test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

My problems with TRIBBLE

191012141517

Comments

  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.

    For starters. Yes what Burnham did leaving the brig was ILLEGAL. She was ordered to remain there. And as it was stated she was not:
    1. Told to move and relocate.
    2. Escorted to move
    3. Abandon ship was declared

    Meaning her behind DISOBEYED A DIRECT ORDER TO REMAIN IN THE BRIG. The ship yes has suffered damage, but at the time was still under power, under command meaning the order for her to remain in the brig was STILL EN FORCE.

    And the claim that she had a right to her own life and could disregard the orders is high levels of lunacy. Irregardless of whether Starfleet is a military or not, it has been proven, even in TNG no less a superior officer can literally order you TO YOUR DEATH and you can't say no.

    The proof? I point you to the TNG episode when Deanna Troi goes up for the rank of commander. And in the end to pass(yes I know it's a simulation, but even if it was real, she still would have to do it) had to order Geordi La Forge TO HIS DEATH. As a direct order.

    In starswordc's version about Burnham being able to try and save her own life irregardless of her standing orders, Geordi could of looked right at Troi, told her to go TRIBBLE herself and apparently Troi can't do anything to make him.

    Which is flatly ASININE and totally against good order and discipline aboard ship whether Starfleet is a military or not. When a senior officer gives an order and it is lawful, it's OBEYED. Up to and including a crewman being ordered to their death.

    So no. Under the circumstances, Burnham had absolutely ZERO F******G RIGHT TO BREAK OUT OFTHE BRIG. End of the story.

    Anything else just shows me from my PoV, none of you have a real damn clue how to efficiently run a ship and keep good order and discipline which a ship can literally live and die by.

    One final point. Since Burnham was able to escape, it's a serious security risk and lack of Judgement on Captain Georgiou's part.

    And that's pretty much my final thoughts on that front.

    Burnham was wrong and continued to BE WRONG.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Talon, there is a MAJOR difference between ordering someone to perform a duty that will save the ship, but cost them their life in the process (a potential part of every military members' duties, and we all know it when we enlist) and forcing someone to remain in a situation when a change of circumstances will result in that killing them.

    In a modern Naval craft, if someone's assigned to the forward torpedo room of a submarine but it's been hit with a depth charge and the torpedo room is taking on water, every single crewman in that room is justified in leaving his post, getting out of the room, and sealing it behind them. There would be no Article 92 charges for this. And if someone in that situation were locked in the brig, but the craft is sinking, the guard is dead or missing, and the keys can be reached, the prisoner would not be charged under Article 92, and would only receive an Article 95 charge if upon reaching safety he or she attempted to continue fleeing. While I have yet to see the episode in question, the discussion here would lead me to believe that Burnham, upon reaching safety, turned herself over to surviving Starfleet personnel, thus indicating that this is not an escape attempt - and as I said earlier, there can be no "dereliction of duty" when one has been relieved of duty pursuant to arrest.

    If you can't see a difference there, then I pray that should you enter a military unit you are never placed in command of anything more significant that a mop, because you would appear to be willing to spend lives for nothing. The point of Troi's situation was to see if she would be capable of ordering someone into danger to save lives, not just because a lethal hazard existed - a good captain will try very hard to avoid such situations, but sometimes they're inevitable.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    talonxv wrote: »
    Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.

    Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    And, as for the life argument, Burnham wasn't ordered to stay in the brig and die. She was being detained. That means she's governed by international law on the treatment of (military) prisoners. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of prosecuting a prisoner of breaking out of his/her cell because it was on fire.

    I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous analogy you made, because Jonsills has already explained why it's bogus.
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    > @jonsills said:
    > Talon, there is a MAJOR difference between ordering someone to perform a duty that will save the ship, but cost them their life in the process (a potential part of every military members' duties, and we all know it when we enlist) and forcing someone to remain in a situation when a change of circumstances will result in that killing them.
    >
    > In a modern Naval craft, if someone's assigned to the forward torpedo room of a submarine but it's been hit with a depth charge and the torpedo room is taking on water, every single crewman in that room is justified in leaving his post, getting out of the room, and sealing it behind them. There would be no Article 92 charges for this. And if someone in that situation were locked in the brig, but the craft is sinking, the guard is dead or missing, and the keys can be reached, the prisoner would not be charged under Article 92, and would only receive an Article 95 charge if upon reaching safety he or she attempted to continue fleeing. While I have yet to see the episode in question, the discussion here would lead me to believe that Burnham, upon reaching safety, turned herself over to surviving Starfleet personnel, thus indicating that this is not an escape attempt - and as I said earlier, there can be no "dereliction of duty" when one has been relieved of duty pursuant to arrest.
    >
    > If you can't see a difference there, then I pray that should you enter a military unit you are never placed in command of anything more significant that a mop, because you would appear to be willing to spend lives for nothing. The point of Troi's situation was to see if she would be capable of ordering someone into danger to save lives, not just because a lethal hazard existed - a good captain will try very hard to avoid such situations, but sometimes they're inevitable.

    And I acknowledge all of that. Except in the episode in question, yes areas around her have sustained battle damage, but not enough to constitute her leaving the brig at that time. Further more, I still contest she should have absolutely ZERO access to any computer.

    Now if you had bothered to read I did specify there are times she could of left like I will state again:
    1. Ordered to move
    2. Escorted under guard
    3. Abandon ship
    But we could add other situations like explosive decompression, but since she didn't have a suit it would be a bigger threat to let her out.

    The point of fact is at the time she tricked the computer, none of the situations you elude to were even in play.

    Yes the ship had taken battle damage, but at the time she was secure, had air, had heat and was not undet any serious duress of being killed more so than anyone else aboard ship.

    Meaning she had ZERO right to leave. Nor as I recall once escaping did she turn herself over to proper authorities.

    Yes I have been in a unit where I have been in charge of a team of marines. I know the damn difference. Burnham at that time had ZERO call to leave the brig.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    > @ryan218 said:
    > talonxv wrote: »
    >
    > Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.
    >
    > And, as for the life argument, Burnham wasn't ordered to stay in the brig and die. She was being detained. That means she's governed by international law on the treatment of (military) prisoners. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of prosecuting a prisoner of breaking out of his/her cell because it was on fire.
    >
    > I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous analogy you made, because Jonsills has already explained why it's bogus.
    Except the fact of her area taking damage, there was ZERO major threat at that time to her life rendering that point moot. Which I have said.

    Good Christ the mental gymnastics here.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    But to all who disagree answer me this with Burnham leaving. What sort of immediate threat was Burnham under?

    Loss of pressure
    Plasma leak
    Loss of heat and possibly freezing to death
    Being choked to death by gas in her cell?

    Infact was there ANYTHING besides battle damage that wasn't already contained?

    The answer is NO. There isn't. Infact right before she tricks the computer, she's sitting on hwr her butt twiddling her thumbs!(well not literally, but close enough).

    Point is, at that time she was not under any pressing threat that would need for her to be let out. NONE.

    Because if there was one, don't you think the computer she tricked would of noticed this and let her out anyways BEFORE she needed to trick the damn thing?

    Come on guys. USE LOGIC here.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    ryan218 wrote: »
    talonxv wrote: »
    Well time to throw more gasoline on the fire and especially @starsword who apparently has no goddamn clue.

    Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    And, as for the life argument, Burnham wasn't ordered to stay in the brig and die. She was being detained. That means she's governed by international law on the treatment of (military) prisoners. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of prosecuting a prisoner of breaking out of his/her cell because it was on fire.

    I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous analogy you made, because Jonsills has already explained why it's bogus.
    The actual UCMJ contains a set of directives that military personnel are required by law to keep in mind when obeying orders. Military leaders are required by law to follow these principles when giving their subordinates orders. These include, but are not limited to: You can't order your soldiers to commit crimes(includes civil law and Geneva conventions). You are not to give your soldiers orders that would "endanger life, limb, or eyesight" unless it's an operational necessity(which is defined by whether someone else is in danger).

    Thus if you order a soldier to man a post(such as the previously mentioned confined to the brig), that order carries with it(by law) the unstated provision that the order is only valid as long as it is safe and legal to execute. You got ordered to stay in a room that's about to be hard vacuum? You are required by law to LEAVE if you can. why? BY LAW, your life is more important than your orders. AND your commanding officer would need a heck of a justification to try to stop you.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    Also, no immediate danger? THE ROOM WAS GONE and I am pretty sure the computer said power was failimg and she'd have died in a calculable amount of time. Sheesh.

    Despite some of you acting like Trek is written for servicepeople that get wet knickers when proper procedure is displayed. I admit I'm into some weird stuff, but that's not it. So maybe this is why it's not bothering me that the sci-fi show doesn't reflect military protocols from unrelated organizations hundreds of years in the past but rather paints a picture of a fictional situation ;)
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    talonxv wrote: »
    But to all who disagree answer me this with Burnham leaving. What sort of immediate threat was Burnham under?

    Loss of pressure
    Plasma leak
    Loss of heat and possibly freezing to death
    Being choked to death by gas in her cell?

    Infact was there ANYTHING besides battle damage that wasn't already contained?

    The answer is NO. There isn't. Infact right before she tricks the computer, she's sitting on hwr her butt twiddling her thumbs!(well not literally, but close enough).

    Point is, at that time she was not under any pressing threat that would need for her to be let out. NONE.

    Because if there was one, don't you think the computer she tricked would of noticed this and let her out anyways BEFORE she needed to trick the damn thing?

    Come on guys. USE LOGIC here.

    the problem is, you're analyzing the situation more than the writers who created it. When you try applying logic (esp. in-setting logic) to deal with inconsistencies, (or to point them out) Artan42 accuses you of gaslighting or claiming personal ownership of the franchise.

    Teh problem the defenders of the plot are not understanding, is that the level of inconsistency would not apply if she was, in fact, in personal danger (she wasn't. Had the deck actually lost pressure, she would have been exposed to hard vacuum on the wrong side of a sealed door once she left her cell. Likewise for the plasma leak, and for loss of heating/environmental control, and she wasn't coughing or experiencing symptoms of gas exposure or lack of breathable air.)

    point being, the environment was demonstrably-on-screen not sufficiently hazardous to trigger a release, her situation was, likewise, not dire enough for a humanitarian release.

    Therefore, fire the security programmer, because he or she dun f*cked up and left a convenient-to-the-plot back-door in the programming.

    I have never understood why they would rely only on forcefields. Power goes down and everyone is doomed. Low tech solutions are usually the best since there are less things that can go wrong.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    I had to rewatch the scene and I really don't want to do that, but from what I remember Michael had to void-dive to the other side. That means the door could not be opened but the forcefields were failing. Sitting in that cell was certain death, risking the void dive was slightly less certain death. My memory is not that fresh but I am very certain they established that she could not just sit there.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    > @ryan218 said:
    > Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    Didn't serve myself (I tried to enlist but was declined because I'm on the autism spectrum), but I am part of a Navy family going back several generations and I can do research perfectly well. (If all else fails, my father was a surface warfare officer for five years and an engineering duty officer for fifteen, '79-'99.)

    > @starkaos said:
    > I have never understood why they would rely only on forcefields. Power goes down and everyone is doomed. Low tech solutions are usually the best since there are less things that can go wrong.

    I could see force fields being a stopgap until a physical patch could be put in, but Star Trek overuses them significantly.

    > @angrytarg said:
    > I had to rewatch the scene and I really don't want to do that, but from what I remember Michael had to void-dive to the other side. That means the door could not be opened but the forcefields were failing. Sitting in that cell was certain death, risking the void dive was slightly less certain death. My memory is not that fresh but I am very certain they established that she could not just sit there.

    This is exactly the scene as broadcast, Targ. The brig had been reduced to a chunk of wall and a floor. Pressure is being held by emergency force fields around Burnham; however, these are stated by the ship's computer to be IMMINENTLY failing. There is a pressure sealed DOOR about a dozen meters away, close enough for a physically fit person to void-jump to. Burnham is a Starfleet officer: we know at least as far back as VOY: "Learning Curve", as well as from a later episode of DSC, that extensive PT is part of the job. Plus, Burnham was raised on Vulcan, which has 1.5 Earth's gravity, and therefore is stronger than the average human female to begin with (probably not as strong as an actual Vulcan, though). We also know from the very next episode that she is a martial artist. She is physically fit.

    So: Chance of survival if she stays in the cell, 0%. Chance of survival if she breaks out? Poor—she's still passing through hard vacuum unprotected—but non-zero.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    It would probably help if some of the people dismissing the scene had actually seen it and also remembered it.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    Talon, a sub's torpedo room wouldn't be sealed as soon as it sprung a leak. The crew would give the torpedo room a chance to evacuate, and seal the door as soon as the water level got high enough to threaten the next compartment, which might not be as soon as the next compartment starts flooding. Why? Because low-level flooding can be pumped out with a bilge pump. The danger comes when the water reaches the point where the pressure doesn't allow the door the be sealed anymore, which depending on the severity of the leak, could take anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes. It only takes a matter of seconds to evacuate a submarine's torpedo room (or any compartment on a sub). So no, a crew would not immediately seal the torpedo crew in to drown to protect the boat, because it's not necessary. Except in the worst situation, there is usually time to allow an evacuation of the affected compartments before they have to be sealed (obviously this becomes harder the more compartments are flooded, which is why all naval vessels operate a system of 'all doors shut' during combat except to allow DC teams to move about the ship, in which case they shut every door behind them; at least, in the RN).
  • captainwellscaptainwells Member Posts: 718 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    Discovery was what it was, a pretty shiny thing taking full advantage of what special effects can do .... right now ...... and sadly the show could have utilized every trick of the trade that they deployed and still managed to be something that MIGHT have occurred a decade before the original series. But Discovery veered too far off the beaten path for that conceit to be taken seriously in some quite ridiculous ways.

    However showrunners with insufficient experience were entrusted with something like this and allowed to just do as they pleased. The network opted to see what stuck and what didn't with the fanbase, but frankly a great many were enthralled by the pretty & shiny and simply loved it. Others just could not fathom how scotchtaping the name Star Trek over whatever they wanted could fly with some?

    So yeah, Discovery was what it was. CBS is now past in for a penny, and are now in for a pound. I do understand the excitement of those at Cryptic being allowed to incorporate live elements of this current series into the ongoing nature of Star Trek Online.

    Spock had an adopted human half-sister never previously mentioned, but that foul ball was shouted down with cries of "Sybok." Great, so they admitted to being repetitive? Another possibility easily available to CBS was to declare this series as a part of the Kelvin Timeline that Nero rebooted, but nope they countered. This is in the same universe as old James T. Kirk and his lengthy list of deceased redshirts? Kelvin could have allowed for a spore drive and an unknown such as Micheal Burnham, but again ..... it was what it was.

    I'm trying to adapt, but I'm probably going to need a Borg intervention anyway?
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    > @ryan218 said:
    > Who was backed up by @jonsills who actually served (I don't know about @starswordc) and thus is actually likely to have read the UCMJ. Heck, both actually referred you to the articles which actually relate to Burnham's situation.

    Didn't serve myself (I tried to enlist but was declined because I'm on the autism spectrum), but I am part of a Navy family going back several generations and I can do research perfectly well. (If all else fails, my father was a surface warfare officer for five years and an engineering duty officer for fifteen, '79-'99.)

    > @starkaos said:
    > I have never understood why they would rely only on forcefields. Power goes down and everyone is doomed. Low tech solutions are usually the best since there are less things that can go wrong.

    I could see force fields being a stopgap until a physical patch could be put in, but Star Trek overuses them significantly.

    > @angrytarg said:
    > I had to rewatch the scene and I really don't want to do that, but from what I remember Michael had to void-dive to the other side. That means the door could not be opened but the forcefields were failing. Sitting in that cell was certain death, risking the void dive was slightly less certain death. My memory is not that fresh but I am very certain they established that she could not just sit there.

    This is exactly the scene as broadcast, Targ. The brig had been reduced to a chunk of wall and a floor. Pressure is being held by emergency force fields around Burnham; however, these are stated by the ship's computer to be IMMINENTLY failing. There is a pressure sealed DOOR about a dozen meters away, close enough for a physically fit person to void-jump to. Burnham is a Starfleet officer: we know at least as far back as VOY: "Learning Curve", as well as from a later episode of DSC, that extensive PT is part of the job. Plus, Burnham was raised on Vulcan, which has 1.5 Earth's gravity, and therefore is stronger than the average human female to begin with (probably not as strong as an actual Vulcan, though). We also know from the very next episode that she is a martial artist. She is physically fit.

    So: Chance of survival if she stays in the cell, 0%. Chance of survival if she breaks out? Poor—she's still passing through hard vacuum unprotected—but non-zero.

    chance that she endangers teh rest of the ship (or portions) opening that door? (unless they've conveniently placed additional airlocks:pretty good)

    If you'd bothered to watch the scene you're analysing, you'd remember that the computer put up an additional forcefield to make sure when she opened the door pressure wasn't lost.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    > @patrickngo said:
    > but doesn't that seem convenient?? also, where's her injuries from crossing hard vacuum? even short exposure can f*ck a human being up,and if there's enough fine control to pass a large body through an atmospheric seal, (without losing air) how?

    Yeah, I'll give you that she didn't get injured by vacuum exposure but I honestly don't expect 100% hardcore realism from Star Trek. That's only been portrayed correctly once in the entire televised canon (the novels get it right occasionally).

    Remember: Star Trek is soft sci-fi written by English majors.

    > @batrickngo wrote:
    > and how 'bout that ambient radiation that was supposed to be there? does the forcefield somehow block all that too? (remember from episode 1, the reason she had a short walk was that the radiation in the area was really, really high...high enough ot be hazardous in a full-blown set of life support armor)

    She was floating in space unconscious for several minutes that time. She was exposed for mere seconds this time. The facing of the ship relative to the radiation source could also be a factor (on her previous EVA, i recall her using the asteroids as cover).
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,275 Arc User
    a few second's exposure to a vacuum isn't going to do a damn thing...NASA exposed animals for up to two MINUTES, and they recovered with no major ill effects

    which is why everyone complaining about it happening to leia in TLJ needs to be bitchslapped - HARD​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    I rewatched the scene on Netflix, and I figure the writers might have read this article, or sone article like it:
    https://www.cnet.com/news/what-happens-to-the-unprotected-human-body-in-space/
    The first thing you would notice is the lack of air. You wouldn't lose consciousness straight away; it might take up to 15 seconds as your body uses up the remaining oxygen reserves from your bloodstream, and -- if you don't hold your breath -- you could perhaps survive for as long as two minutes without permanent injury.

    The other things, you can't really do much about. After about 10 seconds or so, your skin and the tissue underneath will begin to swell as the water in your body starts to vaporise in the absence of atmospheric pressure. You won't balloon to the point of exploding, though, since human skin is strong enough to keep from bursting; and, if you're brought back to atmospheric pressure, your skin and tissue will return to normal.

    The computer explicitely states the 15 second limit, and Burnham explains that if the computer were to open a small hole large enough to let her through and open the door for her, she would be exposed to space for about 6 seconds.

    I am not convinced the depiction of how she starts her flight is entirely physically correct (even assuming force fields like that could exist), but what is seen on screen means indeed about 6 seconds of time in vacuum. Which would suggest that any of the mentioned effects of the article would either not happen at all, or could return to normal.

    Wow, that's a lot of nitpicking for a brief scene of a Star Trek episode...
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    tbh I'm just having fun with this topic in general terms, after all, we're talking about a franchise that's had sound in space forever and where starships all share the same vertical plane and orientation as if there were a 'down' in space that everyone agrees on.

    Everyone sharing "up and down" does make sense. You would have to use your position in relation to the galactic plane in order to determine course properly.

    And everyone just decided that the same direction from that plane was 'up' and not 'down'? ;)
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    I just hope to any gods that some of the people in this thread don't work in prisons or secure hospitals.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Artan, unless your prison or secure hospital is located at the bottom of the ocean or in orbit, the life-support and security questions are handled very differently. It's extremely unlikely, for instance, that a prison is going to be staffed as poorly as a brig, as the prison's primary raison d'etre is secure confinement of dangerous prisoners while a brig is more of an add-on to an existing craft and primarily intended for the temporary confinement of someone who has committed a minor offense, or the temporary confinement of a more dangerous person until they can be transferred to a dedicated facility (anyone being confined for transfer but who is judged to be less dangerous would generally simply be confined to quarters, with an external lock or single guard at the only point of entry/egress).

    The situations being discussed here are inapplicable to those facilities; the closest a secure wing of a hospital might experience to loss of atmosphere, for instance, would be a release of toxic gases, and those can be vented by opening a window. You can't vent the vacuum from a holed spacecraft by opening a porthole and letting the vacuum out.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • momoffour#2334 momoffour Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    > @talonxv said:
    > Yes I'm going to tackle this. And you guys are free to list your comments and concerns with the show.
    >
    > Starting with the Klingons.
    > 1. Their Klingon sounds HORRIBLE. Just use it here and there then use the universal translator. My god it hurts my ears.
    > 2. Ships. You're trying to tell me those...things....are set in between Ent and TOS? Yeah no.
    > 3. However I could of bought it if those Klingons were an offshoot of the mutagenic virus that swept the Empire during Ent and left for the fringes of the empire to be alone and find their own way and now are back to fix the spineless pah'taq and lead the empire back to glory. Not a cheap shot at conservatism that has been sweeping the western world lately as a backlash to progressivism.
    >
    > Now the Federation.
    > 1. Technology. Specifically the spore drive and holographic communications. The former, because that tech simply does not fit. WAY too advanced for the day. This is something I'd expect to find in STO years after the Dominion war. Not 10 years before STO. And holographic coms? Ummm NO. That was JUST beginning to be toyed with in DS9 around 2371. Not 2254. Just NO.
    > 2. Burnham. I abhor her character. All of it. Supplanting Spock as a HUMAN in the eyes of Sarek? Umm who wrote that mess? Mutiny? Wanting to shoot the Klingons without provocation flying in the face of Logic? Just a never ending message of badly written female empowerment of saying "hey you can break every rule in the book. But still be the hero." Make Burnham a male, yeah he'd if gone to prison and never seen the light of day.
    > 3. Ship design. Felt like a retooled JJ verse show. Sizing was upscaled for no reason while trying to be prime timeline. Had this been it's own separate line, most of my issues disappear. Except for Burnham.
    > 4. How I'd fix tech issues:
    > A. Scale correctly!!!
    > B. Replace spore drive with Transwarp. Now before we slip a gear. Excelsior was not stated in the movie to be the first ship ever to have it. Could of been the first ship to see if the tech could be used and massed produced while Discovery could be the first ship to actually be proof of concept. But at the time the federation didn't have the resources to mass produce the tech needed to fully outfit the fleet. And the holo communications, DITCH THEM. Use a damn screen like everyone else!!!
    > 5. Aesthetics. Hey I get that if Gene had the tech of today, TOS would look WAY different. But stop going overboard and stop creeping ideas over from JJ verse. I get a lot of the production crew worked on those movies, but pull your heads out of your 6 if you want to be in the prime timeline for God's sake!
    >
    > What didn't bother me.
    > 1. Lorca. Too bad though he didn't get long enough screen time.
    > 2. **** on screen relationship in a show. Didn't feel forced and felt organic to the show.
    > 3. Holly wasn't bad but at times a bit too comical.
    > 4. Re imagined Enterprise looked good. Almost like the second flight Enterprise the producers had in mind until they went with the TMP refit style. Someone said it best, JJ should of used a design like that in his movies.
    >
    > Those are my biggest bones of contention with the show. TRIBBLE is a major victim of the times we live in. Yes Star Trek many times pushed social issues into the show. Many times it felt organic to the story. Sometimes it was a bit too on the nose like the TNG episode that warp drive was hurting the universe. Biggest issue with the show it's almost ALL completely on the nose with its message and feels like they are beating me over the head with what they want to say rather than creatively sliding it into the story.
    >
    > Just my thoughts and views. Take them as you will.

    I totally agree! I couldn't get into TRIBBLE just because to me it wasn't as good. I mean the Klingon was just horrible and I just didn't understand why they chose to go back and do a prequel? My thoughts are just why or why?
Sign In or Register to comment.