Why not just use the pilot design?

[ST-One]

Are u insane? The aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor were REAL SHIPS, WITH REAL HISTORY! They actually happened. Thats why the ships they used in Pearl Harbor were wrong, especially since they were not flattop carriers like the Japanese used.

The Enterprise is a fictional ship. JJ can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, and it will not effect actual history in any way.

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.

The 2nd world war happened, it's real, it's history.
Star Trek's 23rd century isn't real, it will never happen.

 

[Butters]

In space. Because by the time you have the technology to build a thing like that on the ground in its entirety and lift it to orbit, building it in space would be much easier than it is today, and to boot, it would be SAFER.

If whatever keeps the stuff that's supposed to be up up on the ground fails, it comes falling down (incidentally not just killing whoever was in place, but also destroying the construction). In space, no such thing happens.

Do you suppose then that they construct large buildings in Trek's 23rd century in space, where it is "safer" according to you, and then lower them to the ground?

If they construct buildings on the ground, whatever keeps the stuff that's supposed to keep the building up fails, it comes falling down (incidentally not just killing whoever was in place, but also destroying the construction). In space, no such thing happens.

See? We can twist the "logic" around too and make absurd statements.

No, you fail to take in that nothing keeps buildings up. Buildings on the ground are built to be on the ground, their construction is such that it keeps itself up.

Space stations and starbases however, are NOT. The ISS is a string of tubes, beams and compartments, that on the ground would fall apart, but is the best and cheapest way to build to be in space. Similarly, a Federation starbase if you recall, is a cone. It won't stay up on the Earth by its own construction. Nor does the Enterprise.

IF, IF for some reason, they'd be building on the Earth, the construction they'd build would be able to be at rest on the Earth without any power-hungry help. The construction would be VASTLY different that what we see in space stations, or the Enterprise. The construction would either be pyramidal in shape (for a station), maybe a pyramid-like cone or a flat Defiant-like construction - one piece, flat (for a ship).

First of, by the 23rd century people aren't enlightened yet, that that happen until another century later.

As for "staying on a planet, stuck until it get blown to bits by its star", well there's this thing that they didn't, they went out and colonized the moon, mars, they built fleets of starships. And they colonized onward, eventually to the point of forming the Maquis.

But more importantly, people staying on a planet because they are "enlightened" would mean they cared about nothing that existed in the universe except sitting on that planet. These types of folks would not build fleets of starships. They wouldn't go out and explore. And as a result, they would also care nothing about enjoying say, the days with children. They would not let them watch a movie, enjoy a holodeck, a book, a theme park, visit other planets, and go to enjoyable things in place that children would like to do. They emotionless monsters that deny their children everything because it wouldn't be the enlightened thng to do.

What a fantastically optimistic view of the future! (Incidentally, it doesn't seem very enlightened to me either, I hope it doesn't to you the same way.)

Also they would never bring them along on a Galaxy-class starship... oh, wait a minute...



Seeing as Battlestar Galactica is barely known and even its best ratings couldn't even get close to the ratings of Star Trek's worst show Enterprise. It barely even got half, no, looking at Battlestar Galactica would be a BAD thing indeed.

Battlestar Galactica is a dramatically VERY BAD show, and scientifically as well. All the extremely advanced technologies like lasers, phasers, force fields and such that Moore didn't want to use, are exactly the technologies needed to produce the FTL drive - more advanced that Star Trek's FTL drive - as well sentient, artificial intelligence.

The result is, that Battlestar Galactica to anyone with even a passing knowledge of science and what we've got these days, looks ridiculous. They've got computers less advanced than us, yet artificial intelligence that those computers wouldn't be able to generate in a million years. Massively advanced FTL-drive, with not a shred of the technology needed to build it. In some ways, not just computers, less advanced than we are today.

It's ridiculous from start to finish.

No, it wouldn't.

No, they wouldn't be invisible at all. Invisible would only be true for lasers, since they are light only emitting in one direction and frequency. The result is that no light is emitted away from the beam direction, and thus you wouldn't see it ANY medium that doesn't scatter the photons - not just space.

Phasers have no such problem, since they aren't lasers and thus not uni-directional monochromatic light. If phaser beams emit light away from the beam, you could see it.

As for the speed or lack there off, it's one of the major failings - but luckily a minor one that is forgiveable. I would however prefer an instantaneous energy pulse.

All senior officers? I think not. I would say that logically every away mission would require at least one senior officer in order to give the away team to benefit of his/her experience.

Logically, the rules would indeed say that a captain shouldn't go on away missions; but if the captain doesn't obey those rules, and the starship is indeed far away and the captain expected to be diplomet, military, explorer and scientist in one and be the full representative of the Federation, it would mean that he gets to do whatever he wants to while he's out there, and if the outcomes are all good nothing would probably be done about it. Kinda like explorer ships at sea several centuries ago. Those captains also left their ships when they could and felt like it.



Ah, so in order for your little supposition to work, you must demand that everything is done entirely by hand, hmm? Tell me, how many constructions on the Earth NOW are done ENTIRELY by hand? No machinery used ANYWHERE?

We thus don't have to bother further answering that one.



No. The only reason why we're building the ISS in space right now, is because we have no construction capability in space, not because it is illogical to do so.

You can go ask any actual engineer working for space endeavors; the amount of energy it requires to get something to orbit is so vast that it is much cheaper and proper to build it in space and then launch it from there, especially long range and larger ships. Everything you need to get to space takes fuel, fuel that you have to take with you, which is more weight, which you need push up, which requires more fuel to do so... etc. etc. etc.

With our present way of pushing something to orbit, you would, even, eventually get to a point that would take more fuel to push the construction and fuel up than it would take fuel to push the construction up. In short, you can't push it up anymore at all.



That's odd, they seem to be volunteering to do just that all the time. The dangerous environment? The ground. People die or get injured ALL THE TIME. I have yet to hear of a single astronaut that got as much as a sprained ankle while floating in space and helping to construct the ISS; and that's with our primitive, bulky, no to hardly any way to rescue an astronaut if something goes wrong. No such problems exist by the 23rd century.

Quite frankly, in quite a few ways, space is actually safer to work in than the ground. It's only your fear of the unknown and "oh, my god, there's nothing outside my suit except rocks and radiation" idea that freezes you up and continues to make the claim "dangerous".

Is it "dangerous", sure, but so is the ground. You are in fact, more like to get hurt and/or die working on the ground, hell, even going in traffic, than you are to get hurt floating in zero-g.

And wheres the logic of having thousands of highly trained astronauts building fleets of starships, when the work would best be done by engineers, welders and whoever else it takes. Its not like boats are built in the water cos its more bouyant and illogical to build them dry.

Oh, right, I see, so an engineer, welders and workers aren't highly trained, hmm? You should tell that to the physics doctors who construct satellites and other constructions. I'm sure they'll enjoy being called "not highly trained".

Not to mention that annoying problem that the more we go out into space and colonize it and its bodies, the more people as standard operating procedure get taught on how to be in space in a suit.

AGAIN, for the umpteenth time; there are people NOW, who are imagining and planning TOURISM in space and zero-g in space suits. NOW.

I honestly cannot see where the pro-space argument is coming from, other than to fulfil some notion of 'its the future, dumbass, its different now...'

Yeah, that would be your problem. Maybe you should delve more into the science of things.

Wow. I don't know to laugh or just read another thread, but what else can I do? Stuck at this desk. I know I'm just prolonging the agony of this argument, but I will try and put the same points in to slightly different words.

First of all. The Enterprise is/was/will be built on Earth, we've seen it now. Thats the way things are. Ordinarilly, being in the minority would not automatically make you wrong, but if nothing else it should make you question your assumptions.


One particular irksome point:

Oh, right, I see, so an engineer, welders and workers aren't highly trained, hmm? You should tell that to the physics doctors who construct satellites and other constructions. I'm sure they'll enjoy being called "not highly trained".

Imagine years of training as an engineer, welder or whatever, to be good enough to work on starship construction, but having to spend another few years training to be an astronaut. You want to be an engineer by day and have a family at night, you don't want to arse about in space.

You have this crazy idea that everyone will be multiskilled, that everyone will be a pilot, feel at home in Zero-G, have a grasp of applied quantuum physics or whatever. People will still be people, priorities might change, wealth will be measured differently, but people will still want to eat, make friends and get laid.

We're talking about an enlightened civilisation whose basic needs of food and shelter have been solved. A unified people with a common destiny in a universe full of opportunity and wonder. A culture that has reached the stars, harnessed the matter-energy relationship. Such a population would be far more hedonistic than Trek portrays, but either way, the last thing anyone would want to wear to work is an environment suit. Given the option, and clearly there is, who would?

Energy production and consumption are not an issue and as there is no barrier to building on earth, it would be built on Earth.

 

[Trekker4747]

But I still maintain it's harder to work in space, as seen this week with the astronaut losing her tools.

Peoplr are still comparing apples and oranges here.

21st century space work: Done by people who train in pools and spend weeks of their years long careers in space while working in large, bulky, spacesuits and have nearly no emergency safety measures.

23rd century space work: Done by people who work and train IN SPACE and spend a great deal of time there. Work in advanced space suits built with the very maximum of moveability and agility and have countless safety measures in place -not the least of which would be the transporter.

I mean, really, do you think space construction will remain stagnant for 300 years?

 

[Butters]

I'm not sure why this particular argument bothers me, but anyway

But I still maintain it's harder to work in space, as seen this week with the astronaut losing her tools.

Peoplr are still comparing apples and oranges here.

21st century space work: Done by people who train in pools and spend weeks of their years long careers in space while working in large, bulky, spacesuits and have nearly no emergency safety measures.

23rd century space work: Done by people who work and train IN SPACE and spend a great deal of time there. Work in advanced space suits built with the very maximum of moveability and agility and have countless safety measures in place -not the least of which would be the transporter.

I mean, really, do you think space construction will remain stagnant for 300 years?

In 300 years, there will, hopefully, be leaps and bounds in space construction. But the fact that everything we have seen in trek space environments has been to replicate Earth conditions. Ships are made as cosy as possible, artificial gravity and environmental controls etc which, along with very few examples of EVA in 40 years of episodes, give the distinct impression that nobody wants to work outside the ship.

If the ships were built in orbit, they'd be in enclosed dry dock with atmosphere and atrificial gravity. So whats the point of doing it in orbit?

Watching footage of astronauts lark about does make Zero-G look fun, just trying to eat a sandwich is impractical. Working in space may solve the weight problems of Earth, but theres still mass and inertia to deal with. Construction workers would still need heavy lifting tools etc that would be required on Earth, except in space, you don't just need energy to move an object, you need to stop it too.

Moving to space has all the same challenges as building on Earth, plus the unique problems of the weightless vacuum and the added disadvantage that your workers need extra tools, suits, training, skills and travel time. Space really is not convenient.

If you don't have to build in space, like we do now, why would you?

 

[3D Master]

Wow. I don't know to laugh or just read another thread, but what else can I do? Stuck at this desk. I know I'm just prolonging the agony of this argument, but I will try and put the same points in to slightly different words.

First of all. The Enterprise is/was/will be built on Earth, we've seen it now. Thats the way things are. Ordinarilly, being in the minority would not automatically make you wrong, but if nothing else it should make you question your assumptions.

If it comes from a bunch of Hollywood formulaic hack writers, nope, you question theirs and show how stupid they are.

One particular irksome point:

Oh, right, I see, so an engineer, welders and workers aren't highly trained, hmm? You should tell that to the physics doctors who construct satellites and other constructions. I'm sure they'll enjoy being called "not highly trained".

Imagine years of training as an engineer, welder or whatever, to be good enough to work on starship construction, but having to spend another few years training to be an astronaut.

Well, you see, if there's a more than 30% chance that if in your line of work you'd have to work in space, then the education for that line of work, will have space training automatically as part of the curriculum. If the chances are smaller, it'd be a specialization course you can choose during your basic education. It would not require you to do another extra course after it.

I'd expect everyone to understand this basic fact, it exists now (in the form of other things you'd require for your work) in education today... oh, right, America with an education system not worth a damn, where you don't really get trained for any line of work at all. Well, it's true for the rest of the world's education, and by 23rd century where the world has gotten better, it'd be true for the education system all across the globe and beyond.

You want to be an engineer by day and have a family at night, you don't want to arse about in space.

Uh, how does working in space preclude you have a family? Our commuting times today are infinitely worse than beaming up to space and getting to work; commuting to work with an hour drive, and working over time and such, is actually bad on the family. Working in space, not so much.

You have this crazy idea that everyone will be multiskilled, that everyone will be a pilot, feel at home in Zero-G, have a grasp of applied quantuum physics or whatever. People will still be people, priorities might change, wealth will be measured differently, but people will still want to eat, make friends and get laid.

We're talking about an enlightened civilisation whose basic needs of food and shelter have been solved. A unified people with a common destiny in a universe full of opportunity and wonder. A culture that has reached the stars, harnessed the matter-energy relationship. Such a population would be far more hedonistic than Trek portrays, but either way, the last thing anyone would want to wear to work is an environment suit. Given the option, and clearly there is, who would?

Congratulations, you just destroyed the very heart of Star Trek where the basic concept is that we GET BETTER. Instead, you just made Star Trek's people WORSE. You made them worse than Babylon 5's humanity. You made them a bunch of apathetic bastards.

Could you tell me exactly why those folks would even bother putting up the effort to send anyone into space?

Energy production and consumption are not an issue and as there is no barrier to building on earth, it would be built on Earth.

Safety is a massive barrier.

3d, your argument has now boiled down to:
"ZOMG! TEH GROWND IS TEH SCAREY!! ZOMFG!!"

Oh, yeah, and I'm the one who gets warned not to use "sigh". I'm so impressed with the moderation of this board.

Tell me, moderator, what would be the proper emotional reaction to this? And can I put it in writing on this board?

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,

Of course not. My points are concise and logical, and well thought out; so knowing you don't have those abilities, you go with attempts to mock. I'm so impressed. But not really.

and not really make an effort to grasp what any of us are trying to say.

Oh, I understand PERFECTLY what you're trying to say. I also understand how it doesn't work, or requires the destruction of the very heart of what Star Trek is to make it work.

I't like saying a supertanker should be built at sea or an A380 in a giant flying hangar.

Yeah, if you think that, you'll never understand anything about space travel.

I think my opening statement is all that your arguments deserve.

Of course not. Moderator, where are this guy's warnings; I seem to be missing them. Maybe I got selective blindness or something?

 

[ST-One]

But I still maintain it's harder to work in space, as seen this week with the astronaut losing her tools.

Peoplr are still comparing apples and oranges here.

21st century space work: Done by people who train in pools and spend weeks of their years long careers in space while working in large, bulky, spacesuits and have nearly no emergency safety measures.

23rd century space work: Done by people who work and train IN SPACE and spend a great deal of time there. Work in advanced space suits built with the very maximum of moveability and agility and have countless safety measures in place -not the least of which would be the transporter.

I mean, really, do you think space construction will remain stagnant for 300 years?

How many of the technicians, engineers who buld todays spacefaring vessels are actually trained to work in space?
Not too many I'd say.
And I don't think that will change in three hundred years.

You, and 3DMaster, make it sound as if only trained astronauts would be building the (Trek) future's starships.

Are seafaring vessels also only build by trained seamen and sailors?

 

[ST-One]

Congratulations, you just destroyed the very heart of Star Trek where the basic concept is that we GET BETTER. Instead, you just made Star Trek's people WORSE. You made them worse than Babylon 5's humanity. You made them a bunch of apathetic bastards.

Can't you read?
He said no such thing. He said that Trek portrays mankind in a far better light than we actually are (and sadly will be).
We - the real manking - can never live up to the picture Trek paints about mankind.
This doesn't make 'Star Trek's people' bad, it casts us - real mankind, you know - in a bad light.

 

[Butters]

Wow. I don't know to laugh or just read another thread, but what else can I do? Stuck at this desk. I know I'm just prolonging the agony of this argument, but I will try and put the same points in to slightly different words.

First of all. The Enterprise is/was/will be built on Earth, we've seen it now. That's the way things are. Ordinarily, being in the minority would not automatically make you wrong, but if nothing else it should make you question your assumptions.

If it comes from a bunch of Hollywood formulaic hack writers, nope, you question theirs and show how stupid they are.

For a start, this is a film and it belongs to that bunch of formulaic hack writers, not you and your preconceptions of how the space industry might transpire. That said, the location is open for dispute but it is your view that is in the minority here. The vast majority of film goers will give it no thought, others will accept the plausibility of it, and a tiny tiny few will believe it breaks the laws of nature and is against god. It doesn't and its not.

Imagine years of training as an engineer, welder or whatever, to be good enough to work on starship construction, but having to spend another few years training to be an astronaut.

Well, you see, if there's a more than 30% chance that if in your line of work you'd have to work in space, then the education for that line of work, will have space training automatically as part of the curriculum. If the chances are smaller, it'd be a specialization course you can choose during your basic education. It would not require you to do another extra course after it.

I'd expect everyone to understand this basic fact, it exists now (in the form of other things you'd require for your work) in education today... oh, right, America with an education system not worth a damn, where you don't really get trained for any line of work at all. Well, it's true for the rest of the world's education, and by 23rd century where the world has gotten better, it'd be true for the education system all across the globe and beyond.

Working in space is quite a specialised area, and not something I'd expect to master as part of any curriculum. Should I also expect to train for deep ocean trenches in my 23rd Century welding course? The education system today, and in the future will furnish you with the communication, analytical and life skills for your adult life. How well it works in a given nation is one thing, but no compulsory education system will furnish a student with specialist skills they likely will never need.

Uh, how does working in space preclude you have a family? Our commuting times today are infinitely worse than beaming up to space and getting to work; commuting to work with an hour drive, and working over time and such, is actually bad on the family. Working in space, not so much.

It doesn't, nor does an hour commute today, but who would put them self in that position voluntarily. There is always a payoff, today, we commute from the best place we can afford to live to the best place we can find work. Where's the advantage of beaming to orbit everyday, suiting up, putting yourself at risk of radiation, debris, technical errors etc, leaving your children fatherless, for no extra money, and when you could do same job in a ground based shipyard.

Congratulations, you just destroyed the very heart of Star Trek where the basic concept is that we GET BETTER. Instead, you just made Star Trek's people WORSE. You made them worse than Babylon 5's humanity. You made them a bunch of apathetic bastards.

Could you tell me exactly why those folks would even bother putting up the effort to send anyone into space?

Not sure I understand your point. The enlightened people of the future will have realised that life is for living. Kirk climbed mountains because they were there. That is hedonism, not apathy. The payoff for exploring space is the knowledge and experiences it brings.

Safety is a massive barrier.

To what? How is building a starship on Earth inherently more dangerous than building an ocean liner or block of flats? Are we to believe that everything is built in space now.
Please explain, to a simpleton like me, why I'd be better off in a hostile environment in suit, in zero gravity, than stood on my own feet wearing a hard hat. I am having conceptualisation difficulties with your interpretation of reality.

Yeah, if you think that, you'll never understand anything about space travel.

And what exactly makes you an authority on this highly speculative subject?

 

[JoeZhang]

And what exactly makes you an authority on this highly speculative subject?

He has seen the documentary series Star Trek: The original series.

 

[Qonos]

Wow. I don't know to laugh or just read another thread, but what else can I do? Stuck at this desk. I know I'm just prolonging the agony of this argument, but I will try and put the same points in to slightly different words.

First of all. The Enterprise is/was/will be built on Earth, we've seen it now. Thats the way things are. Ordinarilly, being in the minority would not automatically make you wrong, but if nothing else it should make you question your assumptions.

If it comes from a bunch of Hollywood formulaic hack writers, nope, you question theirs and show how stupid they are.

One particular irksome point:



Imagine years of training as an engineer, welder or whatever, to be good enough to work on starship construction, but having to spend another few years training to be an astronaut.

Well, you see, if there's a more than 30% chance that if in your line of work you'd have to work in space, then the education for that line of work, will have space training automatically as part of the curriculum. If the chances are smaller, it'd be a specialization course you can choose during your basic education. It would not require you to do another extra course after it.

I'd expect everyone to understand this basic fact, it exists now (in the form of other things you'd require for your work) in education today... oh, right, America with an education system not worth a damn, where you don't really get trained for any line of work at all. Well, it's true for the rest of the world's education, and by 23rd century where the world has gotten better, it'd be true for the education system all across the globe and beyond.

Uh, how does working in space preclude you have a family? Our commuting times today are infinitely worse than beaming up to space and getting to work; commuting to work with an hour drive, and working over time and such, is actually bad on the family. Working in space, not so much.

Congratulations, you just destroyed the very heart of Star Trek where the basic concept is that we GET BETTER. Instead, you just made Star Trek's people WORSE. You made them worse than Babylon 5's humanity. You made them a bunch of apathetic bastards.

Could you tell me exactly why those folks would even bother putting up the effort to send anyone into space?

Safety is a massive barrier.



Oh, yeah, and I'm the one who gets warned not to use "sigh". I'm so impressed with the moderation of this board.

Tell me, moderator, what would be the proper emotional reaction to this? And can I put it in writing on this board?

Of course not. My points are concise and logical, and well thought out; so knowing you don't have those abilities, you go with attempts to mock. I'm so impressed. But not really.

Oh, I understand PERFECTLY what you're trying to say. I also understand how it doesn't work, or requires the destruction of the very heart of what Star Trek is to make it work.

I't like saying a supertanker should be built at sea or an A380 in a giant flying hangar.

Yeah, if you think that, you'll never understand anything about space travel.

I think my opening statement is all that your arguments deserve.

Of course not. Moderator, where are this guy's warnings; I seem to be missing them. Maybe I got selective blindness or something?

Except our vaunted aerospace engineers are going backwards with our next manned space vehicle...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/Orion_spacecraft.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html

Yep mankind is really taking chances. They are pushing that spaceship design envelope by going back to the beginning...

Then again I guess they couldn't figure out a way to get us back to the moon with a shuttle-like space craft.

And don't call other writers hack writers when you write drivel yourself... I've read what you call great writing.....

 

[sebialex]

Battlestar Galactica is a dramatically VERY BAD show, and scientifically as well. All the extremely advanced technologies like lasers, phasers, force fields and such that Moore didn't want to use, are exactly the technologies needed to produce the FTL drive - more advanced that Star Trek's FTL drive - as well sentient, artificial intelligence.

This is just your assumption. Assumptions do not count as evidence. You do not know how the BSG FTL works, and you do not know what other technologies the BSG universe has.

The result is, that Battlestar Galactica to anyone with even a passing knowledge of science and what we've got these days, looks ridiculous. They've got computers less advanced than us, yet artificial intelligence that those computers wouldn't be able to generate in a million years. Massively advanced FTL-drive, with not a shred of the technology needed to build it. In some ways, not just computers, less advanced than we are today.

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.

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.

And don't even come to me with "they limited themselves so the Cylons couldn't get to them."

Clearly you didn’t watch the show. Galactica is an ancient ship with ancient computers. All the other ships were hacked because of a virus introduced by Baltar into their systems. Galactica did not have this virus.

Second, all human technology was pretty much destroyed in the attack. Thus you will never know what technology they had or didn’t have.

Third, after the Cylon war, they banned all AI research and technology, thus you wouldn’t see it in the new show anymore. See point two for further emphasis.

I'm getting to point of giving up on sighing and just going with slamming my head in the table with exasperation.

Please do, repeatedly.

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.

Man you must be the biggest nerd to ever roam this planet. Are you giving me Trek lore as an explanation? Subspace, seriously, I didn't know we discovered subspace? Give me scientific proof not nerd talk.

There’s no point arguing with a brick.

 

[3D Master]

But I still maintain it's harder to work in space, as seen this week with the astronaut losing her tools.

Peoplr are still comparing apples and oranges here.

21st century space work: Done by people who train in pools and spend weeks of their years long careers in space while working in large, bulky, spacesuits and have nearly no emergency safety measures.

23rd century space work: Done by people who work and train IN SPACE and spend a great deal of time there. Work in advanced space suits built with the very maximum of moveability and agility and have countless safety measures in place -not the least of which would be the transporter.

I mean, really, do you think space construction will remain stagnant for 300 years?

How many of the technicians, engineers who buld todays spacefaring vessels are actually trained to work in space?
Not too many I'd say.
And I don't think that will change in three hundred years.

You, and 3DMaster, make it sound as if only trained astronauts would be building the (Trek) future's starships.

Are seafaring vessels also only build by trained seamen and sailors?

Because we're not building any starships in space! So of course technicians aren't trained to build anything in space.

If we WERE (going to) build(ing) starships in space, the people doing the building, will be trained to build it in space.

This is elementry.

It's like saying a 18th century technician wasn't trained to build cars so we'll never train any technicians to build cars, and thus we'll never build cars.

Congratulations, you just destroyed the very heart of Star Trek where the basic concept is that we GET BETTER. Instead, you just made Star Trek's people WORSE. You made them worse than Babylon 5's humanity. You made them a bunch of apathetic bastards.

Can't you read?
He said no such thing. He said that Trek portrays mankind in a far better light than we actually are (and sadly will be).
We - the real manking - can never live up to the picture Trek paints about mankind.
This doesn't make 'Star Trek's people' bad, it casts us - real mankind, you know - in a bad light.

No, you obviously can't read. The people of the new Star Trek that he described, were a bunch of apathetic bastards who wouldn't be caught dead doing anything in space.

If it comes from a bunch of Hollywood formulaic hack writers, nope, you question theirs and show how stupid they are.

For a start, this is a film and it belongs to that bunch of formulaic hack writers, not you and your preconceptions of how the space industry might transpire. That said, the location is open for dispute but it is your view that is in the minority here. The vast majority of film goers will give it no thought,

Which says more about the vast majority of the film goers and their education level than about me.

Working in space is quite a specialised area, and not something I'd expect to master as part of any curriculum.

UnFFing believable. Same as above: A hundred years ago it was quite a specialized to build cars, so would you have expected that no curriculum ever would teach you the skills on how to build a car?

Should I also expect to train for deep ocean trenches in my 23rd Century welding course?

If a large part of the jobs you've chosen to do are in deep ocean trenches, hen yes.

The education system today, and in the future will furnish you with the communication, analytical and life skills for your adult life. How well it works in a given nation is one thing, but no compulsory education system will furnish a student with specialist skills they likely will never need.

Yeah, you see, the point is, that it's not a "specialist skill you will likely never need", if you go into a line of work, where there's a more 30% chance you'll be needing those skills. At that point, it is standard operating procedure. If the chances were lower, but it's an inherent part of your line of work, and you don't want to rule it out, but actually WANT to do that, at that point the course would be optional and you get to choose to take that course.

Also, a specialist skill you would likely never need is brain surgery; yet if you choose to become a surgeon, the basics you need to become a brain surgeon over time, will be taught to you in medical school.

It doesn't, nor does an hour commute today, but who would put them self in that position voluntarily. There is always a payoff, today, we commute from the best place we can afford to live to the best place we can find work. Where's the advantage of beaming to orbit everyday, suiting up, putting yourself at risk of radiation, debris, technical errors etc, leaving your children fatherless, for no extra money, and when you could do same job in a ground based shipyard.

My god! I see! I finally get it! So THAT'S why there's not traffic jams! I always wondered with all those people around, why aren't roads stuffed full of cars! But yes! People see there's no advantage in driving to work, chancing dying or getting injured in traffic accidents, getting shot by robbers, or any other thing that has risk of dying higher than getting hurt in space during commuting to or during the actual job one chose to do, and thus leaving your children fatherless or motherless.

I see!

For the same reason there are no car races, stunt men, mountain climbers, jungle climbers and any other job that has a higher chance of killing you than working in space!

The mystery's finally solved!

Not sure I understand your point. The enlightened people of the future will have realised that life is for living. Kirk climbed mountains because they were there. That is hedonism, not apathy. The payoff for exploring space is the knowledge and experiences it brings.

And yet, none of them are willing to go to space to do those things. Not building ships, not actually getting on those ships braving the unknown that might kill you at any time, or climbing mountains (something seems fishy here) and any other activity or job that is much more dangerous than constructing ships in space.

Uh... wait, about that fishy part, I see it now, it seems rather contradictory. How come they're willing to risk their lives at far more riskier things than building something in space, but not do the actual building in space?

At this point you get things logic in the mix:

If they're willing to risk they're lives at far riskier endeavors, that simply means they feel apathy toward building ships, and thus anything related to space. After all, there are things they're obviously willing to risk their lives for... but not building ships - apathy.

If it's not apathy that's keeping them going to space and build ships there, yet they are willing to risk their lives at far riskier things, the only thing that remains is an irrational fear of space, thus people incapable of doing proper risk assessment which would come from bad education - and a people suffering from bad education (collectively) and thus afraid of something unfamiliar they're not willing to go there.

The result is either an apathetic people, or a bunch of uneducated buffoons.

Neither are optimistic and better people than we are today. Indeed, they'd be worse.

Safety is a massive barrier.

To what? How is building a starship on Earth inherently more dangerous than building an ocean liner or block of flats? Are we to believe that everything is built in space now.
Please explain, to a simpleton like me, why I'd be better off in a hostile environment in suit, in zero gravity, than stood on my own feet wearing a hard hat. I am having conceptualisation difficulties with your interpretation of reality.

How often have you tripped throughout your life? How often did you sprain your ankle because you fell? Now add that to a high-rise construction, and you dropping off it. Add in a failing power grid, and see what you were building come crashing down upon you. And those are just the beginning.

In space, none of these can happen. You cannot trip and drop to your death a second later. Nothing that is there, can come down crashing upon you. Etc. etc. etc.

Space is nearly EMPTY. It means that there is nothing there that can hurt or kill you. The only thing there is radiation - which your suit protects you against - and micro-meteorites, which have an EXTREMELY low chance of hitting you - cause space is BIG, you are SMALL, and the meteorites are EXTREMELY small, the chances they just happen to hit you are extremely small. The chance they hit you somewhere it is instantly fatal is even smaller.

A hole in a suit won't kill you right away, even if the entire suit failed and you were in space naked, there'd still be three to four minutes during which time you are perfectly fine, and can be saved.

Radiation is a slow killer, rupturing your suit is a slow killer, micro-meteorites in 99.9% of the time they even hit you, will be slow killers.

By the 23rd century meteorites are not going to be ANY problem, because there are deflector shields especially designed to keep them away from you; and for the rest there's the transporter.

How OFTEN do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?

Space is NOT as dangerous as you think. This is what I mean with miss-education. If by the 23rd century people STILL can't make this simple risk assessment they'd be uneducated and afraid of everything unfamiliar.

Yeah, if you think that, you'll never understand anything about space travel.

And what exactly makes you an authority on this highly speculative subject?

Because I've got a working brain, and have delved into the subject. Seriously, anyone who claims planes and water ships is the same thing as space ships is an idiot.

Battlestar Galactica is a dramatically VERY BAD show, and scientifically as well. All the extremely advanced technologies like lasers, phasers, force fields and such that Moore didn't want to use, are exactly the technologies needed to produce the FTL drive - more advanced that Star Trek's FTL drive - as well sentient, artificial intelligence.

This is just your assumption. Assumptions do not count as evidence. You do not know how the BSG FTL works, and you do not know what other technologies the BSG universe has.

Uh, sorry, yes I do know how the BSG FTL works. Fold space, make to parts connect, where you are and where you want to go to, then drill a hole through that point and slip through.

The technology require to do this, is far in excess of what BSG shown they have.

The result is, that Battlestar Galactica to anyone with even a passing knowledge of science and what we've got these days, looks ridiculous. They've got computers less advanced than us, yet artificial intelligence that those computers wouldn't be able to generate in a million years. Massively advanced FTL-drive, with not a shred of the technology needed to build it. In some ways, not just computers, less advanced than we are today.

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.

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.

And don't even come to me with "they limited themselves so the Cylons couldn't get to them."

Clearly you didn’t watch the show. Galactica is an ancient ship with ancient computers.

Read this, and read this very carefully: From the time of the CYLON war. At a time when the Cylons had achieved sentience and were fighting against the humans. So at the time the Colonials had computers powerful enough to generate true artificial intelligence and sentience.

So the computers in the Battlestar Galactica must be at least of that era. Its computers however are LESS advanced than our desktop computers.

All the other ships were hacked because of a virus introduced by Baltar into their systems. Galactica did not have this virus.

Brilliant. And he calls me not knwoledgeable of Galactica. No, it was not a virus, and it was not done by Baltar. Baltar designed the Operating System that ran the new Battlestars, Six who slept with him, programmed in a back door. The backdoor allowed the Cylons to shut the computers down. The Galacica didn't have the new system with the back door, because Adama refused to have the new software installed.

Second, all human technology was pretty much destroyed in the attack. Thus you will never know what technology they had or didn’t have.

Because if they had the technology require for the FTL drive, much more advanced weapons would be on the Galactica.

Third, after the Cylon war, they banned all AI research and technology, thus you wouldn’t see it in the new show anymore. See point two for further emphasis.

Which doesn't matter. Just because you don't have any AI systems, does not mean your systems aren't powerful enough to run AI systems. And if they are, you're being stupid, if they stopped producing more powerful systems, they'd be dead. The Cylons wouldn't need to have programmed in a backdoor. I've already explained to you above, why slower computers are easier to hack than faster ones.

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.

Man you must be the biggest nerd to ever roam this planet. Are you giving me Trek lore as an explanation? Subspace, seriously, I didn't know we discovered subspace? Give me scientific proof not nerd talk.

There’s no point arguing with a brick.

Ever heard of super string physics? Hyper-dimensional physics? Maybe you should look it up.

Not that it matters much, we were talking about how IN Star Trek you wouldn't need a receiving station. In Star Trek there IS subspace for a certain fact. So I don't need to give any scientific proof of its existence. The only requirement was LOGICALLY, not "present day science must explain it", (even though, in fact, quantum mechanics for a large part DOES).

 

[ST-One]

It's like saying a 18th century technician wasn't trained to build cars so we'll never train any technicians to build cars, and thus we'll never build cars.

Can they do it in space?

No, you obviously can't read. The people of the new Star Trek that he described, were a bunch of apathetic bastards who wouldn't be caught dead doing anything in space.

It's still dangerous

 

[ST-One]

Just because you don't have any AI systems, does not mean your systems aren't powerful enough to run AI systems. And if they are, you're being stupid, if they stopped producing more powerful systems, they'd be dead. The Cylons wouldn't need to have programmed in a backdoor. I've already explained to you above, why slower computers are easier to hack than faster ones.

The Galactica doesn't have a networked computer-system. That is why the Cylons couldn't take her out.

And whoever told you the Galactica's computers are even less powerful than our PCs?

 

[Qonos]

Just because you don't have any AI systems, does not mean your systems aren't powerful enough to run AI systems. And if they are, you're being stupid, if they stopped producing more powerful systems, they'd be dead. The Cylons wouldn't need to have programmed in a backdoor. I've already explained to you above, why slower computers are easier to hack than faster ones.

The Galactica doesn't have a networked computer-system. That is why the Cylons couldn't take her out.

And whoever told you the Galactica's computers are even less powerful than our PCs?

He's assuming again because if he assumes it to be so it has to be true

 

[stj]

The question is, why not use the pilot design? Building the ship on the ground is just the most prominent symptom of the style problem. All the posts nitpicking that one objection, even if they were correct, would not refute the basic charge. Which is, the new designs lack true originality, unlike the pilot design, yet the changes are less effective.

The changes increase the aerodynamic sleekness and the impression of strength against gravity. In other words, they are sexier or cooler. Since a good SF design aims at conviction, the original pilot design, in which the Enterprise simply did not look like something designed for air or water, in which the Enterprise had an ostenatious strangeness that hinted at an entirely different kind of functionality. Those nacelles did something science fictiony or they wouldn't be there. The flimsy struts attaching them immediately said this ship was not something made for the ground. Indeed, they said that the ship was not some orthodox rocket at all, or the nacelles would snap.

Really, the way the changes aim at a superficial coolness really does tell us that these people almost certainly do not have what it takes to revitalize Star Trek. Star Trek's genuine scientific credibility has been exaggerated in fans' minds---what we really responded really was more style than substance. The point is, it was a better style that made concessions to our current understanding of science (incredibly this has been dismissed as making us feel smarter---this apparently is much worse than ignorant horse shit that makes us feel dumber for wasting out time,) and had some elmentary sense of fitness for the fictional science.

Nobody in the Sixties had a clue about how to use antimatter to create a warp, but they did have a vague notion that creating a "warp" would be needed to get around relativity, and they did have a vague notion that it would take enormous amounts of energy to do so. Warp drive was all handwaving and speculation. But they did it with style. The BSG defenders who imagine they can do FTL with FX and the word "tyllium" and the weirdly ad hoc way have overlooked that lacks style. Good style carries conviction. BSG type writers in the Sixties would have created either a preposterous giant phallic symbol or a flying saucer. No style. Well, technically, it's retro. But retro is getting a little tired, folks.



Other points about building on ground---it's not comparable to building a ship in drydock, because the drydock is close to water. The cheapness of energy is why the ship could be built in space, not why it's more convenient to launch the whole thing. When the impulse engines fire, what happens to the drydock? Testing the vacuum seals on Earth would be quite difficult in practice for such a large vessel. Visually the acceleration of the Enterprise was typically one G. That what we saw. Launching the Enterprise would be greater than one G. Why overbuild the design for an acceleration the vessel would only suffer in event of catastrophe? Cleaning out dirt on Earth would be difficult, especially if any of the gadgetry involved the kind of clean rooms many Earth devices require now. This problem is easier in space. Handwelding of course is well advanced. Putting in on screen is absurd. Not seeing that is even more absurd. Lastly, a matter/antimatter explosion on the surface of the Earth is not comparable to a fire. It is not even comparable to an nuclear reactor meltdown. It is risking the human habitability of the entire planet for the mixed benefits of building on the surface.

The defense that SF is all just teh stoopid is garbage. Those who like teh stoopid are surely entitled to their taste. But they are not entitled to go nuts when someone else objects to stupid.

 

[JuanBolio]

Lastly, a matter/antimatter explosion on the surface of the Earth is not comparable to a fire. It is not even comparable to an nuclear reactor meltdown. It is risking the human habitability of the entire planet for the mixed benefits of building on the surface.

First - why would they fuel it on the ground?

Second - nonsense. It would result in a large nuclear blast, yes. Probably bigger than any we've ever set off to date. However, there would be no radioactive isotopes leftover - no fallout. Habitability of Earth would not be threatened whatsoever.

 

[Solariabsg25]

I still can't understand why there is so much controversy when GR himself allowed the Enterprise to undergo a major redesign because she would not look good enough for the big screen, and in fact the first mock-ups for the refit were made for the failed Phase II, a TV project. There's even some proposed designs for Phase II that make the new movie ship look like a faithful copy of the original pilot design!!

So seems to be a "GR redesigned the ship, what an inspired idea" and "JJ redesigned the ship, he's an idiot, he should just have used the TV design with more detailing".

As to building the ship on the ground, I can see no problem with it. All this talk of "if there's an accident when launching the ship, then the antimatter would destroy half the planet!!!"

If that's the case though, with such a danger, then why would they ever allow the Intrepid Class to be built? A starship that can land on a planet? My god, if it crashes, it'll destroy half the planet!! And hey, didn't those runabouts have warp-drive? That means a Warp Core. Matter/Antimatter. And there's supposed to be thousands of them, flying from planet to planet, and landing, and taking off. One of those has a malfunction, crashes to the ground, then kabloom!! Half the planet again.

Problem with trek tech is, matter/antimatter cannot be as dangerous as it would be in real life, because otherwise, why bombard a planet from orbit? Simply abandon a ship and crash it into the planet at Warp 6!

Finally going back to the tech of Galactica, exactly where does it say that "You must have beam weapons and energy shielding before you can have an FTL drive?"

The Phoenix travelled at Warp, but did Earth at that time have phasers, plasma cannons, or any other energy weapons?

 

[StarTrek1701]

Testing the vacuum seals on Earth would be quite difficult in practice for such a large vessel. Visually the acceleration of the Enterprise was typically one G. That what we saw. Launching the Enterprise would be greater than one G. Why overbuild the design for an acceleration the vessel would only suffer in event of catastrophe? Cleaning out dirt on Earth would be difficult, especially if any of the gadgetry involved the kind of clean rooms many Earth devices require now.

You are trying to defend your position by saying how easy it is to build a spaceship in space in the future but then you think in the same future it would be harder to test vacuum shields and removing dirt on Earth. Really? I mean, this is the future where an entire human body is taken apart, molecule by molecule, then transported through other different molecules and reconstructed, molecule by molecule, at any given position in space. And to these technical people of the future, testing vacuum seals and removing dirt would be .... tough?

Your logic does not compute.

 

[3D Master]

It's like saying a 18th century technician wasn't trained to build cars so we'll never train any technicians to build cars, and thus we'll never build cars.

Can they do it in space?

No, you obviously can't read. The people of the new Star Trek that he described, were a bunch of apathetic bastards who wouldn't be caught dead doing anything in space.

It's still dangerous

So is driving to work.