• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why not just use the pilot design?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, the key words, would be "science fiction". You see, the adjective MODIFIES the noun, to be given added properties, and demands. It's modifier.

A little tower is a tower that is little. Just any tower doesn't fulfill the terms, especially considering most towers are usually tall and big. Only a little tower satisfies the criteria of a little tower.
science fiction full definition

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization)

Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

S
o the basis of Sci-fi is it is speculative. It's about possibilities. So why so narrowminded? Just something for all to reflect on...

It so hard on these long post cause I think I might only comment once and then I continue reading and comment on something else. It really is an unfair rule but I will try to keep to it. :(

So, I'm RIGHT.

What they don't mention, but is a heavy consequence of that little line; is that Science Fiction MUST adhere to the laws of LOGIC. You can't have something defy all logic, and remain possible within laws of nature.

It's not being narrow minded, it's logic-minded. It's understanding what the genre is. It's wanting a cohesive picture, one that gives a possible future that might at its basics come true. It's liking Science Fiction, something that requires a functioning brain, and not a meaningless, mindless pile of fantasy.
 
No by his reckoning we only got to see what less than .0514% of the population of the federation was doing. We know there were farmers, miners, prostitutes, criminals and con-men in the future, but the show we tuned into focused on the actions of one captain and his crew upon a vessel that travelled through the most dangerous environ ever... Space.

:sighs:

Space is not that dangerous, and most certainly NOT the most dangerous environment. We can put you naked in space, versus in a wet suit near one of the smokers on the bottom of the oceans, the toxicity of the smokers will kill you faster than being naked in space. And that's not even talking about the pressure of the water.

Utterly ridiculous how people are dismissing a slew of space tourism that we are planning NOW. NOW. When space to us is still reasonably dangerous with our primitive technology. To be realized before the century is over.

In Star Trek's 23rd century!?

Odd, that us "canonistas" are derogatorily called "closed-minded" and all those "new is so cool and creative and look how open-minded we are" aren't open-minded enough to accept OUR TODAY'S space tourism plans.


There is nothing in the STXI trailer that defies the "laws of logic".

Yes, there is: the ship is being built on the ground.
 
No, the key words, would be "science fiction". You see, the adjective MODIFIES the noun, to be given added properties, and demands. It's modifier.

A little tower is a tower that is little. Just any tower doesn't fulfill the terms, especially considering most towers are usually tall and big. Only a little tower satisfies the criteria of a little tower.
science fiction full definition

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization)

Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

S
o the basis of Sci-fi is it is speculative. It's about possibilities. So why so narrowminded? Just something for all to reflect on...

It so hard on these long post cause I think I might only comment once and then I continue reading and comment on something else. It really is an unfair rule but I will try to keep to it. :(

So, I'm RIGHT.

What they don't mention, but is a heavy consequence of that little line; is that Science Fiction MUST adhere to the laws of LOGIC. You can't have something defy all logic, and remain possible within laws of nature.

It's not being narrow minded, it's logic-minded. It's understanding what the genre is. It's wanting a cohesive picture, one that gives a possible future that might at its basics come true. It's liking Science Fiction, something that requires a functioning brain, and not a meaningless, mindless pile of fantasy.
No what they mention is the whole definition of Science fiction (which you butchered to prove yourself right and that sir is intellectually dishonest.) Space IS Dangerous there's no oxygen, it's teaming with raditation and the only support you have in space is WHAT YOU BRING WITH YOU. That's why our astronaughts don't go bouncing around space in the god damned BVD's but in space suits.

Oh I know hey we're in the middle of space our ship blew up all we have left is this life pod which may have about 36 hours of air, we don't know when rescue will come. Let's open a frelling window.

.*Retracted I don't need to be like that*

BTW the Dangers of space

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/watchtheskies/meteor_cloud.html
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=741

Also you may have anywhere between 3-4 minutes in space before you supphocate as long as you exhale the contents of your lungs, which if you don't your lungs will rupture.. Killing you.
 
science fiction full definition

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization)

Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

S
o the basis of Sci-fi is it is speculative. It's about possibilities. So why so narrowminded? Just something for all to reflect on...

It so hard on these long post cause I think I might only comment once and then I continue reading and comment on something else. It really is an unfair rule but I will try to keep to it. :(

So, I'm RIGHT.

What they don't mention, but is a heavy consequence of that little line; is that Science Fiction MUST adhere to the laws of LOGIC. You can't have something defy all logic, and remain possible within laws of nature.

It's not being narrow minded, it's logic-minded. It's understanding what the genre is. It's wanting a cohesive picture, one that gives a possible future that might at its basics come true. It's liking Science Fiction, something that requires a functioning brain, and not a meaningless, mindless pile of fantasy.
No what they mention is the whole definition of Science fiction (which you butchered to prove yourself right and that sir is intellectually dishonest.)

I didn't butcher it, my definition was the all but the same as the one given in that quote. The quote was just more elaborate, and I snipped all the irrelevant parts.

(Oh, and how has the below got anything to do with it?)

Space IS Dangerous there's no oxygen, it's teaming with raditation and the only support you have in space is WHAT YOU BRING WITH YOU. That's why our astronaughts don't go bouncing around space in the god damned BVD's but in space suits.
And yet, we're planning the space tourism today.

Of course, the space suits of 23rd century would be quite a lot less bulky than ours today. In fact, for Mars, NASA is already designing a less bulky, more maneuverable space suit - now add 250 more years of technology.

Oh I know hey we're in the middle of space our ship blew up all we have left is this life pod which may have about 36 hours of air, we don't know when rescue will come. Let's open a frelling window.
Where did anyone suggest one should open the window of your life pod?

.*Retracted I don't need to be like that*

BTW the Dangers of space

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/watchtheskies/meteor_cloud.html
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=741

Also you may have anywhere between 3-4 minutes in space before you supphocate as long as you exhale the contents of your lungs, which if you don't your lungs will rupture.. Killing you.
In short, for construction purposes with 23rd century rescue tech - read: transporters - that's SEAS, and SEAS, and SEAS, and SEAS of time. Smokers on the bottom of the ocean, would kill you in mere seconds. So indeed; space is nowhere close to the most dangerous environment in existence. Venus atmosphere would kill you in seconds as well.

And we're still planning those space hotels, space skiing on Jupiter's moons, and space walk tourisms, TODAY. Let alone Star Trek's 23rd century.
 
Yeah, you have minutes of life exposed to space -as long as you've exhaled in which case you risk some possible lung damage.

That's 3-4 maybe even as long as 5 minutes. That's FIVE MINUTES for someone to say, "Foreman Davis' suit failed. Lock on to him... Energize."
 
Yes, there is: the ship is being built on the ground.
A proceedure which has many logical pros. Your suppositions about spacewalking being second nature and most major industry being in space are exactly that - your own personal suppositions.
 
There really is no evidence in Trek to suggest that the average citizen of Earth (or any other planet) spends much time in space (or doing anything like orbital skydiving).

Of course not, because Kirk went orbital skydiving did in a cut scene from Generation, B'Elanna did it in Voyager, and apparently they're doing it again in this movie.

All highly trained Starfleet officers. The best and the brightest. Not the average citizens or blue-color workers. And it was considered somewhat thrill-seeking and reckless in the first two cases, and apparently an emergency situation in the last.

We see civilians flying about space doing business everywhere. Space bars and the like adjoining it.

Business travelers. They're on business trips, just like people do today... and people today don't live on planes or in airports -- they're passing through on their way to and from their destinations. The same could be true for most of the civilians we see. And Starbase 11, for instance, was planet-based, as were many others apparently.

WE are planning those vacations and tourist attractions NOW. By the 23rd century? Tseh, I'm probably being conservative.

Yes, exactly -- tourism. Like I said, people take cruises now. As tourists. There are, what, 8 or 10 billion people on Earth in Trek's time? You think even a small fraction of them have been to space? I don't see it, no. What population of Earth today has been on a cruise? How many have never seen an ocean? I think it is a real reach to believe, even in Trek's vision of the future, that more than a few million people on Earth ever make it into space. I think that's being much more realistic and pragmatic than you are.

Space is not water.

Correct. Space is much less forgiving than water.

And Trek is supposed to be the adventures of Horatio Hornblower in space.

No, the evidence suggests that us humans and other species are everywhere throughout space.

Throughout Federation territory... mostly on planets, not just hanging out in space.

On the other hand, by your reckoning back in the classic era, hardly anyone did any farming. They were all strapping super heroes with divine help and adversities fighting wars and having adventures.

No, like Qonos pointed out, you have that exactly backward...

We only see the adventures of a few hundred people, the best and brightest, officers in Starfleet. Back on Earth, there are billions of "normal" people who are farming, running restaurants, building houses and bridges, playing in the world soccer leagues, repairing power systems, etc. We don't see them because there isn't a show about the ordinary lives of those ordinary people. Do they work and live in space? No. Have they been space tourists? Possibly. Are they more comfortable on Earth than cooped up in a spaceship or station? Quite possibly. Why trade spacious planet-based life for being cooped up in a ship the size of an aircraft carrier, even in the "enlightened" future?

But perhaps you envision every middle-class family having their own personal spaceship in the 23rd century. If that's the case, we have very different vision of the (relatively near) future.
 
Science fiction doesn't differ from fantasy; it is a specialized subgenre of fantasy. The fact that some of its devotees take elements of it way too seriously doesn't mitigate that in the least.

Damon Knight advanced the only really workable definition of science fiction that takes in everything that all the various enthusiasts and practitioners would like to be included in the genre: "Science fiction...means what we point to when we say it."
 
We don't know that. Friday's Child mentioned "Planetoid Colonies[/url]" and Operation: Annihilate! referenced asteroid mining operations in the Deneva system, both of which imply a substantial population of space habitat-dwellers within the UFP.

We know from "WNMHGB" and "Mudd's Women" that mining colonies can be largely automated or involve only a very small colony, and from "Devil in the Dark" we know that mining colonies can be deep underground and manned by a small number of people. None of these involve space habitats.

As for the "planetoid" colonies, the population on an asteroid, which has a diameter of a few to several hundred kilometers, would be measly compared to planetary starbases or the billions of people on Earth. A "colony" doesn't imply a huge number of people -- Omicron Ceti III had, what, a few dozen people?
 
We know from "WNMHGB" and "Mudd's Women" that mining colonies can be largely automated or involve only a very small colony...

Scott specifically states "carrying supplies to the asteroid belt for the miners", so it is not a fully automated operation.

...and from "Devil in the Dark" we know that mining colonies can be deep underground and manned by a small number of people. None of these involve space habitats.

The practical difference between Janus VI and a space habitat is at best minimal, considering that the residents of both require life-support equipment to survive.

As for the "planetoid" colonies, the population on an asteroid, which has a diameter of a few to several hundred kilometers, would be measly compared to planetary starbases or the billions of people on Earth.

Dandridge Cole - who coined the phrase "planetoid colony" - estimated in 1963 that that a habitat inflated from Pallas could comfortably support at least a million inhabitants. BTW, has Earth's population ever been "canonically" stated? Gene Roddenberry pegged it at less than a billion for Phase II.

A "colony" doesn't imply a huge number of people -- Omicron Ceti III had, what, a few dozen people?

Presumably the relevant UFP authority would not go to the trouble of inflating a planetoid for the benefit of ~150 wannabe colonists.

TGT
 

You must have really bad asthma or something.

Yes, there is: the ship is being built on the ground.
I asked about this at a NASA forum... and the overall consensus when it comes to building the ship on Earth is "Why not?" Especially in the Star Trek world.

But hey, let's play your game. Star Trek has been defying your "laws of logic" since DAY DAMNED one. Sound in space anyone? ::siiiiiiighs::
 
Dandridge Cole - who coined the phrase "planetoid colony" - estimated in 1963 that that a habitat inflated from Pallas could comfortably support at least a million inhabitants. . . Presumably the relevant UFP authority would not go to the trouble of inflating a planetoid for the benefit of ~150 wannabe colonists.

That's Dandridge Cole, not Trek. There isn't the slightest suggestion that the UFP "inflates" asteroids... not when it takes the Starfleet Corp of Engineers six months to carve out the cave for the Genesis experiments.

But I appreciate where you're coming from, TGT, thinking of the Trek world in terms of speculative science from the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Your knowledge of such things is impressive, even if they don't always translate well to what we saw on-screen in Trek.

BTW, has Earth's population ever been "canonically" stated? Gene Roddenberry pegged it at less than a billion for Phase II.

Not that I can recall (except for nine billion Borg drones in FC). But Earth must be somewhat desperate for space if the Atlantis Project (TNG's "Family") wanted to raise a big chunk of the Atlantic Ocean floor to make a new continent.
 

You must have really bad asthma or something.

Yes, there is: the ship is being built on the ground.
I asked about this at a NASA forum... and the overall consensus when it comes to building the ship on Earth is "Why not?" Especially in the Star Trek world.

But hey, let's play your game. Star Trek has been defying your "laws of logic" since DAY DAMNED one. Sound in space anyone? ::siiiiiiighs::
*Applause*

...can they hear me clapping?
 
If you have the orbital infastructure to construct a ship in orbit, why wouldn't you?
A) Its safer to build in people's natural environment

B) You have a larger and cheaper labor pool to work with

C) Most component sub-assembly will likely be ground-based

D) Aside from the dangers of working in free fall and in a vacuum, space has other dangers - radiation, micrometeoroids, etc.

If you have anti-grav and other means of easily boosting large masses into orbit, why would you build in space?
 
Theoretically I'd want to see the ship looking as close to the TOS version as possible. It shouldn't resemble the refit since the refit wouldn't have happened yet.

That being said, if whatever's presented bothered me to such an extent that I didn't want to watch it, I wouldn't watch it, and I might express my dissatisfaction here...but I can't even begin to imagine being motivated enough to actively interact in a 22-page thread on the subject. Why should my opinion be considered any more valid than anyone else's? If other people like it, then more power to them, and my view is I should let it go at that point and stick with what I do like rather than attacking what I don't.

That's so sad and pathetic. Are you telling me that you won't watch the movie if you don't like the ship's design? :guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:. What about the characters? Trek was never about the ships! :bolian:

Point 1- I'll thank you not to call me or my views sad and pathetic. That's rude and childish.

Point 2- Who are you to judge the validity of my reasons for choosing not to watch a movie? Isn't it enough that I wouldn't _want_ to? Am I not allowed to make that decision based on whatever criteria _I_ deem appropriate, or do I need to submit them to some form of review first?

Point 3- If _any_ aspect of a movie disturbs someone to the point that they won't enjoy the movie, why SHOULD they watch it? I've recommended movies and other forms of media to people and failed to elicit their interest? So what? Their loss, and I move on. I fail to see how antagonizing them for their reasons not, in my eyes, being good would actually accomplish anything other than possibly making them _less_ prone to experiencing the media to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top