Well you'd think in a futuristic series like ST, this wouldn't be much of an issue, considering their general ease of doing things In fact, they probably rigged up some technobabble to put an anti-gravity field on the Enterprise herself, neutralizing it's weight, but not overdoing it that it started floating.
Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me
And I'd think impulse would work the same whether it was atmosphere or deep space :P It's designed to move the ship forward/backward/whatever direction after all, no special tricks required (unlike warp drive)
We've never seen that intricate of a anti-gravity system in any Trek. (Closest we've seen was the room for Melora Pazlar in DS9 and that was tiny.) But nothing on the size and scale of a starship.
It probably would work just fine... but I dont know if theres some technobabble reason why it cant, as the only form of propulsion we saw used when a starship landed was thrusters when Voyager landed.
I'm recalling when the trailer for Wrath of Khan first hit. For the longest time we thought we would see a Constitution crash into another Constitution. We didn't know about the Reliant model without the lower hull yet.
When I view the ship rising from the water, I can read NCC-17...and that's it. I think the ship rising and the ship dragging forward through the water are the same starship. Not the Enterprise. And I don't think it's crashing, but heading with purpose to impact part of a highly populated San Francisco. The city itself - not Starfleet Command.
(/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
However as you can see in the image with La Forge that the Galaxy class was not finished when assembled in space.
So they appearently only build some of the parts on the ground and assembled and finish the ship in space afterward.
In addition please keep in mind that Mars only has 0.376g, meaning it's much easier to get stuff into orbit than on earth.
However as you can see in the image with La Forge that the Galaxy class was not finished when assembled in space.
So they appearently only build some of the parts on the ground and assembled and finish the ship in space afterward.
In addition please keep in mind that Mars only has 0.376g, meaning it's much easier to get stuff into orbit than on earth.
All good points. I was merely attempting to point this out since 'building the ship on the ground' seems to be one of the foremost complaints I read online about the JJ film.
*******************************************
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
We definitely see a ship crash into the water, but I don't think it's the Enterprise. Reason being, look at the nacelles shape: they're rectangular, not circular. Plus, the Enterprise's nacelles are thicker in the front, while this ship's nacelles are more even
But you're right, it looks very similiar to the Constitution class from Prime Trek
Just re watched the trailer the nacelles don't look rectangular at all, they are round, it is quiet possible they upgrade the nacelles of the jj enterprise, If my memory is right, didn't the tos enterprise have its nacelles and other parts of the ships change, its possible that they could have happened with the jjprise, don't know how far long this movie is since the 09 version. Possible could just be another constuation class crashing.
Ok there are two ship in water sequences, the first is rising out of the water. the second showing a ship crashing in the water is not the same ship, the nacelles are further apart and smaller in proportion to the saucer.
The first looks like the JJ Enterprise the second looks like a prime universe Constitution refit.
Refit engines are not rectangular, they are cylindrical with a rectangular bussard ramscoop and a bladed tail section.
A ship crashing into the water, ok that's conceivable, it plowing a huge wave in front of it and not breaking up on impact, not so much and a ship rising up out of the water intact goes directly from incredible to ludicrous. The whole point of these ships having shuttles and transporters was because they were too big to land. Space craft are designed to survive vacuum not crushing pressure, impulse engines are atomic fusion powered, use in atmosphere isn't possible, one for environmental reasons, but more importantly because the engine would consume itself and damage the ship propelled by it.
This is Star Trek, not Space Battleship Yamato. Sure this is sci fi so anything is possible but even so in Trek there have always been reasonable limitations on what ships can do.
The Enterprise D force landed on a planet and was rendered unsalvageable, the JJ Enterprise which is the same size though technologically 100 years less advanced, can not only enter an atmosphere, it can submerge and take off again intact.
I will watch the movie and I will probably enjoy it, I do like science fiction and action, but I'm not going to think of this as a Star Trek film, the apple has fallen way too far from the tree.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
The Enterprise D force landed on a planet and was rendered unsalvageable, the JJ Enterprise which is the same size though technologically 100 years less advanced, can not only enter an atmosphere, it can submerge and take off again intact.
Ok there are two ship in water sequences, the first is rising out of the water. the second showing a ship crashing in the water is not the same ship, the nacelles are further apart and smaller in proportion to the saucer.
The first looks like the JJ Enterprise the second looks like a prime universe Constitution refit.
Refit engines are not rectangular, they are cylindrical with a rectangular bussard ramscoop and a bladed tail section.
A ship crashing into the water, ok that's conceivable, it plowing a huge wave in front of it and not breaking up on impact, not so much and a ship rising up out of the water intact goes directly from incredible to ludicrous. The whole point of these ships having shuttles and transporters was because they were too big to land. Space craft are designed to survive vacuum not crushing pressure, impulse engines are atomic fusion powered, use in atmosphere isn't possible, one for environmental reasons, but more importantly because the engine would consume itself and damage the ship propelled by it.
This is Star Trek, not Space Battleship Yamato. Sure this is sci fi so anything is possible but even so in Trek there have always been reasonable limitations on what ships can do.
The Enterprise D force landed on a planet and was rendered unsalvageable, the JJ Enterprise which is the same size though technologically 100 years less advanced, can not only enter an atmosphere, it can submerge and take off again intact.
I will watch the movie and I will probably enjoy it, I do like science fiction and action, but I'm not going to think of this as a Star Trek film, the apple has fallen way too far from the tree.
Let's not judge it till we've seen it. For all we know there's a perfectly rational explanation that comes up in the film.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
If you control the rate of decent by various technobabble means (reduced mass via subspace fields, anti-gravity, landing thrusters... Voyager-babble) you put the ship down in shallow water and touch bottom.
The hull is sealed to prevent air from getting out, no water can get IN so long as all hull-ports are sealed. I would assume they have something similar to "condition zebra" for sealing openings and such.
So you touch down in the water, you keep your SIF energized (which keeps the ship from crumpling under massive acceleration, 1G of gravity and water pressure is nothing) and submerge until the ship touches bottom... You now have the benefits of all that water supporting your ship without the need for bad Voyager-esque landing legs or technobabble excuses.
Takeoff, would be a slow accent giving time to allow the water to drain from large flat surfaces.
It's totally do-able in terms of canon-technobabble and basic logical understanding of engineering.
Weather or not it's "Trek" is up to you... Consider this though: I subscribe to the "canon is defined by what we see on screen" school of thought. We now have starships in the water, therefore it is canon. Argue all you want you WILL NOT change my mind.
and captain nemo (the real one) had a submarine in victorian times
We can't count anything that turns into a giant robot or is aimed at 7 year olds
(otherwise we have to include battle of the planets and power rangers)
And I'll bet 200 EC that whatever explanation they use to explain the crashing and re-emergence, you'll find some way to say that simply isn't possible
Even if that 'way' sounds illogical to the rest of us
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I don't get what's the big deal is with all the people talking about too much explosion in the trailer. Its the trailer, if you look back at the trailers for pass Trek movie, its all shooting and explosion.
Moving on... This is from the plot synopsis:
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
Judging from this, the antagonist can't be Kahn. All the explosion and stuff are an inside job.
But it is not impossible that the antagonist hasn't been augmented. The Fed probably still have data from the Eugenics War and the augment situation from the last season of Ent.
I don't get what's the big deal is with all the people talking about too much explosion in the trailer. Its the trailer, if you look back at the trailers for pass Trek movie, its all shooting and explosion.
Plus, some of the original reactions to Wrath of Khan and First Contact trailers were they were 'too dark and edgy' and 'not the true spirit of Star Trek', or something along those lines And we all know what happened next
There'll still be people who won't like Into Darkness, before or after it comes out, but it's still too early to assume it's gonna be terrible purely because of the teaser
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
We can't count anything that turns into a giant robot or is aimed at 7 year olds
(otherwise we have to include battle of the planets and power rangers)
Comments
We've never seen that intricate of a anti-gravity system in any Trek. (Closest we've seen was the room for Melora Pazlar in DS9 and that was tiny.) But nothing on the size and scale of a starship.
It probably would work just fine... but I dont know if theres some technobabble reason why it cant, as the only form of propulsion we saw used when a starship landed was thrusters when Voyager landed.
When I view the ship rising from the water, I can read NCC-17...and that's it. I think the ship rising and the ship dragging forward through the water are the same starship. Not the Enterprise. And I don't think it's crashing, but heading with purpose to impact part of a highly populated San Francisco. The city itself - not Starfleet Command.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Utopia_Planitia_Fleet_Yards
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
It could be Gary Mitchel, the blond could be Elizabeth Dehner...or Nurse chapel
However as you can see in the image with La Forge that the Galaxy class was not finished when assembled in space.
So they appearently only build some of the parts on the ground and assembled and finish the ship in space afterward.
In addition please keep in mind that Mars only has 0.376g, meaning it's much easier to get stuff into orbit than on earth.
All good points. I was merely attempting to point this out since 'building the ship on the ground' seems to be one of the foremost complaints I read online about the JJ film.
A Romulan Strike Team, Missing Farmers and an ancient base on a Klingon Border world. But what connects them? Find out in my First Foundary mission: 'The Jeroan Farmer Escapade'
Just re watched the trailer the nacelles don't look rectangular at all, they are round, it is quiet possible they upgrade the nacelles of the jj enterprise, If my memory is right, didn't the tos enterprise have its nacelles and other parts of the ships change, its possible that they could have happened with the jjprise, don't know how far long this movie is since the 09 version. Possible could just be another constuation class crashing.
The first looks like the JJ Enterprise the second looks like a prime universe Constitution refit.
Refit engines are not rectangular, they are cylindrical with a rectangular bussard ramscoop and a bladed tail section.
A ship crashing into the water, ok that's conceivable, it plowing a huge wave in front of it and not breaking up on impact, not so much and a ship rising up out of the water intact goes directly from incredible to ludicrous. The whole point of these ships having shuttles and transporters was because they were too big to land. Space craft are designed to survive vacuum not crushing pressure, impulse engines are atomic fusion powered, use in atmosphere isn't possible, one for environmental reasons, but more importantly because the engine would consume itself and damage the ship propelled by it.
This is Star Trek, not Space Battleship Yamato. Sure this is sci fi so anything is possible but even so in Trek there have always been reasonable limitations on what ships can do.
The Enterprise D force landed on a planet and was rendered unsalvageable, the JJ Enterprise which is the same size though technologically 100 years less advanced, can not only enter an atmosphere, it can submerge and take off again intact.
I will watch the movie and I will probably enjoy it, I do like science fiction and action, but I'm not going to think of this as a Star Trek film, the apple has fallen way too far from the tree.
Connies and Galaxies are not the same size.
Let's not judge it till we've seen it. For all we know there's a perfectly rational explanation that comes up in the film.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Not only has this been subject of much debate, it has a really simple answer.
If you control the rate of decent by various technobabble means (reduced mass via subspace fields, anti-gravity, landing thrusters... Voyager-babble) you put the ship down in shallow water and touch bottom.
The hull is sealed to prevent air from getting out, no water can get IN so long as all hull-ports are sealed. I would assume they have something similar to "condition zebra" for sealing openings and such.
So you touch down in the water, you keep your SIF energized (which keeps the ship from crumpling under massive acceleration, 1G of gravity and water pressure is nothing) and submerge until the ship touches bottom... You now have the benefits of all that water supporting your ship without the need for bad Voyager-esque landing legs or technobabble excuses.
Takeoff, would be a slow accent giving time to allow the water to drain from large flat surfaces.
It's totally do-able in terms of canon-technobabble and basic logical understanding of engineering.
Weather or not it's "Trek" is up to you... Consider this though: I subscribe to the "canon is defined by what we see on screen" school of thought. We now have starships in the water, therefore it is canon. Argue all you want you WILL NOT change my mind.
keeping Air in and water out are not the same function
and of course any JJ verse film is not canon its "rapid fire multi cannon"
Captain Harlock, Captain Nemo, and the Yamato say hi.
The Mass Effect and Stargate franchises are waiting to use the phone as well.
and captain nemo (the real one) had a submarine in victorian times
We can't count anything that turns into a giant robot or is aimed at 7 year olds
(otherwise we have to include battle of the planets and power rangers)
Even if that 'way' sounds illogical to the rest of us
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
How about Psychoticvulcan or Stolenleviathan
But we'll still have a long wait before we can put it to the test; the movie does come out in May after all (currently)
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Moving on... This is from the plot synopsis:
Judging from this, the antagonist can't be Kahn. All the explosion and stuff are an inside job.
But it is not impossible that the antagonist hasn't been augmented. The Fed probably still have data from the Eugenics War and the augment situation from the last season of Ent.
There'll still be people who won't like Into Darkness, before or after it comes out, but it's still too early to assume it's gonna be terrible purely because of the teaser
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I will...but it's only because I want to!
Not sure whether to be flattered or creeped out. Either way, thanks for the compliment.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Captain Harlock: 3 Tv shows, 1 OVA and 1 feature film with a second due out this year, or next.
Space Battleship Yamato: 3 Tv shows, 4 Animated Theatrical Films, 1 Live Action Theatrical Film, 1 Tv Movie, and a reboot that started airing April 7, 2012.
UFO: Two series, and one spinoff.
I think your definition of successful needs work.
Because logic dictates that all of these things are obviously intended for children. Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
thats why everyone is in school uniform