That giant hands can grab spaceships or people can be turned into cubes and then back into people?
What were we discussing again?
Why not just use the pilot design?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
That giant hands can grab spaceships or people can be turned into cubes and then back into people?
What were we discussing again?
3D Master
Rear Admiral
And we get back to those classics: They only describe heroes with gods as their benefactors and their adversaries, so there must not be any ordinary people.
Or should I say: Mayweather, born and grew up on a civilian trading ship. Kassidy Yates captaining a civilian trading ship. Cyrano Jones; civilian trader living his entire life it seems in space. Mudd, another human living all his time in space. Humans part of the ORION syndicate - but I'm sure every single species in the alpha/beta quadrant never builds space stations and such either. And the coup de grace:
Space station K7, commanded by a civilian commander, populated by civilians, including a bar with civilian waitresses.
Should I go on, or is it enough already?
As for Voyager crew, they can marvel all they want, just like we marvel at the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, the Grand Canyon, a magnificent sunset; no matter how often we've seen them. Doesn't mean it's the first time we've seen them, and it's the first time we've seen something of similar beauty, workmanship, etc. etc.
By the way, 3D Master, you seem to be under the impression that I was joking when I advised you back here to knock it off with the ":sighs:" business.
I wasn't. Stop it now.
It's unnecessary, it's annoying and intended to bait or insult, and it will earn you a warning if I see it again.
Last edited:
K7 is the exception to the rule, and for all we know, K7 is essentially a glorified airport terminal, complete with an airport bar, annoying salespeople, management offices, and storage lockers for holding your stuff between flights.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
:sighs:
I'm getting to point of giving up on sighing and just going with slamming my head in the table with exasperation.
If you knew even a little about how computers work and what they are and are not capable of, you'd know that even the "new stuff" in the other battlestars and on Caprica is hopelessly too old to produce sentience.
Also, the Battlestar Galactica ship, comes from a time, a good chunk AFTER the Cylons were created. Thus, the computers there would have to be at least of the time they were advanced enough to produce Cylons.
They're not, they're not even close.
And don't even come to me with "they limited themselves so the Cylons couldn't get to them."
That's one of the major problems with the show. If one understands computers and how to hack them, you know that older, slower computers, are EASIER to hack then newer faster ones. Hacking is all about slipping into holes, the faster a computer is, the shorter those holes exist, the slower a computer is, the longer those holes exist.
I never said anything about believability of the technologies themselves, I was talking about the mismatch; magnificently advanced FTL drive, requiring a myriad of technologies to make it work, all technologies that the show claims does not exist, because they don't use them anywhere.
Which makes the entire show ridiculous.
Oh, and the technology isn't anymore believable, they're just more familiar.
Where you want a being to be, is simply a matter of making the right quantum mechanical and/or hyper-dimensional (subspace) connection. Once you have that there, you can form the person there. One does not require a piece of technology present to make that connection, or to collapse it, and the quantum-wave function that allows the object to be formed. Quantum mechanical entanglement has no boundary of space, solid matter, or time. Wherever you want the connection to be, it will be, if your understanding of it and your technology is high enough.
Of course, every time Luna has been shown in Trek, we saw no evidence of neither terraforming nor pressurized domes large enough to be seen from Earth.
If they ever do a TNG and/or DS9 remastered, that needs to change.
Of course! Let's forget the other examples I gave, and then conveniently say K7 doesn't count.
A space station in the middle of nowhere on the very outskirts of the Federation... but it's the only station in the entirety of the Federation even at the core, that carries civilians?
Most people TODAY are unwilling to move about too much. Many, many are afraid to get on planes. That doesn't mean that most people are as insular and xenophobic as you're claiming. It means that they like stability in their lives.
And I disagree with your assertion that, if a majority of the populace continues to live planet-side and there's scarcity of qualified orbital construction workers, that this must inevitably mean that unbearably huge swaths of the population must therefore be afraid of space travel and are therefore insular and xenophobic. It could just mean that most folks don't like living or working outside of an atmosphere.
No, it doesn't. It presumes that there are still a lot of people who live planetside and that Starfleet wants to show off its capabilities and its programs to them. It doesn't preclude the idea that other ships are being built in space. It doesn't require an apathetic populace -- if anything, it requires a populace that's willing and eager to see the great starships as they're being created, and then as they're launched. It's the sort of thing that could inspire a great sense of awe and unity and patriotism in Federates throughout the quadrant. I find the idea quite optimistic.
I'll go ahead and give that idea to you, but even if it wasn't,
1) You say that that theory's been around fourteen years. That means that when Roddenberry and Co. created TOS, FTL drive was believed impossible under then-current scientific theory.
2) Transporters.
Clearly the Federation is a society of vast capabilities. So why presume they're incapable of building starships on the ground, whether or not it's their usual habit? As I noted above: They have energy fields capable of canceling out inertia and keeping the ships from being crushed from the g-forces of extreme speeds. Given that kind of capacities, I think building and launching a starship from the ground is a comparatively minor feat.
Yes, please do... This ceased being a fun, fruitful debate several pages ago.
Have we sufficiently answered "Why not just use the pilot design?" already?
It seems you don't know your naval history. Up until the 1950's, aircraft carrier flight decks were pretty much the same width as the hull. In the 1950's several WWII carriers were modified, but it wasn't until the 1960's the full wide deck carriers were built.
Bruckheimer used visuals of modern carriers for a WWII movie and they were EFFECTS shots. It ruined the mood for those who know what a WWII aircraft carrier is supposed to look like. It shows a carelessness with something that any maroon can find online in about 30 seconds. Abrams is showing that same carelessness with Trek tradition and history.
There is no point in either using it or not using it. It would be totally up to whoever is making the production... JJ chose not. Had this been a different director who knows what we would get, every director would apporach that question in his own way...
That's really the only answer I can give, and its as right as it can be.
^^^
Yup, so I guess our work here in this thread is done.
Next topic!
Yup, so I guess our work here in this thread is done.
Next topic!
Oh, let's not even go there! The existence of transporters calls wayyyy too many of Trek's construction techniques into question.
But that's the point! Since E=mc^2 and since warp engines provide limitless E and since the computers are so powerful and the scanning technology is so powerful and since transporters and destruct and reconstruct living beings, using all that to construct things seems like the logical thing to do. So there would be no "welding" and no hull panelling and we'd have a ship that looks more like TOS Enterprise than what Abrams et al. have given us. So in that respect, TOS Enterprise is much more advanced and futuristic than Abrams' version.
3d, your argument has now boiled down to:
"ZOMG! TEH GROWND IS TEH SCAREY!! ZOMFG!!"
I'd give a more coherent response to some of your pointys, but it's not worth it. You'll only try to shoot them down with the same retarded arguments again and again, and not really make an effort to grasp what any of us are trying to say. I't like saying a supertanker should be built at sea or an A380 in a giant flying hangar.
Oh, and the 'space is a cleanroom' thing? No it isn't, especially in near-Earth orbit.
AND a ship like the E doesn't need as much cleanroom anyway - it has to be a LOT more robust than a shuttle or airliner, more analogous to a warship that goes on months-long aptrols.
I think my opening statement is all that your arguments deserve.
"ZOMG! TEH GROWND IS TEH SCAREY!! ZOMFG!!"
I'd give a more coherent response to some of your pointys, but it's not worth it. You'll only try to shoot them down with the same retarded arguments again and again, and not really make an effort to grasp what any of us are trying to say. I't like saying a supertanker should be built at sea or an A380 in a giant flying hangar.
Oh, and the 'space is a cleanroom' thing? No it isn't, especially in near-Earth orbit.
AND a ship like the E doesn't need as much cleanroom anyway - it has to be a LOT more robust than a shuttle or airliner, more analogous to a warship that goes on months-long aptrols.
I think my opening statement is all that your arguments deserve.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
In what sense, exactly? As the STS Wake Shield Facility Program experiments demonstrated, the vacuum at 300 km altitude is substantially "harder" than anything that can be presently generated in laboratory vacuum chambers.
TGT
Microparticles, and space dust are still up in the hard vacuum of space...
A CLEANroom is called a CLEANroom not because it's a Vacuum, but because... It's CLEAN.. In other words NO DUST or Particles to get into what your working on.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Spacecraft assembly cleanrooms are not completely particle free. They are assigned class ratings such as Class 100,000, Class 1000 and Class 100. The rating refers to the average particulate content of a cubic foot of air, so the lower the number the cleaner the facility. Class 100 facilities are exceedingly difficult (and expensive) to maintain, especially if there is work in progress. LEO is, needless to say, substantially cleaner.
TGT
I'm sure lots of components are used for the current STS program (which is being retired in 2010) But they refurbish the orbiter after every mission and they don't do it in a clean room so I doubt much of it was built in clean rooms. Mostly they use clean rooms for things like the solar panels on satillites and probes. A clean room was used for the Hubble Telescope's mirrors. Clean rooms are used for things that have tight tolerances for operation use in the experiments they take on when they do the flights. In other words the scientific equipment.
So sure for sattilites the clean room is essential seeing as they are masses of scientific or communicationd equipment. The shuttle though was built originally by Boeing (the OV-101 Enterprise) back in 1976. Now I'll grant alot of the equipment is built in a clean room do to the research nature of its mission, but the ships are working aircraft and as stated before the Orbiters are taken to the Obiter Processing facility for refurbishment after each mission so I doubt that something that is being refurbished in what is essentially a hanger was totally constructed in a clean room.
Systems and equipment yes but the whole vehicle, highly unlikely.
So sure for sattilites the clean room is essential seeing as they are masses of scientific or communicationd equipment. The shuttle though was built originally by Boeing (the OV-101 Enterprise) back in 1976. Now I'll grant alot of the equipment is built in a clean room do to the research nature of its mission, but the ships are working aircraft and as stated before the Orbiters are taken to the Obiter Processing facility for refurbishment after each mission so I doubt that something that is being refurbished in what is essentially a hanger was totally constructed in a clean room.
Systems and equipment yes but the whole vehicle, highly unlikely.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
Bull. It would make better sense for young James Kirk to fly his speeder bike up into space, and get a look at the Enterprise being constructed in Spacedock, much like Kimball Kinnison might do with his Cycleroader space bike in the movie, TV, and comic book versions of Lensman. That would have made it like real science fiction, and or Star Trek, than what we've seen in the trailer.
I'll accept that as a logical argument (with Qonos's caveat about clean v. vacuum), and say good for you for pointing it out without rancour, belittling and namecalling.
But I still maintain it's harder to work in space, as seen this week with the astronaut losing her tools.
(Man, we couldn't have even thought that sentence would be real when TOS was on
)
Ugh, really? No space bikes in Trek, please... Just too Star Wars... or Galactica: 1980.
Especially because, as I've made clear throughout this thread, I don't think that everyone in the 23rd century has their own private spacecraft. A farm boy having his own spacesuit and space bike is even worse... Leave it for the anime.
Last edited:
Don't bring facts and logic into this debate. Too many people have a boner for J.J. Abrams and you're ruining it.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
