PDA

View Full Version : Enterprise



ToSeek
2001-Oct-22, 08:30 PM
Just to start things off, I wanted to mention the "Enterprise" episode a couple of weeks ago where they found a ship "motionless in space." Even my zoology major wife asked, "Um, how can they tell?"

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-22, 11:04 PM
And, to get things off topic just to start, is there anybody else who doesn't even get UPN? This is seriously bothering me, since I can't watch Enterprise.

Ok, hijack over.

Ben Benoy

Hale_Bopp
2001-Oct-23, 12:15 AM
Well, in Star Trek, they seem to have some sort of coordinate system agreed upon since you hear them talk about their headings and what not. I don't honestly know what the coordinate system is, but bet you could find it in a Star Trek Technical manual somewhere (probably a Sun centered system).

Therefore, it was probably at rest with respect to their random coordinate system which would be quite a coincidence for an alien ship since they would have probably selected a different coordinate system, probably oriented around their home star, which is in all likliehood moving relative to our Sun.

Another unbelievable coincidence!

Rob

Phobos
2001-Oct-23, 12:33 AM
If you consider the galaxy as a whole you could imagine a grid system based upon;

1. Galactic centre of gravity.

2. Our galaxy is relatively flat. The plane of best fit should be considered.

As you start to go through the possiblities there are doubtless numerous ways you could define such a grid system, but I would have thought that a galactic grid would be designed to be independant of your home planet.

Jeff

Trish
2001-Oct-23, 01:47 AM
Yes, but you forget that even the BORG call our solar system Sector 1. So we're really heliocentric in Trek.

MongotheGreat
2001-Oct-23, 04:48 AM
On 2001-10-22 16:30, ToSeek wrote:
Just to start things off, I wanted to mention the "Enterprise" episode a couple of weeks ago where they found a ship "motionless in space." Even my zoology major wife asked, "Um, how can they tell?"


My thoughts revolve around the dramatic event of finding a "motionless" and therefore "spooky" or "interesting" ship as it was probably used to initiate the plot of the episode. Just another example of artistic liscence taken at the expense of poor old astronomy.
Just imagine the odds of a disabled ship being perfectly motionless with respect to a random coordinate system. Then again, they could have been using the coordinate system of the ship itself, then it would be motionless./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MongotheGreat on 2001-10-23 00:49 ]</font>
Trying to get my signature to work

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MongotheGreat on 2001-10-23 00:52 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MongotheGreat on 2001-10-23 00:54 ]</font>

Simon
2001-Oct-23, 08:10 AM

Simon
2001-Oct-23, 08:11 AM
Erm, I suppose it's not likely that they just meant it's engines weren't activated?

No, that would be too logical... And besides, they would have probably phrased it differently...


Right, I'm getting the hang of this. Really...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Simon on 2001-10-23 04:12 ]</font>

WHarris
2001-Oct-23, 10:25 AM
On 2001-10-22 21:47, Trish wrote:
Yes, but you forget that even the BORG call our solar system Sector 1. So we're really heliocentric in Trek.


The Borg only call it sector 001 because we do.

ToSeek
2001-Oct-23, 11:37 AM
On 2001-10-23 00:48, MongotheGreat wrote:

My thoughts revolve around the dramatic event of finding a "motionless" and therefore "spooky" or "interesting" ship as it was probably used to initiate the plot of the episode. Just another example of artistic liscence taken at the expense of poor old astronomy.

I was thinking they could just as easily (and more visually dramatically) have shown the ship spinning in some fashion, which would also have served as an indicator that something was wrong and would actually have made sense.

James
2001-Oct-23, 11:49 AM
IIRC, the way the coordinate system is set up in relation to a ship is 360 degrees in any direction. i.e. 270 x 90 mark 2 would be a turn to the upper-left, I believe. I don't know. It's been a while since I read a Star Trek techinical book. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Donnie B.
2001-Oct-23, 01:13 PM
I don't think "motionless wrt the galaxy" is good enough. After all, the galaxy is rotating as a whole, and the individual stars are all orbiting its center at different speeds. So you can't say there's a universal "landmark" that every spacefaring species would agree on.

It's much like the situation on Earth, where there's an objective North and South Pole (though different cultures/observers might name them differently) and Equator, and thus a universal standard for latitude; but for longitude, it took an international commission to settle on Greenwich, England as the zero mark.

So even if the Federation uses a galaxy-centered coordinate system, which would allow two objective, fixed dimensions (north-south and distance from the center) it still has to choose a third, arbitrary reference line for the third dimension... such as a line from the galactic center through the Sun, or Vulcan's sun, or something of the sort.

I tend to agree with Simon's suggestion that the ship was simply unpowered... not under warp drive, not accelerating, perhaps not radiating any energy above cosmic background (or whatever would be expected due to illumination by the nearby star/s).

So, maybe "motionless" would just be a shorthand term. Or maybe it was uttered by a spaceflight "newbie" who hadn't learned to be precise.

I like ToSeek's suggestion of spinning/tumbling as a good "visual shorthand" for abandoned/adrift. Only a spacecraft with active guidance would maintain stationkeeping with the background stars for very long, I suspect. Even random events (heating and cooling) would eventually impart some spin. Or parts would break off, or a tank would leak causing a jet... entropy rules!


_________________

My God! It's full of stars!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-10-23 09:20 ]</font>

WHarris
2001-Oct-23, 01:22 PM
On 2001-10-23 07:37, ToSeek wrote:
I was thinking they could just as easily (and more visually dramatically) have shown the ship spinning in some fashion, which would also have served as an indicator that something was wrong and would actually have made sense.


Not given the context of the episode. The ship had been taken over by the alien bad guys, and the crew's corpses strung up so that whatever the aliens wanted could be processed out of them. Since the alien bad guys were planning on coming back, they'd want to leave the ship in a position for easy docking. (ie not spinning)

Tom
2001-Oct-23, 02:44 PM
So even if the Federation uses a galaxy-centered coordinate system, which would allow two objective, fixed dimensions (north-south and distance from the center) it still has to choose a third, arbitrary reference line for the third dimension... such as a line from the galactic center through the Sun, or Vulcan's sun, or something of the sort.



Close. The Earth's coordinates in Star Trek are 0,0,1. Guess which race out of all the superior ones got to pick to coordinate system? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

And the question I had about the itty-bitty dead ship... when the Big One came back, it obviously dwarfed the NX-01. Why did they leave the ship, bodies, equipment, etc., if it was so important? (Can you say plot device?) It was big enough to have a cargo hold the size of West Palm Beach.

Wally
2001-Oct-23, 02:54 PM
What always got me is the fact that whenever ships meet, they're on the same plane in relation to each other. This, even during battles. Even in Wrath of Kahn during the final battle scene, after Spock points out Kahn is thinking only in 2 dimensions, Kurk "sinks" down out of the plane Kahn's on. All well and good. However, once down "below" the level of Kahn, he finds it necessary to "rise" back up to the same plane (after Kahn passes by) before firing at him. So. . .why didn't he just pitch the nose of the ship up 90 degrees from below him and fire??? Wonder if the Geneva Convention in the 24th century forbids fighting from different relative planes or something. . .

Geo3gh
2001-Oct-23, 03:05 PM
What always got me is the fact that whenever ships meet, they're on the same plane in relation to each other.


I always laugh when they use this so a ship can block another, as if this point in space were a choke point.

"Oops. Can't go forward anymore. Someone's in our way."

"Can't we go around them?"

"Shut up, Ensign Redshirt."


Jeff

David Hall
2001-Oct-23, 03:42 PM
I always laugh when they use this so a ship can block another, as if this point in space were a choke point.

"Oops. Can't go forward anymore. Someone's in our way."

"Can't we go around them?"

"Shut up, Ensign Redshirt."

Jeff


Actually, I don't think this would be as ludicrous as it seems. Any ship blocking your way would be able to manoeuver to intercept you faster than you would be able to get around it. Not unless your ship was much faster than it.

So I see it not so much as a physical blocking as a stalemate. You can't move in any way without the other ship countering it. So why bother trying.

I remember Larry Niven's story "The Ethics of Madness" has a similar idea. One man fleeing in a ramship couldn't turn it around to go home because the ship pursuing it instantly corrected it's course every time he tried. So both ships kept heading out into the void forever.

Lisa
2001-Oct-23, 04:13 PM
I'm glad that someone else has noticed that. I've always thought that all the ships being on the same plane was weird. This is space, not the ocean.
And with the lovely "artifical gravity" plot device, we can also ask why Chekov fell out of his chair every time the Enterprise was hit.
Lisa

Tom
2001-Oct-23, 05:42 PM
Uh, the artificial gravity... even in the turbolifts...

On the episode we've discussed, I was pleased that the pod docked upside down with respect to the other ship.

This week's episode had the pod dock underneath, and the characters climbed up into the alien ship. How the heck did they build a gravity generator into 3 inches of hull, while maintaining strength and insulation?

It's good, it's bad, it's TV!

Sean
2001-Oct-23, 05:48 PM
In non combat situations there could be conventions in place that govern how one ship aproaches another. These conventions do not have to make sense as long as someone with enough authority creates the rule. This would explain non combat situations. Protocal requires it so we do it. Happens alot in the military.

As far as Combat goes in the wrath of khan werent targeting computers down? If that was the case than rising to the easiest point to fire from would make sense. In other cases to hit specific targets on a ship may require putting yourself at a point where your in line with them. Admittedly this is not a great reason but possibly one to work from.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-23, 05:56 PM
On 2001-10-23 10:54, Wally wrote:
What always got me is the fact that whenever ships meet, they're on the same plane in relation to each other. This, even during battles. Even in Wrath of Kahn during the final battle scene, after Spock points out Kahn is thinking only in 2 dimensions, Kurk "sinks" down out of the plane Kahn's on. All well and good. However, once down "below" the level of Kahn, he finds it necessary to "rise" back up to the same plane (after Kahn passes by) before firing at him. So. . .why didn't he just pitch the nose of the ship up 90 degrees from below him and fire??? Wonder if the Geneva Convention in the 24th century forbids fighting from different relative planes or something. . .


I can't believe I am actually saying this, as I will sound like a complete idiot, but then again I am a brave man.

It could be because there was a chance they could miss, because ships in Star Trek move fast enough, even if they seem to be going 1 kilometer per hour in the mutara nebula (however it's spelled). Since they have no sensors, and if the ship was moving perpendicular to them, they could miss it, and if you notice a little earlier they actually DO miss (UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE!), so my guess is they want to take as little chances as possible from missing, because had Khan seen fire coming from below, he would certainly have started to fight in 3 dimensions. If the ship moves away from them and they are behind it stays in the relative same space, hence it is easier for the total incompetent that managed to miss before at the weapons console to score a hit (pure luck it seems). My guess is without sensors it is more difficult to match velocity, so if they wanted to point the nose up as you said and fire, they could match velocity with lateral manoeuvering thrusters (do they have those? How are they called?) and it would have been a little difficult if the guy at the helm was as competent as the one at the weapons console I guess he could have triggered the self destruct sequence by mistake or something.

Well, in theory of course. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

SeanF
2001-Oct-23, 06:07 PM
On 2001-10-23 12:13, Lisa wrote:
And with the lovely "artifical gravity" plot device, we can also ask why Chekov fell out of his chair every time the Enterprise was hit.
Lisa


I thought it was cute in the pilot for "Enterprise" when they got knocked around and one of the characters (I think it was Hoshi) said, "When we get back, we should recommend seat belts in these things". Apparently they never got around to it!

Azpod
2001-Oct-23, 06:49 PM
On 2001-10-23 10:54, Wally wrote:
What always got me is the fact that whenever ships meet, they're on the same plane in relation to each other. This, even during battles. Even in Wrath of Kahn during the final battle scene, after Spock points out Kahn is thinking only in 2 dimensions, Kurk "sinks" down out of the plane Kahn's on. All well and good. However, once down "below" the level of Kahn, he finds it necessary to "rise" back up to the same plane (after Kahn passes by) before firing at him. So. . .why didn't he just pitch the nose of the ship up 90 degrees from below him and fire??? Wonder if the Geneva Convention in the 24th century forbids fighting from different relative planes or something. . .


Actually, that's a good point. When I worked at Interplay on Starfleet Academy, one of the biggest problems that we had was orientation, because the player could and often did move thier ship in 3 dimensions. But they often became disoriented if the enemy ships attacked from any dimension and without the "tops" of thier ships lining up with the "top" of the player's ship. So we had to have the computer AI reorient itself with respect to the player to attack from the same plane that the player's ship currently was in.

I'm glad I didn't get stuck writing that code! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

But that's why the ships are facing the way they are in Trek, so that the audience (who is used to seeing things the way they are on Earth, where there's a definite "up") doesn't become disoriented and confused. Too bad it has to be that way, though. In a "real life" space battle, ships would be facing any which way and attacking from potentially any angle.

Of course, ships in Trek also get rediculously close to each other, especially when they are doing battle! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

_________________
Just my two neurons worth,
Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2001-10-23 14:51 ]</font>

ToSeek
2001-Oct-23, 06:54 PM
On 2001-10-23 09:22, WHarris wrote:


On 2001-10-23 07:37, ToSeek wrote:
I was thinking they could just as easily (and more visually dramatically) have shown the ship spinning in some fashion, which would also have served as an indicator that something was wrong and would actually have made sense.


Not given the context of the episode. The ship had been taken over by the alien bad guys, and the crew's corpses strung up so that whatever the aliens wanted could be processed out of them. Since the alien bad guys were planning on coming back, they'd want to leave the ship in a position for easy docking. (ie not spinning)



Well, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't take much for the ship to start to spin if there's no one at the helm. I think it still makes a lot more sense than "motionless in space."

Rob Scott
2001-Oct-23, 08:33 PM
On 2001-10-23 14:49, Azpod wrote:
Of course, ships in Trek also get rediculously close to each other, especially when they are doing battle! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif
Yeah, that always bothered me. I know it's so Joe Sixpack understands what's going on, and so the effects look good, etc. but it always seemed to me there was a way to do it more realistically and still have it look cool and be understandable.

The only SF show I can recall that actually tried was Babylon 5. I vividly remember one episode (can't remember title offhand) where a group of ships detect an enemy battle group fairly far off; and they start firing into the distance. Then the point of view switches to the enemy group and you see them firing back. It was wayyyyy cool and I was jumping up and down in my chair, thinking (if not yelling) "Good astronomy! Good astronomy!" Fortunately my wife was not there or she would have thought me more nuts than usual.

James
2001-Oct-24, 12:56 AM
On 2001-10-23 14:07, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-10-23 12:13, Lisa wrote:
And with the lovely "artifical gravity" plot device, we can also ask why Chekov fell out of his chair every time the Enterprise was hit.
Lisa


I thought it was cute in the pilot for "Enterprise" when they got knocked around and one of the characters (I think it was Hoshi) said, "When we get back, we should recommend seat belts in these things". Apparently they never got around to it!

IIRC, they haven't been back to Earth yet. Maybe in a future episode? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

The Rat
2001-Oct-24, 02:05 AM
On 2001-10-23 14:07, SeanF wrote:

I thought it was cute in the pilot for "Enterprise" when they got knocked around and one of the characters (I think it was Hoshi) said, "When we get back, we should recommend seat belts in these things". Apparently they never got around to it!




I would be willing to bet that this was an 'inside' joke. I certainly chuckled over it.

Geo3gh
2001-Oct-24, 02:53 AM
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think this would be as ludicrous as it seems. Any ship blocking your way would be able to manoeuver to intercept you faster than you would be able to get around it. Not unless your ship was much faster than it.

So I see it not so much as a physical blocking as a stalemate. You can't move in any way without the other ship countering it. So why bother trying.

I remember Larry Niven's story "The Ethics of Madness" has a similar idea. One man fleeing in a ramship couldn't turn it around to go home because the ship pursuing it instantly corrected it's course every time he tried. So both ships kept heading out into the void forever.
[/quote]

Yeah, but Niven was keeping a bit more to physics as we know it. We're talking about Trek here. The "Picard Manuever" relies on being able to accelerate to Warp 1 faster than your opponent's crew or sensors can accomodate. They could do that to get around the one-ship blockade too.

Geo3gh
2001-Oct-24, 02:59 AM
Of course, ships in Trek also get rediculously close to each other, especially when they are doing battle! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif


But they'll quote great distances anyway, regardless of what the SFX guys decide to show.

Maybe they have one of those mirrors: objects look closer than they really are.

Chip
2001-Oct-24, 08:00 AM
On 2001-10-23 16:33, Rob Scott wrote:
[quote]On 2001-10-23 14:49, Azpod wrote:
"...The only SF show I can recall that actually tried was Babylon 5. I vividly remember one episode (can't remember title offhand) where a group of ships detect an enemy battle group fairly far off; and they start firing into the distance. Then the point of view switches to the enemy group and you see them firing back. It was wayyyyy cool and I was jumping up and down in my chair, thinking (if not yelling) "Good astronomy! Good astronomy!" Fortunately my wife was not there or she would have thought me more nuts than usual."


Babylon 5 -- I love that show! They did that long range fighting effect several times. Unlike Star Trek, they've also had scenes where areas within their big battle ships are in "micro gravity" i.e. weightless. This includes the bridge, where the Captain and crew are strapped in their chairs. (The more advanced aliens however have gravity throughout their space craft, and they can wear fancy robes without getting caught in doorways!) Never the less, a very cool show! Narn ships are wicked looking - and the Shadow shps are....chilling! (-;

("B5" is not perfect though. They also had WWI style "dog fights" sort of in the Star Wars style. Dramatic yes, but not exactly "good astronomy.")

In fairness to Star Trek, in the original series, (the episode where they first see Romulans,) there is a reference to war in space where you "never see the enemy ships." They are too far away during battle.

Chip

Rob Scott
2001-Oct-24, 10:40 AM
On 2001-10-24 04:00, Chip wrote:
("B5" is not perfect though. They also had WWI style "dog fights" sort of in the Star Wars style. Dramatic yes, but not exactly "good astronomy.")Yeah, but they generally had some decent physics involved -- you often saw a Starfury turn around and fire back in the opposite direction whilst still continuing on its original course. You never saw that in Star Wars. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

James
2001-Oct-24, 10:50 AM
On 2001-10-23 22:53, Geo3gh wrote:



Actually, I don't think this would be as ludicrous as it seems. Any ship blocking your way would be able to manoeuver to intercept you faster than you would be able to get around it. Not unless your ship was much faster than it.

So I see it not so much as a physical blocking as a stalemate. You can't move in any way without the other ship countering it. So why bother trying.

I remember Larry Niven's story "The Ethics of Madness" has a similar idea. One man fleeing in a ramship couldn't turn it around to go home because the ship pursuing it instantly corrected it's course every time he tried. So both ships kept heading out into the void forever.

Yeah, but Niven was keeping a bit more to physics as we know it. We're talking about Trek here. The "Picard Manuever" relies on being able to accelerate to Warp 1 faster than your opponent's crew or sensors can accomodate. They could do that to get around the one-ship blockade too.

Ah, the Picard Manuever./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif From what I remember, it was first used in battle against the Ferengi and it was successfull because the Ferengi sensors were light-based(can't recall what it was off the top of my head).

Anyway, what the manuever entails is, first, you go about a light year away. Do a 180 turn back towards your opponent. Then, at warp 1, head towards your opponent. Stop very close to your opponent. Fire.

What happens is the enemy gets confused and ends up seeing two ships at once due to the lag time between the sensors getting the first ship and "seeing" the second "ship" at about the same time.

_________________
Calling evolution a religion is like calling baldness a hair color.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: James on 2001-10-24 06:55 ]</font>

WHarris
2001-Oct-24, 10:51 AM
On 2001-10-23 14:54, ToSeek wrote:
Well, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't take much for the ship to start to spin if there's no one at the helm. I think it still makes a lot more sense than "motionless in space."


First, the alien bad guys could have set the helm on automatic station keeping.

Second, remember from Newston's Laws: "...an object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force". Considering they were in deep space, it's not likely there'll be an outside force to act on the ship.

SeanF
2001-Oct-24, 11:29 AM
On 2001-10-23 20:56, James wrote:


On 2001-10-23 14:07, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-10-23 12:13, Lisa wrote:
And with the lovely "artifical gravity" plot device, we can also ask why Chekov fell out of his chair every time the Enterprise was hit.
Lisa


I thought it was cute in the pilot for "Enterprise" when they got knocked around and one of the characters (I think it was Hoshi) said, "When we get back, we should recommend seat belts in these things". Apparently they never got around to it!

IIRC, they haven't been back to Earth yet. Maybe in a future episode? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif


Yeah, but James, we've got 79 episodes of Star Trek, 22 episodes of Star Trek (the animated series), 178 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, 176 episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, 172 episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, and nine movies, all of which take place after Enterprise and none of which have seatbelts on the ships.

Which led me to the conclusion that the Enterprise crew never gets around to making the recommendation! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Mnemonia
2001-Oct-24, 06:07 PM
On 2001-10-24 06:50, James wrote:

Anyway, what the manuever entails is, first, you go about a light year away. Do a 180 turn back towards your opponent. Then, at warp 1, head towards your opponent. Stop very close to your opponent. Fire.

What happens is the enemy gets confused and ends up seeing two ships at once due to the lag time between the sensors getting the first ship and "seeing" the second "ship" at about the same time.


Say what?! If Stargazer went a light year away, wouldn't it take a year for the sensors to see it at that distance? They're not going to see two ships unless the battle lasts, you guessed it, one year.

Actually this is a problem in many Star Trek series, exploited mostly in Voyager, whose crew always valiantly rushes in to save some doomed ship/civilization that they picked up on visual, when in actually, by the time they got there there should be nothing left to save! It all happened years ago!

Which brings up another beef with Voyager. How come objects captured at extreme long range on sensors have better clarity than just some fuzzy dot? It's not like there's some wall at an arbitrary distance where tiny points of light suddenly become very detailed spheres.

Valiant Dancer
2001-Oct-24, 07:41 PM
For those of you looking for a good Star Trek technical site.

http://www.ditl.org

A lot of cool stuff here.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Valiant Dancer on 2001-10-24 15:42 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 09:53 PM
Ah, the Picard Manuever./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif From what I remember, it was first used in battle against the Ferengi and it was successfull because the Ferengi sensors were light-based(can't recall what it was off the top of my head).

Anyway, what the manuever entails is, first, you go about a light year away. Do a 180 turn back towards your opponent. Then, at warp 1, head towards your opponent. Stop very close to your opponent. Fire.

What happens is the enemy gets confused and ends up seeing two ships at once due to the lag time between the sensors getting the first ship and "seeing" the second "ship" at about the same time.


180 degrees turn? I hope not in warp since the people on those ships always seem to be WHINING about hull integrity. It really is whining, and quite painful /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif. And stress /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif . Then panels blow up /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif, killing countless Ensigns with no names /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif whose bodies are surely dumped into space with the garbage. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif @ the parents of these people, it's really disrespectful you know.

You'd think after all that time, the ability to go back in time, travel faster than light and use tritanium (I don't remember the name) hulls they would have found a way for the ship NOT to break apart when they turn at or near light-speed. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif

<font size=5 color=red>And what about that RIKER manoeuver!</font> Sometimes it becomes laughable in the sense that I feel like crying /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif. And that "Manual Control Column" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif to show off Riker's piloting abilities /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif. Was that painful enough for you? And why does Riker sometimes "walk like he's trying to knock down an imaginary door with his forehead" on the Enterprise? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif

Edited for miscellaneous typos, notably "knock", which was previously spelled "know"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-24 17:58 ]</font>

ToSeek
2001-Oct-24, 09:58 PM
On 2001-10-24 06:51, WHarris wrote:


On 2001-10-23 14:54, ToSeek wrote:
Well, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't take much for the ship to start to spin if there's no one at the helm. I think it still makes a lot more sense than "motionless in space."


First, the alien bad guys could have set the helm on automatic station keeping.

Second, remember from Newston's Laws: "...an object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force". Considering they were in deep space, it's not likely there'll be an outside force to act on the ship.



I've got it figured out: when the aliens left the ship, they had to push off, right? So that should have left the ship with a spin. So there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

James
2001-Oct-24, 11:35 PM
On 2001-10-24 07:29, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-10-23 20:56, James wrote:


On 2001-10-23 14:07, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-10-23 12:13, Lisa wrote:
And with the lovely "artifical gravity" plot device, we can also ask why Chekov fell out of his chair every time the Enterprise was hit.
Lisa


I thought it was cute in the pilot for "Enterprise" when they got knocked around and one of the characters (I think it was Hoshi) said, "When we get back, we should recommend seat belts in these things". Apparently they never got around to it!

IIRC, they haven't been back to Earth yet. Maybe in a future episode? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif


Yeah, but James, we've got 79 episodes of Star Trek, 22 episodes of Star Trek (the animated series), 178 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, 176 episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, 172 episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, and nine movies, all of which take place after Enterprise and none of which have seatbelts on the ships.

Which led me to the conclusion that the Enterprise crew never gets around to making the recommendation! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

You forget one thing that all those series had that, AFAWK, the Enterprise NX-01 doesn't have. Inertial Dampeners. Don't ask me how they work, they just do. How else do you explain them being able to go to warp, without being squished into little puddles of goo?


Say what?! If Stargazer went a light year away, wouldn't it take a year for the sensors to see it at that distance? They're not going to see two ships unless the battle lasts, you guessed it, one year.

Hey, don't blame me or the Stargazer for having sensors like that. Blame the Ferengi for the inferior sensors. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Anyway, that's the beauty of the Picard Maneuver. }:-) See, AWAK, speed of light is 186,000 miles/second. If you were to go out, faster than the speed of light, stop for a second, do a 180, then head back faster than the speed of light, it's possible to have one ship appear in two places at once on sensors like that. The trick is to move faster than 186,000 miles/second.


Actually this is a problem in many Star Trek series, exploited mostly in Voyager, whose crew always valiantly rushes in to save some doomed ship/civilization that they picked up on visual, when in actually, by the time they got there there should be nothing left to save! It all happened years ago!

Remember, they move faster than the speed of light. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif


Which brings up another beef with Voyager. How come objects captured at extreme long range on sensors have better clarity than just some fuzzy dot? It's not like there's some wall at an arbitrary distance where tiny points of light suddenly become very detailed spheres.

Blame it on TPTB. Most other Trekkers blame most of the mistakes in the series on them. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Mnemonia
2001-Oct-25, 10:56 AM
On 2001-10-24 19:35, James wrote:

Remember, they move faster than the speed of light. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif


I'm not talking about Voyager, I'm talking about things they pick up on visual. I'll give them the excuse of ship to ship audio/visual via subspace, but unless light travels faster than light speed in the 24th century, there is no excuse for picking up some nontransmitting object on sensors.

After giving it some thought though I think maybe they have some kind of subspace 'ping' technology, which can convert the return signal into visual. Also explains why things at the limit of sensor range have good clarity - any signal that comes back too weak simply does not get registered.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 02:34 PM
On 2001-10-24 19:35, James wrote:
Blame it on TPTB. Most other Trekkers blame most of the mistakes in the series on them. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


TPTB? I never heard of that, what is it!?

THE BAD APPRENTICE IS I!

SeanF
2001-Oct-25, 02:51 PM
On 2001-10-25 10:34, Mr. X wrote:


On 2001-10-24 19:35, James wrote:
Blame it on TPTB. Most other Trekkers blame most of the mistakes in the series on them. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


TPTB? I never heard of that, what is it!?

THE BAD APPRENTICE IS I!


"The Powers That Be"

In other words, it's that way because that's how they wrote the scripts, dagnabbit!

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 04:12 PM
On 2001-10-25 10:51, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-10-25 10:34, Mr. X wrote:


On 2001-10-24 19:35, James wrote:
Blame it on TPTB. Most other Trekkers blame most of the mistakes in the series on them. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


TPTB? I never heard of that, what is it!?

THE BAD APPRENTICE IS I!


"The Powers That Be"

In other words, it's that way because that's how they wrote the scripts, dagnabbit!



I see. Well I have nothing against the scripts, or the powers that be.

Besides you might have to bend the rules a little to make it interesting. Otherwise it becomes like a space shuttle flight /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif .

Would you sit one hour a week in front of the television witnessing the exciting events from the launch to the landing of the space shuttle of the last flight?

Don't get me wrong, I like it, but I'm mainly interested in the MACHINES that takes us to space, not really what they do in them, or outside them, or with them aside from going into space and using the ship.

Guess I'm just a strange person.

Matherly
2001-Oct-25, 05:25 PM
Don't make me open up the old disscussion about BA allowances in Sci-Fi.

'Cause I will!

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 05:35 PM
On 2001-10-25 13:25, Matherly wrote:
Don't make me open up the old disscussion about BA allowances in Sci-Fi.

'Cause I will!


No please! DON'T! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 13:36 ]</font>

David Hall
2001-Oct-28, 02:59 AM
On 2001-10-25 12:12, Mr. X wrote:
Would you sit one hour a week in front of the television witnessing the exciting events from the launch to the landing of the space shuttle of the last flight?


I'd be careful asking questions like that on this board. I think a lot of people here would answer yes to it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Roy Batty
2001-Oct-28, 09:07 AM
Personally, I try to limit my viewing of NASA TV to under 5 hours a week /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Space Ghost of Arrakis
2001-Oct-29, 06:38 PM
Shoot, I'm just waiting for B&B to try to show the Earth Romulan War when the Romulans lack FTL travel....

James
2001-Oct-29, 11:55 PM
On 2001-10-29 13:38, Space Ghost of Arrakis wrote:
Shoot, I'm just waiting for B&B to try to show the Earth Romulan War when the Romulans lack FTL travel....


You're probably gonna have to wait a few seasons. IMO, if they pull the timeline card and insert some major continuity thing(i.e., Earth-Romulan War, Starfleet fully organized, etc.) too soon, B&B are gonna lose a lot of viewers and fans very fast. Just MO.

MongotheGreat
2001-Oct-30, 04:17 AM
Sorry about my ineptness regarding thses last couple of posts, but what exactly is B&B?

James
2001-Oct-30, 12:10 PM
On 2001-10-29 23:17, MongotheGreat wrote:
Sorry about my ineptness regarding thses last couple of posts, but what exactly is B&B?



Brannon & Braga

In fact, go here: TrekToday.com (http://www.trektoday.com/)
Learn it. Read it. Follow it.

Axquat
2001-Nov-03, 07:19 AM
You know . . . A lot of our many intrepid ships crews' troubles would be solved if Starfleet would simply build the rest of their ships with the level of back-up redundancy that their artificial gravity plating contains. I mean, even when auxilliary power is shot, life support is out, even the lights don't have enough power--they still manage to have enough watch batteries or something strung through the deck plating to maintain the gravity. I can only recall one time in the entire history of Star Trek that a ships artificial gravity has failed--Star Trek 6.

-Nick

James
2001-Nov-03, 10:46 PM
On 2001-11-03 02:19, Axquat wrote:
You know . . . A lot of our many intrepid ships crews' troubles would be solved if Starfleet would simply build the rest of their ships with the level of back-up redundancy that their artificial gravity plating contains. I mean, even when auxilliary power is shot, life support is out, even the lights don't have enough power--they still manage to have enough watch batteries or something strung through the deck plating to maintain the gravity. I can only recall one time in the entire history of Star Trek that a ships artificial gravity has failed--Star Trek 6.

-Nick


True, but do you know how expensive renting NASA's Vomit Comet is? I don't either, but to do it for every single episode where everything but the kitchen sink is out of order can be pretty expensive after a while.

SeanF
2001-Nov-05, 01:03 PM
On 2001-11-03 02:19, Axquat wrote:
You know . . . A lot of our many intrepid ships crews' troubles would be solved if Starfleet would simply build the rest of their ships with the level of back-up redundancy that their artificial gravity plating contains. I mean, even when auxilliary power is shot, life support is out, even the lights don't have enough power--they still manage to have enough watch batteries or something strung through the deck plating to maintain the gravity. I can only recall one time in the entire history of Star Trek that a ships artificial gravity has failed--Star Trek 6.

-Nick


Well, you can add another one -- they've done it in Enterprise already! Little globules of water floating around in the Captain's shower . . .

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-05, 02:06 PM
On 2001-11-05 08:03, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-11-03 02:19, Axquat wrote:
You know . . . A lot of our many intrepid ships crews' troubles would be solved if Starfleet would simply build the rest of their ships with the level of back-up redundancy that their artificial gravity plating contains. I mean, even when auxilliary power is shot, life support is out, even the lights don't have enough power--they still manage to have enough watch batteries or something strung through the deck plating to maintain the gravity. I can only recall one time in the entire history of Star Trek that a ships artificial gravity has failed--Star Trek 6.

-Nick


Well, you can add another one -- they've done it in Enterprise already! Little globules of water floating around in the Captain's shower . . .




Didn't it also happen in ST-TNG, in the episode where the Enterprise hits a cosmic string? I couldn't swear to it... what I mostly remember is Captain Picard leading his "crew" in a rendition of "Frere Jacques"...

David Hall
2001-Nov-05, 02:56 PM
On 2001-11-03 02:19, Axquat wrote:
You know . . . A lot of our many intrepid ships crews' troubles would be solved if Starfleet would simply build the rest of their ships with the level of back-up redundancy that their artificial gravity plating contains. I mean, even when auxilliary power is shot, life support is out, even the lights don't have enough power--they still manage to have enough watch batteries or something strung through the deck plating to maintain the gravity. I can only recall one time in the entire history of Star Trek that a ships artificial gravity has failed--Star Trek 6.

-Nick


You know, this sounds to me a lot like the joke asking why they don't build entire airplanes out of the stuff they make the Black Boxes from. Of course we can't do that because a plane made from the reenforced materials of the BB would be too heavy and expensive to fly (if indeed it could even handle the stresses of such a structure.)

So why don't they make all ships systems like that? Well, there must be some reason. Maybe such a level of redundancy would be too bulky and costly to add to every system. My belief is that the antigravity system is just something that is especially durable and easy to keep running independently of all other systems, so it's possible and desirable to keep it running when everything else is offline.

Such desire for durability of the artificial gravity system would make sense, of course. It would get right messy if the anti-inertial systems went offline during a 2000g turn. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif (I'm assuming here that the gravity system is what compensates for inertia). Besides, you can go a while without many of these other systems, but losing gravity in a crisis could cause many problems, especially if it happened suddenly.

I seem to remember from somewhere that the given reason why everyone lurches around the bridge during hits is because the inertial dampeners/artificial gravity becomes overloaded for a split-second or two, throwing people around. Perhaps it's even a combination of loss-of-gravity and overcompensation by the gravity generators as they cut in and out that makes things even more turbulent. But I suppose getting tossed around is preferrable to what would happen if they went out completely.

SeanF
2001-Nov-05, 02:57 PM
On 2001-11-05 09:06, Donnie B. wrote:

Didn't it also happen in ST-TNG, in the episode where the Enterprise hits a cosmic string? I couldn't swear to it... what I mostly remember is Captain Picard leading his "crew" in a rendition of "Frere Jacques"...



Nope -- in fact, they were singing "Frere Jacques" while they were climbing "up" the turbolift shaft, in which the artificial gravity was still so much in effect that the 'lift car fell!

I don't think they showed microgravity in any of the other parts of the ship, but I might just be forgetting something . . .

Geo3gh
2001-Nov-05, 04:02 PM
On 2001-11-05 09:57, SeanF wrote:


On 2001-11-05 09:06, Donnie B. wrote:

Didn't it also happen in ST-TNG, in the episode where the Enterprise hits a cosmic string? I couldn't swear to it... what I mostly remember is Captain Picard leading his "crew" in a rendition of "Frere Jacques"...



Nope -- in fact, they were singing "Frere Jacques" while they were climbing "up" the turbolift shaft, in which the artificial gravity was still so much in effect that the 'lift car fell!

I don't think they showed microgravity in any of the other parts of the ship, but I might just be forgetting something . . .


In Wrath of Khan, they don't go into some parts of the ship because they couldn't get gravity restored. Didn't show it, but said it.

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-05, 05:49 PM
I seem to remember from somewhere that the given reason why everyone lurches around the bridge during hits is because the inertial dampeners/artificial gravity becomes overloaded for a split-second or two, throwing people around. Perhaps it's even a combination of loss-of-gravity and overcompensation by the gravity generators as they cut in and out that makes things even more turbulent. But I suppose getting tossed around is preferrable to what would happen if they went out completely.

According to the entry on the Daystrom Institute web site (http://www.ditl.org/), the inertial dampers are controlled by the computer system and therefore act in concert with the ship's drive systems. When the force is external, like in a weapons hit, the dampers must react and there is an unavoidable delay between action and reaction.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-05, 08:31 PM
On 2001-11-05 12:49, Kaptain K wrote:
According to the entry on the Daystrom Institute web site (http://www.ditl.org/), the inertial dampers are controlled by the computer system and therefore act in concert with the ship's drive systems. When the force is external, like in a weapons hit, the dampers must react and there is an unavoidable delay between action and reaction.


Conveniently being just enough to knock people around in a highly dramatic fashion (it would be sort of silly if they just hiccupped a little) without doing anyone an injury.

David Hall
2001-Nov-05, 08:40 PM
On 2001-11-05 12:49, Kaptain K wrote:
According to the entry on the Daystrom Institute web site (http://www.ditl.org/), the inertial dampers are controlled by the computer system and therefore act in concert with the ship's drive systems. When the force is external, like in a weapons hit, the dampers must react and there is an unavoidable delay between action and reaction.


Yeah, that's what it was, I think. It sounds right to me. I was just going by little slips of memory floating around in my head.

Thanks. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2001-Nov-15, 01:57 PM
Okay, my Enterprise rant for this week is:

Why is that no matter where the ship is hit by weapons fire sparks fly on the bridge? Is this like the ultimate in graphical user interfaces: little spark-generating devices that go off to tell you the ship's been hit, as if you didn't know already?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2001-11-15 09:00 ]</font>

Alan
2001-Nov-15, 02:05 PM
How about the Enterprise going into orbit at 500 kilometres but the alien ship was hiding from them "probably" in geosynchronus orbit on the other side of the planet.

Geo3gh
2001-Nov-15, 04:30 PM
On 2001-11-15 09:05, Alan wrote:
How about the Enterprise going into orbit at 500 kilometres but the alien ship was hiding from them "probably" in geosynchronus orbit on the other side of the planet.


If I'm willing to use thrust, I can stay geosychronous at any altitude I want. I'm not sure it would be proper to call that "orbiting" though. But ST tends to call any path in space around a planet an orbit, powered or not.

The aliens were using the planet's mass to hide their ship from Enterprise; I think "geosynchronous orbit" was just an unfortunate use of a specific orbital mechanics phrase for Trek Jargon.

My beef is why the aliens, who clearly had transporters that they were comfortable with using on people, wouldn't use transporters to pick up the shipments. Instead they use a shuttle and tractor beams. Ugh! Just beam the mined ore off a platform in the mine.

SeanF
2001-Nov-15, 05:38 PM
On 2001-11-15 11:30, Geo3gh wrote:
My beef is why the aliens, who clearly had transporters that they were comfortable with using on people, wouldn't use transporters to pick up the shipments. Instead they use a shuttle and tractor beams. Ugh! Just beam the mined ore off a platform in the mine.


Well, obviously, the dampening field which was preventing the Enterprise from transporting the generator would also prevent the aliens from transporting the ore. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Of course, they could have transported the ore from right inside the shop, but maybe the ore is unstable in some manner that prevents it from being transported safely?

Having said all that, though, why were these guys running a dampening field, anyway? It's not like the inhabitants were going to detect the "neutrino emissions." Although, I suppose it would make sense that they turned it on when they detected the Enterprise approaching . . . which means the "unstable ore" theory must be the one that prevented them from transporting, since they'd been taking the crates out for months.

I can't believe that apothecary never hung around the woods long enough before to see the shuttle pick up the crates, though!

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-15, 08:00 PM
Oh, come on, guys... let's not pick invisible nits... anybody can tell that the important message of this episode was, "Archer gets lucky with alien babe!"

Besides, 500km is a fine altitude for geosynchronous orbit... assuming the planet rotates fast enough. Love those short nights! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Rob Scott
2001-Nov-20, 02:46 PM
Nitpicking aside, I was actually pretty impressed with this episode. (It was far better than the typical Voyager episode, that's for sure.) The technology worked in a reasonable way -- no major plot holes -- but didn't overpower the story. I especially liked (SPOILERS ahead):

The universal translator failed and Archer had to find a "creative" way to cover it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
Transporting the antimatter reactor into the path of the attacking ship.
Riann chooses the correct button to deactivate the shield but Archer insists he's right ... whoops! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2001-Nov-20, 02:57 PM
Besides, 500km is a fine altitude for geosynchronous orbit... assuming the planet rotates fast enough. Love those short nights! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


For Earth that would be something like a 50-minute night. Short is right!