Newbie
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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]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.")
Established Member
Ah, the Picard Manuever.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] 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).On 2001-10-23 22:53, Geo3gh wrote:
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.
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.
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>
Established Member
First, the alien bad guys could have set the helm on automatic station keeping.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."
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.
Order of Kilopi
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.On 2001-10-23 20:56, James wrote:
IIRC, they haven't been back to Earth yet. Maybe in a future episode? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]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!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
Which led me to the conclusion that the Enterprise crew never gets around to making the recommendation! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Member
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.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.
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.
Established Member
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>
Established Member
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 [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]. And stress [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img] . Then panels blow up [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img], killing countless Ensigns with no names [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] whose bodies are surely dumped into space with the garbage. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] @ the parents of these people, it's really disrespectful you know.Ah, the Picard Manuever.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] 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.
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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]
<font size=5 color=red>And what about that RIKER manoeuver!</font> Sometimes it becomes laughable in the sense that I feel like crying [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]. And that "Manual Control Column" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img] to show off Riker's piloting abilities [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]. 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? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]
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>
Vulcan Administrator
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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]On 2001-10-24 06:51, WHarris wrote:
First, the alien bad guys could have set the helm on automatic station keeping.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."
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.
Established Member
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?On 2001-10-24 07:29, SeanF wrote:
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.On 2001-10-23 20:56, James wrote:
IIRC, they haven't been back to Earth yet. Maybe in a future episode? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]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!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
Which led me to the conclusion that the Enterprise crew never gets around to making the recommendation! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Hey, don't blame me or the Stargazer for having sensors like that. Blame the Ferengi for the inferior sensors. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] 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.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.
Remember, they move faster than the speed of light. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]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!
Blame it on TPTB. Most other Trekkers blame most of the mistakes in the series on them. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]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.
Member
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.On 2001-10-24 19:35, James wrote:
Remember, they move faster than the speed of light. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]
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.
Established Member
TPTB? I never heard of that, what is it!?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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
THE BAD APPRENTICE IS I!
Order of Kilopi
"The Powers That Be"On 2001-10-25 10:34, Mr. X wrote:
TPTB? I never heard of that, what is it!?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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
THE BAD APPRENTICE IS I!
In other words, it's that way because that's how they wrote the scripts, dagnabbit!
Established Member
I see. Well I have nothing against the scripts, or the powers that be.On 2001-10-25 10:51, SeanF wrote:
"The Powers That Be"On 2001-10-25 10:34, Mr. X wrote:
TPTB? I never heard of that, what is it!?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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
THE BAD APPRENTICE IS I!
In other words, it's that way because that's how they wrote the scripts, dagnabbit!
Besides you might have to bend the rules a little to make it interesting. Otherwise it becomes like a space shuttle flight [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] .
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.
Established Member
Don't make me open up the old disscussion about BA allowances in Sci-Fi.
'Cause I will!
Established Member
No please! DON'T! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]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!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 13:36 ]</font>
Established Member
I'd be careful asking questions like that on this board. I think a lot of people here would answer yes to it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]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?
Established Member
Personally, I try to limit my viewing of NASA TV to under 5 hours a week [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Newbie
Shoot, I'm just waiting for B&B to try to show the Earth Romulan War when the Romulans lack FTL travel....
Established Member
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.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....
Member
Sorry about my ineptness regarding thses last couple of posts, but what exactly is B&B?
Established Member
Brannon & BragaOn 2001-10-29 23:17, MongotheGreat wrote:
Sorry about my ineptness regarding thses last couple of posts, but what exactly is B&B?
In fact, go here: TrekToday.com
Learn it. Read it. Follow it.
Newbie
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
Established Member
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.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
Order of Kilopi
Well, you can add another one -- they've done it in Enterprise already! Little globules of water floating around in the Captain's shower . . .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
Order of Kilopi
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"...On 2001-11-05 08:03, SeanF wrote:
Well, you can add another one -- they've done it in Enterprise already! Little globules of water floating around in the Captain's shower . . .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
Established Member
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.)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
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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] (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.
Order of Kilopi
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!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"...
I don't think they showed microgravity in any of the other parts of the ship, but I might just be forgetting something . . .
Established Member
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.On 2001-11-05 09:57, SeanF wrote:
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!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"...
I don't think they showed microgravity in any of the other parts of the ship, but I might just be forgetting something . . .
Order of Kilopi
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.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.
Vulcan Administrator
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.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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote