Will Trek XI repel old fans?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You could spend minutes in space NAKED and still not be dead

Again unlikely, especially if you're in the sun. Being in shadow isn't much fun either.

Don't forget pressure. Our bodies push outwards at a pressure of 14 psi to compensate for air pressure. If you stuck a naked person in a vacuum (such as space), he would very quickly swell up and some parts of him (inside and outside parts) may burst.

It seems to me the bottom line is that if there was a tractor beam that could easily lift large parts into orbit, then it would be best to build those parts on the ground and and assemble in orbit.

Gravity is very beneficial when you are trying to assemble something since:
1.) things stay where you put them, and
2.) workmen don't need to be hard-connected to a massive object to prevent him from counter-rotating everytime he turns a bolt; or floating off in the opposite direction everytime he pushes on something. Luckily, gravity prevents those things.

Also, an object that is weightless is not massless. A massive object would crush a worker in space just as easily as it would on the ground. Space may be more dangerous in that respect since massive objects can float freely into workers.

 

[Captain Robert April]

How do you explain the shots from TNG of large sections of a Galaxy-class starship laid out, seemingly under construction, on a planetary surface?

Preliminary testing of new components in a controlled environment before field testing on active duty starships. Also, trainining for the use of that new equipment.

And yeah, that's a legit screencap. I think from the TNG episode "Parallels" or a Voyager.

 

[ancient]

Don't forget pressure. Our bodies push outwards at a pressure of 14 psi to compensate for air pressure. If you stuck a naked person in a vacuum (such as space), he would very quickly swell up and some parts of him (inside and outside parts) may burst.

This is true. Humans can survive slow decompressions up to a certain point - it gives the body time to react to the pressure change. But a sudden decompression? The internal damage alone would kill you instantly.

For example, deep sea divers acend towards the surface slowly, to give their bodies time to react to the drastic decrease in pressure. If they instantly went from deep sea pressure to 1 atm they would die.

 

[3D Master]

There simply are no advantages AT ALL for building a ship on the ground, so why would you?

Yes there is. And it is the most important aspect of any enterprise - labor.

Building the component parts on Earth would allow an easier access to labor. Families could live next to the plant and still be on Earth. A comparison of the costs of maintaining a labor force near their home with the costs of maintaining a labor force away from their home gives great favor to maintaining that labor force near their home.

Component parts of the spacecraft will be built on earth for as long as is economically feasible.

Except that there will be people and families living in space, on starbases and the like, so labor will be in space just as well. Anyway, they'd be the TINY components, screws, computers, chairs, and such. The actual compartments, the hulls, a nacelle, a saucer, do NOT apply to that.

So you should now know your argument is ridiculous, it's ridiculous for our time, and even more so for the Star Trek's time.

Naw, not really. Everything you're saying makes good sense, but the burden of proof is a bit higher than that. That being that there is absolutely, positively no way any of us can predict the best way to build ridiculously large spacecraft 250 years from now.

Thus, it's pretty hard for anyone to argue that they are right, and anyone who says something to the contrary is completely wrong on this issue.

The best we can hope for is a civil discussion of the pros and cons of each method of construction.

Claiming that logistics of moving certain things to space is too much to do so, when there are colonies, Starbases and what not everywhere, and WE are preparing to undertake exactly moving quite some construction to space when it's much more a physical nightmare for us, IS ridiculous. The moment your arguments stop making having ANY logical sense, not physics, logic - and the argument comes down to "it's too much hard work, I'm too lazy, let's quit" - you're arguments ARE completely wrong on the issue.

You could spend minutes in space NAKED and still not be dead

Again unlikely, especially if you're in the sun. Being in shadow isn't much fun either.

Don't forget pressure. Our bodies push outwards at a pressure of 14 psi to compensate for air pressure. If you stuck a naked person in a vacuum (such as space), he would very quickly swell up and some parts of him (inside and outside parts) may burst.

Sure, they would swell up, BUT, it would take a long time. It isn't going to be, swell, splat, over in a few seconds flat. It would take quite a long time, your skin and other outer layers have quite some tension and aren't so easily torn to shreds. It would take a minute and more before you would die in such a matter. Or in other words, as I said, space simply isn't as hostile and isn't an instant killer as some people think it is. And that's NAKED. If you're in a space suit... oceans, and oceans and oceans of time of saving a person if something goes wrong, ESPECIALLY when you have transporters.

The chances of you dieing in space while wearing a space suit are infinitesimally small, especially in the 23rd century. Whatever dangers there are, don't measure up to the dangers of building it on the ground combined with the drawbacks.

It seems to me the bottom line is that if there was a tractor beam that could easily lift large parts into orbit, then it would be best to build those parts on the ground and and assemble in orbit.

Gravity is very beneficial when you are trying to assemble something since:
1.) things stay where you put them, and

No. Gravity does NOT mean things stay put. Gravity means things MOVE, down, pulled on by gravity. In space, in contrast, as there are no forces working on things, they stay put. This is simple high school physics. As for the force of you working on things, you've got tethers and stuff for that. Things you need on the ground just as much, so it is no difference.

2.) workmen don't need to be hard-connected to a massive object to prevent him from counter-rotating everytime he turns a bolt; or floating off in the opposite direction everytime he pushes on something. Luckily, gravity prevents those things.

Which is not a problem with the right technology, especially smart, compensating technology, stuff they have plenty of in the 23rd century.

Also, an object that is weightless is not massless. A massive object would crush a worker in space just as easily as it would on the ground. Space may be more dangerous in that respect since massive objects can float freely into workers.

No, it wouldn't, AGAIN, because in order to crush things, the things actually needs to be stuck between an unmoving object and the crushing object. In space, you're just tapped and sent sailing, and if the impact is big enough to hurt you it would, but it won't crush you. (Which gets us the added advantage of never having to lift a crushing object off of someone before you can help them.) And since in space there is no gravity working on the object, if something does start to move inadvertently, it will move only very slowly, and thus you have an easy enough time getting out of the way.

Don't forget pressure. Our bodies push outwards at a pressure of 14 psi to compensate for air pressure. If you stuck a naked person in a vacuum (such as space), he would very quickly swell up and some parts of him (inside and outside parts) may burst.

This is true. Humans can survive slow decompressions up to a certain point - it gives the body time to react to the pressure change. But a sudden decompression? The internal damage alone would kill you instantly.

Which will NOT kill you instantly. It will kill you, but it won't do it instantly.

 

[Rii]

OHS concerns wouldn't be the deciding factor, a few deaths here and there mean little if one approach is significantly more efficient than the other. It's not about taking the approach that presents minimal risks, it's about minimising risks associated with the approach that's been chosen. Only if there's very little else arguing in favour of a particular approach would OHS concerns be a significant factor.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

For example, deep sea divers acend towards the surface slowly, to give their bodies time to react to the drastic decrease in pressure. If they instantly went from deep sea pressure to 1 atm they would die.

What exactly does "deep sea pressure" have to do with operations in orbit? There is absolutely no reason why a spacesuit would be pressurized to more than one atmosphere. In fact, the NASA Mark III concept suit is designed to operate with an internal pressure of 8.3 psi, and a pure oxygen atmosphere suit would only require 4.7 psi. The threat of organ and tissue damage due to explosive decompression from either ambient pressure level is essentially non-existent.

TGT

 

[JuanBolio]

3D Master - We're talking in circles now. I'm not going to convince you that building large components on the ground is in any way a good idea, and you're not going to convince me that its totally impractical. What are we arguing about, anyway? A short little teaser that probably won't even make it into the film in anyway, and a brief screenshot from TNG (Yes, it WAS on screen, btw).

There are other threads that demand my attention this day. With this particular argument, I am done. You may call my withdrawal a victory for yourself if you wish. Makes no difference to me.

 

[ancient]

For example, deep sea divers acend towards the surface slowly, to give their bodies time to react to the drastic decrease in pressure. If they instantly went from deep sea pressure to 1 atm they would die.

What exactly does "deep sea pressure" have to do with operations in orbit? There is absolutely no reason why a spacesuit would be pressurized to more than one atmosphere. In fact, the NASA Mark III concept suit is designed to operate with an internal pressure of 8.3 psi, and a pure oxygen atmosphere suit would only require 4.7 psi. The threat of organ and tissue damage due to explosive decompression from either ambient pressure level is essentially non-existent.

TGT

The important problem is rapid pressure change, which is why I used ocean divers as an example of that problem.

EDIT: Granted, this would probably not be a big problem for suits, since they would (hopefully!) have safety devices to seal off any ruptured parts of the suit. a helmet visor rupture is really the only problem area.

 

[Qonos]

For example, deep sea divers acend towards the surface slowly, to give their bodies time to react to the drastic decrease in pressure. If they instantly went from deep sea pressure to 1 atm they would die.

What exactly does "deep sea pressure" have to do with operations in orbit? There is absolutely no reason why a spacesuit would be pressurized to more than one atmosphere. In fact, the NASA Mark III concept suit is designed to operate with an internal pressure of 8.3 psi, and a pure oxygen atmosphere suit would only require 4.7 psi. The threat of organ and tissue damage due to explosive decompression from either ambient pressure level is essentially non-existent.

TGT

But there is no PRESSURE in SPACE... So a space suit going from ONE atmosphere to 0 atmosphere rapidly would cause your death.. Oh I'm no longer listening to 3d master because he has no Idea what the conditions of space are. SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!!!!!!!

Space is not a cozy equilibrium. It is a raging danger of radiation, heat, cold, no oxygen, gamma, alpha and delta particles hitting you constantly. Micro meteors zooming at you at incredible speeds. Not to mention Solar flares which disrupt communications. How does a forman (Who is one of the few actual engineers on a construction crew [go do more research, watch some Dirty jobs or something] going to radio his crew when there is intense radiation interferance of a comm system. The saftey of an atmosphere dispels those factors, because on he can be talking on a PA or a walky talking which is a harder communication system to mess up. There would be just as many deaths in a space construction as there would be with a on earth partial build- Space finish build which would be the most likely way they would build the big parts (You know the way we are doing it with the ISS..) on earth, fit them, cut them into smaller sections, and send them up either in a new age transport ship or being tractored by a small group of workbee's. Eventually a ship yard would then be built on the moon where they would again have assembly dry docks in orbit. Seeing as the moon has lower gravity...

 

[3D Master]

For example, deep sea divers acend towards the surface slowly, to give their bodies time to react to the drastic decrease in pressure. If they instantly went from deep sea pressure to 1 atm they would die.

What exactly does "deep sea pressure" have to do with operations in orbit? There is absolutely no reason why a spacesuit would be pressurized to more than one atmosphere. In fact, the NASA Mark III concept suit is designed to operate with an internal pressure of 8.3 psi, and a pure oxygen atmosphere suit would only require 4.7 psi. The threat of organ and tissue damage due to explosive decompression from either ambient pressure level is essentially non-existent.

TGT

But there is no PRESSURE in SPACE... So a space suit going from ONE atmosphere to 0 atmosphere rapidly would cause your death.. Oh I'm no longer listening to 3d master because he has no Idea what the conditions of space are. SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!!!!!!!

Of course it is not empty, but for all practical purposes it is. And it would NOT instantly cause your death. It would take time for you to die from it, quite a bit of time in fact. Plenty of time for you to be rescued, ESPECIALLY if you have transporters. One communique and you're safe.

Space is not a cozy equilibrium. It is a raging danger of radiation, heat, cold, no oxygen, gamma, alpha and delta particles hitting you constantly. Micro meteors zooming at you at incredible speeds. Not to mention Solar flares which disrupt communications. How does a forman (Who is one of the few actual engineers on a construction crew [go do more research, watch some Dirty jobs or something] going to radio his crew when there is intense radiation interferance of a comm system. The saftey of an atmosphere dispels those factors, because on he can be talking on a PA or a walky talking which is a harder communication system to mess up.

All of which sufficient technology, and positioning of your space dock would you protect your from. (Not to mention that radiation isn't a fast killer. It would take quite a bit of time and thus enough to save someone, even if you have a catastrophic failure of the space suit.) Space suits that block hazardous radiation is something the 23rd century obviously has. As for communication systems; not a problem, Star Trek is using subspace radio, to which there are but few disruptions.

Finally, cold isn't that big a deal. Space is a (near) vaccuum, and that means a very good isolator, your body heat escapes faster in air, than in space. Pressure difference and no air will kill you faster than cold, which makes it a non-issue.

There would be just as many deaths in a space construction as there would be with a on earth partial build- Space finish build which would be the most likely way they would build the big parts (You know the way we are doing it with the ISS..) on earth, fit them, cut them into smaller sections, and send them up either in a new age transport ship or being tractored by a small group of workbee's. Eventually a ship yard would then be built on the moon where they would again have assembly dry docks in orbit. Seeing as the moon has lower gravity...

Well, DUH. The ISS obviously is not a model you can use for starships. There is nothing in space now that allows us to build in space. As a result, the first few constructions will have to be ferrying sections to and fro. Once space stations are built, you could construct there.

Also, for the umpteenth time; the Enterprise in the trailer was not built in sections and then ferried up, it was built in its entirety planetside.

 

[Qonos]

What exactly does "deep sea pressure" have to do with operations in orbit? There is absolutely no reason why a spacesuit would be pressurized to more than one atmosphere. In fact, the NASA Mark III concept suit is designed to operate with an internal pressure of 8.3 psi, and a pure oxygen atmosphere suit would only require 4.7 psi. The threat of organ and tissue damage due to explosive decompression from either ambient pressure level is essentially non-existent.

TGT

But there is no PRESSURE in SPACE... So a space suit going from ONE atmosphere to 0 atmosphere rapidly would cause your death.. Oh I'm no longer listening to 3d master because he has no Idea what the conditions of space are. SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!!!!!!!

Of course it is not empty, but for all practical purposes it is. And it would NOT instantly cause your death. It would take time for you to die from it, quite a bit of time in fact. Plenty of time for you to be rescued, ESPECIALLY if you have transporters. One communique and you're safe.

Space is not a cozy equilibrium. It is a raging danger of radiation, heat, cold, no oxygen, gamma, alpha and delta particles hitting you constantly. Micro meteors zooming at you at incredible speeds. Not to mention Solar flares which disrupt communications. How does a forman (Who is one of the few actual engineers on a construction crew [go do more research, watch some Dirty jobs or something] going to radio his crew when there is intense radiation interferance of a comm system. The saftey of an atmosphere dispels those factors, because on he can be talking on a PA or a walky talking which is a harder communication system to mess up.

All of which sufficient technology, and positioning of your space dock would you protect your from. (Not to mention that radiation isn't a fast killer. It would take quite a bit of time and thus enough to save someone, even if you have a catastrophic failure of the space suit.) Space suits that block hazardous radiation is something the 23rd century obviously has. As for communication systems; not a problem, Star Trek is using subspace radio, to which there are but few disruptions.

Finally, cold isn't that big a deal. Space is a (near) vaccuum, and that means a very good isolator, your body heat escapes faster in air, than in space. Pressure difference and no air will kill you faster than cold, which makes it a non-issue.

There would be just as many deaths in a space construction as there would be with a on earth partial build- Space finish build which would be the most likely way they would build the big parts (You know the way we are doing it with the ISS..) on earth, fit them, cut them into smaller sections, and send them up either in a new age transport ship or being tractored by a small group of workbee's. Eventually a ship yard would then be built on the moon where they would again have assembly dry docks in orbit. Seeing as the moon has lower gravity...

Well, DUH. The ISS obviously is not a model you can use for starships. There is nothing in space now that allows us to build in space. As a result, the first few constructions will have to be ferrying sections to and fro. Once space stations are built, you could construct there.

Also, for the umpteenth time; the Enterprise in the trailer was not built in sections and then ferried up, it was built in its entirety planetside.

That was a Teaser. And like the Godzilla museum teaser my have nothing to do with the actual movie seeing as it was point out the movie was Under Construction. You're taking things to literal... Which is not the point of Trek seeing as it was a series of morality tales wrapped in a Sci-fi western.

I get what trek really was why do you miss the point?

BTW have you ever had all the air forcibly evacuated from your lungs in a vacumn? How would you talk into a communicator with NO AIR........ NONE.... Not a wiff.. THERE IS NO OXYGEN IN SPACE FOR YOU TO BREATH....

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I don't think the "not agreeing" or the "being sceptic" bits are bad, on the contrary. It's good when you don't accept everything thrown at you. What I don't get is why some people will adamantly (whoops, adverb?) refuse to accept even the slightest possibility of this new film (or any new Trek for that matter) being any good... but they still keep coming here and they relentlessly try to sway the vote their way.

If you're part of the "Trek is dead" group and wish to discuss it, fine, that's cool, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But hanging out at a "Trek XI" board is unproductive if you're one of these people who won't be convinced this could in any way be a good film even if they paid you money. That is not a discussion, it's just a waste of time. If you think Trek is dead, leave the future productions alone, because they don't matter to you, right?

There's plenty of old Trek for everyone to enjoy. Our dvds won't magically destroy themselves just because new Trek is rubbish.

I hope that was understandable.

Of course it was understanadable. Linguacode translates it as "Shut up and go away."

I, of course, will do neither.

Of course you won't.
But I can understand you scepticism - after all these Trek movies Abrams and his teams has made...

Wow. Now that is a truly unassailable argument. "No, no, doesn't matter how much shit the shit makers have made, until they've made shit of Star Trek, you have to be a wet-crotched cheerleader defending their every move because--" Because why, exactly? Perhaps Paramount should hand the franchise to Joel Schumacher--after all, though his Batman movies sucked zombie donkey balls with extra maggots, it's no indicator of what his Star Trek movies would be like.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm wasting my time typing this... At least Therin had something substantial to say by referencing what he considers to be the high quality of Lost.

 

[3D Master]

That was a Teaser. And like the Godzilla museum teaser my have nothing to do with the actual movie seeing as it was point out the movie was Under Construction. You're taking things to literal... Which is not the point of Trek seeing as it was a series of morality tales wrapped in a Sci-fi western.

I get what trek really was why do you miss the point?

I didn't miss the point, that IS my point. Star Trek was more than a guns blazing fantasy show. It was more than a Star Wars. It had substance. And as such, part of that substance, was a realistic extrapolation of what the future would be like. There was a certain effort to give it scientific credence, in order to legitimize issues it brought up.

Remove that, and you get "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...". A fantasy tale with no relevance to anything, especially not our present. Or, go back and look at the link posted about this very thread.

BTW have you ever had all the air forcibly evacuated from your lungs in a vacumn? How would you talk into a communicator with NO AIR........ NONE.... Not a wiff.. THERE IS NO OXYGEN IN SPACE FOR YOU TO BREATH....

For that, the communicator would have an emergency signal that does not require you to talk, obviously. Seriously, grasping at straws much?

 

[ST-One]

Of course it was understanadable. Linguacode translates it as "Shut up and go away."

I, of course, will do neither.

Of course you won't.
But I can understand you scepticism - after all these Trek movies Abrams and his teams has made...

Wow. Now that is a truly unassailable argument. "No, no, doesn't matter how much shit the shit makers have made, until they've made shit of Star Trek, you have to be a wet-crotched cheerleader defending their every move because--" Because why, exactly? Perhaps Paramount should hand the franchise to Joel Schumacher--after all, though his Batman movies sucked zombie donkey balls with extra maggots, it's no indicator of what his Star Trek movies would be like.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm wasting my time typing this... At least Therin had something substantial to say by referencing what he considers to be the high quality of Lost.

Didn't all of Roddenberry's other projects fail because of they were made of shit?

 

[Koinek]

The entire concept of building a ship like the Enterprise on the ground and trying to hoist it into orbit is idiotic from the get-go.

So is the thought that every fucking planet in the universe is populated by 2 legged, 2 handed people that look and talk like human beings except with certain physical changes to their appearance not idiotic. Have you even read *ANY* NASA research about the likelihood of finding out intelligent species in the universe.

How about universal communicators? Little machines that analyze every single form of communication ever and spit out a translation.

Oh wait....they're convenient plot devices that we choose to ignore the unreasonable-ness of so that we can enjoy the STORY.

 

[Qonos]

Of course you won't.
But I can understand you scepticism - after all these Trek movies Abrams and his teams has made...

Wow. Now that is a truly unassailable argument. "No, no, doesn't matter how much shit the shit makers have made, until they've made shit of Star Trek, you have to be a wet-crotched cheerleader defending their every move because--" Because why, exactly? Perhaps Paramount should hand the franchise to Joel Schumacher--after all, though his Batman movies sucked zombie donkey balls with extra maggots, it's no indicator of what his Star Trek movies would be like.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm wasting my time typing this... At least Therin had something substantial to say by referencing what he considers to be the high quality of Lost.

Didn't all of Roddenberry's other projects fail because of they were made of shit?

Yes Genesis 2 and the Questor Tapes especially

 

[3D Master]

The entire concept of building a ship like the Enterprise on the ground and trying to hoist it into orbit is idiotic from the get-go.

So is the thought that every fucking planet in the universe is populated by 2 legged, 2 handed people that look and talk like human beings except with certain physical changes to their appearance not idiotic. Have you even read *ANY* NASA research about the likelihood of finding out intelligent species in the universe.

As for the only legitimate calculation done on the possibility of species equal or beyond our technology level out in just our galaxy: 10,000. And that was back when they were EXTREMELY pessimistic about life occurring anyway. Today, 30 years hence, biology scientists saying what is required to have life; just one thing: liquid water. Today, we've found life thriving in places so inhospitable (and here we go again), you would die there quicker than if you were placed naked in space. Also in places where there is no sunlight. Even living in frozen ice and frozen wastelands.

If there's water, and especially liquid water, life will find a way. Today, do the calculation again with the less pessimistic revelations, the number would quite a chunk higher. Which means, in Star Trek, that we have barely seen a single percent of all the technologically advanced civilizations that should be out there. And that's, just OUR galaxy.

How about universal communicators? Little machines that analyze every single form of communication ever and spit out a translation.

Oh wait....they're convenient plot devices that we choose to ignore the unreasonable-ness of so that we can enjoy the STORY.

That's because budget, technology, and the time to tell the story in are limited. However, where no limitation is a hamper, one should endeavor for realistic. Do not do so, and instead of having some places where one can suspend our disbelief, we get cheap unrealistic nonsense. And then any story can't be enjoyed anymore.

Again, go up thread and follow the link to the the sfwriter site, and watch the videos.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Forget it, guys.

Star Trek fandom has degenerated into the aforementioned wet-crotched cheerleaders ready to herald the arrival of whatever polished turd Paramount sees fit to hurl our way, so long as it has a Star Trek label attached.

They wanted a reboot, they got it.

Now let's see if they can keep that going for forty years.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Forget it, guys.

Star Trek fandom has degenerated into the aforementioned wet-crotched cheerleaders ready to herald the arrival of whatever polished turd Paramount sees fit to hurl our way, so long as it has a Star Trek label attached.

They wanted a reboot, they got it.

Now let's see if they can keep that going for forty years.

Does somebody need a hug?

 

[Psion]

If he doesn't, I could use one.