--Sran

Yes I'm aware Savvik and David weren't on the Grissom when it was destroyed, my point was that everyone on the ship at the time it was destroyed in a big fireball was killed, just like everyone on the Apollo 1 craft were killed in a big fireball. I'm sure the guys at mission control survived even though they were part of the mission, but thank you for pointing that out captain technically.

And I meant to say it isn't NECESSARILY disrespectful to have a ship named after someone destroyed and I even said if it was Glenn or Armstrong I would have been ok. But to have it named after a man who died in a very similar to the way the ship was destroyed....yeah that's a little bit different. And it wasn't even like the ship went down after a heroic struggle or anything, it was blown out out of the sky like a clay pigeon or anything.

And if they did it a second time in DS9, then yes I think that's tacky too.

Answer me this. If Star Trek had an armada named Arizona, Indianapolis, Challenger and Columbia and they all got anilihated at the same by an enemy force, do you think there's no problem with that? Or can you see where just MAYBE it might be a little bit in bad taste to say the least. Or is it because Grissom was only one man killed so it's legit to have his ship destroyed in a similar manner to how he died. Tell me what's the number of lives lost where it becomes in bad taste and disrespectful to have a ship, in a fictional TV show where they can call it whatever they want, named after something that ended in tragedy in. Is 7 enough? 700? 1000?

And this isn't real life as if the Navy destroyer named the USS Kidd in honor of the Admiral on the USS Arizona was destroyed in action in a similar to the Arizona, the Navy can't predict the future. This was a TV show where they could do whatever they wanted. I'm not saying the writers were out to piss on Grissom's grave or anything that severe, but it seems like the common sense phone just wasn't ringing the day they wrote this scene.

If you know how to get in touch with any of Grissom's realtives please let me know how they feel about this tribute.

And BTW there has never been another navy ship named Arizona or Royal Navy ship named Hood so sometimes the ultimate tribute is to retire the name altogether. Not bring it back, like in DS9, to be destroyed again.

 

[Nebusj]

And I meant to say it isn't NECESSARILY disrespectful to have a ship named after someone destroyed and I even said if it was Glenn or Armstrong I would have been ok. But to have it named after a man who died in a very similar to the way the ship was destroyed....yeah that's a little bit different.

I hope that it will put your mind at ease to know that the Apollo 1 accident review board determined that, despite early reports (from rumors understandable in the immediate confusion), there were no confirmed incidents of Klingon phaser blasts contributing to the fire in the Command Module.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Where to begin...

Yes I'm aware Savvik and David weren't on the Grissom when it was destroyed, my point was that everyone on the ship at the time it was destroyed in a big fireball was killed, just like everyone on the Apollo 1 craft were killed in a big fireball. I'm sure the guys at mission control survived even though they were part of the mission, but thank you for pointing that out captain technically.

Why do you feel the need to call people names as part of your responses?

And I meant to say it isn't NECESSARILY disrespectful to have a ship named after someone destroyed and I even said if it was Glenn or Armstrong I would have been ok. But to have it named after a man who died in a very similar to the way the ship was destroyed....yeah that's a little bit different. And it wasn't even like the ship went down after a heroic struggle or anything, it was blown out out of the sky like a clay pigeon or anything.

You've yet to provide any concrete proof that Gus Grissom's memory was in any way disrespected by the starship's destruction, and it isn't your place to presume to tell people how they should feel.

And if they did it a second time in DS9, then yes I think that's tacky too.

Films and television shows are edited and revised extensively before they're released into circulation. Has it occurred to you that maybe this issue was discussed on the cutting room floor, and that it was decided that it wasn't big deal use Grissom's name for two different vessels that were destroyed?

Answer me this. If Star Trek had an armada named Arizona, Indianapolis, Challenger and Columbia and they all got anilihated at the same by an enemy force, do you think there's no problem with that? Or can you see where just MAYBE it might be a little bit in bad taste to say the least.

A hypothetical scenario that has no basis in fact whatsoever. As such, I don't know how I would feel about it until I saw it on screen.

Or is it because Grissom was only one man killed so it's legit to have his ship destroyed in a similar manner to how he died. Tell me what's the number of lives lost where it becomes in bad taste and disrespectful to have a ship, in a fictional TV show where they can call it whatever they want, named after something that ended in tragedy in. Is 7 enough? 700? 1000?

Your channeling of Picard doesn't make your argument any less ridiculous; and please don't put words in my mouth. I never once said that Grissom's death was any less significant because he's one man. You put that idea out there yourself.

And this isn't real life as if the Navy destroyer named the USS Kidd in honor of the Admiral on the USS Arizona was destroyed in action in a similar to the Arizona, the Navy can't predict the future. This was a TV show where they could do whatever they wanted. I'm not saying the writers were out to piss on Grissom's grave or anything that severe, but it seems like the common sense phone just wasn't ringing the day they wrote this scene.

Please. As I've already stated, films are edited extensively before they're released. Do you honestly think that if anyone had a problem with the demise of the vessel that an alternative wouldn't have been considered? It's laughable how many people think they can do a particular job better than the people actually doing it for a living.

If you know how to get in touch with any of Grissom's realtives please let me know how they feel about this tribute.

I wouldn't bother them with something this stupid.

And BTW there has never been another navy ship named Arizona or Royal Navy ship named Hood so sometimes the ultimate tribute is to retire the name altogether. Not bring it back, like in DS9, to be destroyed again.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Star Trek is fiction, written by people who enjoy writing fiction. That there has never been another ship with either of those names has no basis where a TV show or movie is concerned. People choose names for all sorts of reasons; however, most people choose names they like or that they find fitting for whatever story they're trying to tell. Whatever spurred the decision to name a Federation starship in Gus Grissom's honor, I doubt it had to do with disrespecting his memory or trying to offend his surviving relatives.

--Sran

 

[USS Triumphant]

Maybe the tribute is IN the fact that these ships were destroyed. Space exploration is dangerous, but these people go anyway, even if they end up making the ultimate sacrifice. And even if it may seem to some like the sacrifice comes sometimes for a triviality or because of a stupid accident, it's worth it because no matter what, they are part of mankind's greatest adventure.

Just like Gus Grissom was.

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Maybe the tribute is IN the fact that these ships were destroyed. Space exploration is dangerous, but these people go anyway, even if they end up making the ultimate sacrifice. And even if it may seem to some like the sacrifice comes sometimes for a triviality or because of a stupid accident, it's worth it because no matter what, they are part of mankind's greatest adventure.

Just like Gus Grissom was.

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q

Interesting you should put it that way, because Gus Grissom said something a lot like that a few years before he passed:

"If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us, it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."

--Sran

 

[DonIago]

I may be reaching here (and possibly there in fact is onscreen evidence to contradict my point), but do we even know that Grissom was named after Gus Grissom of Earth, rather than, say, Doctor S'trel Grissom of Vulcan, a famed scientist?

And before anyone claims that Grissom isn't a proper Vulcan surname, perhaps S'trel married a human with the last name of Grissom. There is some precedent for Vulcans marrying humans.

Memory Alpha doesn't provide conclusive in-universe evidence that I saw.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Gus Grissom's Wikipedia page states that the Grissom was named for him.

--Sran

 

[DonIago]

^Unsourced and no indication that it's based on in-universe information.

 

[BillJ]

I just don't understand the whole Grissom side conversation. Probably someone wanted to have a nod towards his sacrifice and there weren't a whole lot of starships they could name stuff after.

 

[Timo]

It's one of enterprisecvn65's usual straw men anyway: no navy really shirks away from naming ships after people merely because said ships might go up in flames. It was considered a good thing in WWII to name a vulnerable tin can USS The Sullivans to commemorate the dead brothers, even though the vessel had excellent odds of commemorating them with fireworks. Going down (or up) in flames is supposed to be glorious and honorable and all, even when it symbolically happens twice.

As for warp core safety, I just maintain that TNG has some of it while TOS had none. Some is naturally better than none, but it won't be until we get the 25th century spinoff that "some" actually suffices for saving lives aboard. In the 24th, it just keeps dying ships from taking entire fleets of fellow starships with them.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

I would point out that the destruction of USS Grissom is nothing like the death of Gus Grissom.

Apollo 1's command module caught fire internally and they burned to death in a pure oxygen enviroment. She did not explode. She wasn't even launched.

USS Grissom was shot down by enemy fire while in the middle of a scientific mission to a newly created planet. The torpedo must have hit the antimatter containment system and all the antimatter just destroyed the ship. Full on Next Gen style warp core breach before such things were in fashion.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Yours are valid points; unfortunately, the OP has gotten into his head that the destruction of the USS Grissom was intended as a slight to a real person named Grissom; therefore, we're stuck with this annoying side-bar in what has otherwise been an interesting thread.

--Sran

 

[enterprisecvn65]

^Yours are valid points; unfortunately, the OP has gotten into his head that the destruction of the USS Grissom was intended as a slight to a real person named Grissom; therefore, we're stuck with this annoying side-bar in what has otherwise been an interesting thread.

--Sran

Tell you what. Find one of Grissom's surviving realtives and say to them. Hey wasn't that cool how they honored the legacy of your husband/dad/brother/uncle by naming a ship after him in the film and then having it completely out of the stars.

If they answer "Sure was" then I'll drop my feelings completely. Somehow I suspect they may feel it wasn't the most tasteful way to do it. Let me know when you finish this task.

And Jesus Christ will you and others get over yourselves. I made my opinion felt and you'd have I thought I had said "Hey let's make nun murder legal" the way you and others pissed and moaned, came at me personally, and made off color jokes about America's first space tragedy to show how my thinking was so incorrect.

I only wish on that episode of TOS where Kirk and Spock met Abraham Lincoln that the writers had had one of the enemies sneak up and shoot Lincoln in the back of the head and have him die slowly so I could read all your comments about how it was a great way to honor Lincoln's legacy and anyone who felt otherwise was clearly full of crap.

And to the gentleman who said the two were nothing related. I don't know you but I feel comfortable in saying that I've forgotten more about the space program in the 60's then you'll never know. I'm well aware they died of suffocation, but there was also a big fireball in the capsule and even if it didn't technically kill them, that is the lasting memory people have. I'm sure some people survived the initial explosion on the Grissom and suffocated in the vacuum of space.

And to the poster who made the crack about to Klingons being involved in the Apollo 1 fire....You're an ass to make a joke about something like that.

Jeez I know Star Trek is our lives and all but sometimes it can make bad choices.

 

[DonIago]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Richard Baker]

It was an interesting thread about technology...

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Tell you what. Find one of Grissom's surviving realtives and say to them. Hey wasn't that cool how they honored the legacy of your husband/dad/brother/uncle by naming a ship after him in the film and then having it completely out of the stars.

I'm a physician and have more important things to do with my time, and as I've already stated, I wouldn't bother the Grissom family with something like this.

If they answer "Sure was" then I'll drop my feelings completely. Somehow I suspect they may feel it wasn't the most tasteful way to do it. Let me know when you finish this task.

Yes, because you're obviously an expert on other people's feelings.

And Jesus Christ will you and others get over yourselves. I made my opinion felt and you'd have I thought I had said "Hey let's make nun murder legal" the way you and others pissed and moaned, came at me personally, and made off color jokes about America's first space tragedy to show how my thinking was so incorrect.

Go back and read this thread, and you'll find that the only person who's launched any sort of personal attack is you.

I only wish on that episode of TOS where Kirk and Spock met Abraham Lincoln that the writers had had one of the enemies sneak up and shoot Lincoln in the back of the head and have him die slowly so I could read all your comments about how it was a great way to honor Lincoln's legacy and anyone who felt otherwise was clearly full of crap.

What part of "don't put words in my mouth" do you not understand? No one has ever argued such a thing, and your suggestion that anyone would is beyond laughable.

And to the gentleman who said the two were nothing related. I don't know you but I feel comfortable in saying that I've forgotten more about the space program in the 60's then you'll never know. I'm well aware they died of suffocation, but there was also a big fireball in the capsule and even if it didn't technically kill them, that is the lasting memory people have. I'm sure some people survived the initial explosion on the Grissom and suffocated in the vacuum of space.

And to the poster who made the crack about to Klingons being involved in the Apollo 1 fire....You're an ass to make a joke about something like that.

Case and point re: personal attacks.

Jeez I know Star Trek is our lives and all but sometimes it can make bad choices.

And you have a bad choice by continuing to resurrect this topic, and by making personal attacks against other posters, all the while claiming that you're somehow a victim in this sordid affair.

--Sran