Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

Nem Wan: Your_Huckleberry: All while Kirk shows command precense by starting two different violent confrontations on the bridge, the second one resulting in a mutany. But hey, give him the big chair.

Spock from the future is a pretty good personal reference on his job application.

Different dimension, different Kirk. And Older Spock certainly had an interesting idea by placing the value of his and Kirk's friendship above the safety of the Earth and Federation by sending Kirk back to mutany Spock instead of going himself.

Gunther: Your_Huckleberry: Please, Kirk to Captain is one of the dumbest things ever done in any of the Star Trek films or shows

Ehh, it's dumb but it isn't "Threshold" dumb.

The only thing about it that annoyed me was that it was completely unnecessary. You could have the exact same scene and have the movie end on the same high note just by putting a "2 years later" title up before it. Kirk still gets to be captain, but he does it in a very fast amount of time, rather than a ludicrously fast amount of time.

It's in the same conversation as Threshold, And easily fixed with one line of "I'll be back for that chair in a few years" or something.

fusillade762: Nem Wan: Your_Huckleberry: All while Kirk shows command precense by starting two different violent confrontations on the bridge, the second one resulting in a mutany. But hey, give him the big chair.

Spock from the future is a pretty good personal reference on his job application.

Are we REALLY having this conversation again?

I'd like to point out that I did not start it....this time.

elchip: I dunno. Star Trek: The Experience wasn't able to stay profitable, and it was far cheaper to create and maintain than this would have been.

That was because it was too far off the Strip and there weren't any public buses going there. The f'n taxi cab drivers had a lot to do with that.

FirstNationalBastard: The guy who said "no" really didn't get it.

There's no way that a lifesized Enterprise would have flopped. Even today, when Trek is at its lowest point, you'd still have Trekkies visiting the damned thing like it's a shrine.

At first I thought as you did, but then I realized...EVERYONE would want to hang out on the bridge or 10-forward, maybe the engineering section. That would leave 95% of the 'building' perpetually empty, with the other 5% perpetually exceeding fire safety codes. Logistically, and financially, it makes no sense.

Makh: They could have done the first Enterprise that Captain Archer had. It would have been just as cool, recognizable and much smaller.

And just as iconic.

It would have been cool to see a life-sized Enterprise, but there's no way that project would have survived. That it was ever a serious consideration is freaky.

Mugato: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

In the vacuum of space? Really not the same thing, is it?

Vacuum has little to do with it, the aerodynamic drag on something even that size would be fractional compared to the inertial forces (which are the same in a vacuum or not) that would be encountered by acceleration from zero to FTL as depicted in the show. Raygundan's point is valid, the mechanical shear stresses that you think would affect the structure in a gravity environment are the same ones it would have to stand up to under acceleration - only much worse. If you can believe the Enterprise can stand the acceleration, you can believe it can stand up to gravity acting on the poorly supported saucer and nacelles.

Take a model of the Enterprise and strap a couple of Model Rocket engines to the nacelles, then launch it and watch how long it stays in one piece. Air drag would definitely be at play, but most of the damages would be from the acceleration stress - and SOL is just a tad faster (by several orders of magnitude) than what you'd be doing (even scaled).

Paramount never really got what to do with the Star Trek franchise? Didn't we know that already?

That Star Wars quote always reminds me of Spock in the Immunity Syndrome:

MCCOY: But I thought you had to be in physical contact with a subject before--
SPOCK: Doctor, even I, a half-Vulcan, could hear the death scream of four hundred Vulcan minds crying out over the distance between us.

swahnhennessy: It would have been cool to see a life-sized Enterprise, but there's no way that project would have survived. That it was ever a serious consideration is freaky.

I disagree.
They build all kinds of giant freaky monuments like pyramids and towers. Those survive and often succeed.
Being a landmark it would have drawn more business to the area. As a functional hotel/museum thing, it could turn a profit of its own.
Trek is a big cultural thing even if the shows popularity comes and goes.

Mugato: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

In the vacuum of space? Really not the same thing, is it?

Much ado about nothing since every engineering question in star trek is answered by some kind of energy field.

A ship with transporters and shuttles would have no need to land, so all the weight of atmospheric equipment would be unnecessary after launch.
Wise men don't fight from the bottom of a gravity well.



/Just ask these guys.

Mugato: Captain Swoop: Take a model of the Enterprise and strap a couple of Model Rocket engines to the nacelles, then launch it and watch how long it stays in one piece. Air drag would definitely be at play, but most of the damages would be from the acceleration stress - and SOL is just a tad faster (by several orders of magnitude) than what you'd be doing (even scaled).

I don't need to get into a whole thing here because I'm talking about this Vegas thing on earth, not the tv show. But they do explain what you're talking about with the "structural integrity fired".

Technically the ship is moving at relativistic speeds inside the warp bubble, and slower than full impulse. The warp bubble is 'warping' space around the ship, thus removing the need for infinite power requirement to accelerate to thee speed of light. The ship goes through higher stresses at sublight than at FTL.

I'm pretty sure it would have flopped. No bathrooms.

Thosw: I'm pretty sure it would have flopped. No bathrooms.

Don't they just teleport the poop out of you?

Flint Ironstag: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

This would have had to have been built with today's building technology. I have no problem accepting that a future (fictional) society that can travel FTL could develop a method of maintaining structural integrity. Even today there are theories that suggest warp travel involves the ship standing still and moving the universe, so that would eliminate the problem right there.

From what I was told, the warp drive and the impulse drive both have no exhaust like a rocket. What they do is generate momentum pretty much the same way a generator generates electricity and the ship moves as a whole instead of one section trying to move all the other sections by itself.

Am I the only one here that agrees with the studio on this one?

That huge frickin' eyesore would just degrade with age when it stopped being a landmark. Probably within the first decade after it was built.

FirstNationalBastard: The guy who said "no" really didn't get it.

There's no way that a lifesized Enterprise would have flopped. Even today, when Trek is at its lowest point, you'd still have Trekkies visiting the damned thing like it's a shrine.

*raises hand*

/I keep seeing sentences starting "The dumbest thing about the new movie was ..."
//There are so many ways to end that sentence.
///Good dumb fun though.

Having worked at the Star Trek Experience for a year and a half, this thread is like reliving every conversation with the die hard customers who had ideas on how to improve the place.

ThatBillmanGuy: Having worked at the Star Trek Experience for a year and a half, this thread is like reliving every conversation with the die hard customers who had ideas on how to improve the place.

Seems like the designers should have talked to those customers before they built that stinkhole instead of after.

.

UsikFark: Thanks for the Meme-ries: I like the Star Wars quote reference in the Star Trek headline. It might be too subtle of a troll, but I like it.

[www.fanboy.com image 580x350]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Passive Aggressive Larry: [robertsinclaire.com image 500x313].

dammit!

Yotto: Am I the only one here that agrees with the studio on this one?

That huge frickin' eyesore would just degrade with age when it stopped being a landmark. Probably within the first decade after it was built.

No, not the only one.

I worked in a science museum for 10 years. I have seen first hand how shiny and new slowly transitions to "maintenance nightmare and eyesore" in a matter of months.

You need a team of craftsmen to rebuild the interactives every 6 months. And you always end up in a pitched battle between one exec who insists on maintaining the place as if it were the Louvre, and one who thinks he/she is the reincarnation of P.T. Barnum.

Mugato: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

In the vacuum of space? Really not the same thing, is it?

No, it's actually exactly the same. The vacuum makes no difference. The weightlessness would only make a difference if it were a non-accelerating object, like a space station... because acceleration is what gives you weight.

On earth, you're undergoing one g (9.8m/s²) of acceleration. To go from zero to lightspeed in a minute (which you'll note is MUCH weaker acceleration than the actual enterprise exhibits on the show) is just a bit less than 509,505 g (4,996,540 m/s²). If you're worried about structural integrity in a one-g gravity well, that ship would shred like tissue paper under actual use.

If you're really on the ball here, you're going to point out that the warp engines don't create "real" acceleration. Okay, that's fair. Those are magical, so we can ignore whatever they do. But the impulse engine, which is attached to the back of the saucer, can accelerate the ship to most of lightspeed in a similar timeframe, works in real space, and would still very definitely tear the saucer section right off its little neck under acceleration.

And if you're STILL being super-alert, you'll say "but they have inertial dampers!" And you're right. They can literally ignore these effects because of magic technology. But if that's true... they can do the same thing during construction if you want.

In short: if the ship can survive its maneuvers, it can survive sitting on earth. If it can't survive maneuvers without technological assistance, that same assistance could be used in construction.

tgambitg: Mugato: Captain Swoop: Take a model of the Enterprise and strap a couple of Model Rocket engines to the nacelles, then launch it and watch how long it stays in one piece. Air drag would definitely be at play, but most of the damages would be from the acceleration stress - and SOL is just a tad faster (by several orders of magnitude) than what you'd be doing (even scaled).

I don't need to get into a whole thing here because I'm talking about this Vegas thing on earth, not the tv show. But they do explain what you're talking about with the "structural integrity fired".

Technically the ship is moving at relativistic speeds inside the warp bubble, and slower than full impulse. The warp bubble is 'warping' space around the ship, thus removing the need for infinite power requirement to accelerate to thee speed of light. The ship goes through higher stresses at sublight than at FTL.

Ah, as you'll see in my last comment, I was wondering if someone would get to this. That's totally fair... but the impulse engine is a fusion drive that works in real space, and is attached to the back of the saucer section where it will tear that thing right off its little neck under acceleration.... which is somewhere on the order of a million g given what they do with it on the show.

Coelacanth: Flint Ironstag: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

This would have had to have been built with today's building technology. I have no problem accepting that a future (fictional) society that can travel FTL could develop a method of maintaining structural integrity. Even today there are theories that suggest warp travel involves the ship standing still and moving the universe, so that would eliminate the problem right there.

From what I was told, the warp drive and the impulse drive both have no exhaust like a rocket. What they do is generate momentum pretty much the same way a generator generates electricity and the ship moves as a whole instead of one section trying to move all the other sections by itself.

"In Federation starships, the impulse drive was essentially an augmented fusion rocket, usually consisting of one or more fusion reactors, an accelerator-generator, a driver coil assembly, and a vectored thrust nozzle to direct the plasma exhaust. "

Of course, they do so many things on the show that make this appear to not be the case, so who knows. I mean, for starters... there's never a giant incandescent plasma trail behind the ship when it's under impulse. It would be practically the only thing you could see it would be so bright.

raygundan: Of course, they do so many things on the show that make this appear to not be the case, so who knows. I mean, for starters... there's never a giant incandescent plasma trail behind the ship when it's under impulse. It would be practically the only thing you could see it would be so bright.

Oh Lord, they probably have the interstellar equivalent of catalytic converters on all the ships.

Considering how much combat goes on, a big old plasma train as hot as the sun is an open invite to every rocket, missile, torpedo, and spitwad in the quadrant for a free hit.

Between the nerdrage fights over canon, competing visions on theoretical formats for the venue, biatching about the previous ST exhibit in Las Vegas, the inevitable Trekkers' pissy niggling of various sorts about whatever failure to replicate each and every aspect of each and every series to their personal satisfaction and extent, not to mention the hyperanalytical douchebaggery of it all?

Thread = functional proof that Jaffe was correct and it would have failed catastrophically.

Let us not even approach the social/interpersonal problems of many Trekkers and how they'll manifest themselves when Nirvana fails to please. I don't even want to contemplate what Slash/FanFic enthusiasts might attempt to do in such a facility.

But we do not have to live in the theoretical. Let us go to Harry Potter at Universal in 15 years or so and see how it's worn.

meh - I'd like to see a life-sized Dyson Sphere

raygundan: On earth, you're undergoing one g (9.8m/s2) of acceleration.

Only if you're falling and aerodynamic drag isn't a meaningful factor.

Befuddled: raygundan: On earth, you're undergoing one g (9.8m/s2) of acceleration.

Only if you're falling and aerodynamic drag isn't a meaningful factor.

Ok smarty McSmartypants. When one is not accelerating, one experiences a normal force equal and opposite to gravity.

Evil Twin Skippy: No, not the only one.

I worked in a science museum for 10 years. I have seen first hand how shiny and new slowly transitions to "maintenance nightmare and eyesore" in a matter of months.

You need a team of craftsmen to rebuild the interactives every 6 months. And you always end up in a pitched battle between one exec who insists on maintaining the place as if it were the Louvre, and one who thinks he/she is the reincarnation of P.T. Barnum.

Yeah I am of this thinking as well. I'm surprised the Luxor pyramid has lasted as long as it has. Can it be a landmark forever?

So where's the part about Paramount having to pay for it if it flopped? There's a not as popular hotel made out of a star trek ship in vegas and that's going to seriously but a damper on the next star trek movie push they make? really?

Thosw: I'm pretty sure it would have flopped. No bathrooms.



Still haven't figured out the 3 seashells eh?

23FPB23: Yeah I am of this thinking as well. I'm surprised the Luxor pyramid has lasted as long as it has. Can it be a landmark forever?

No, a pyramid in a desert never lasts.

Actually they recently renovated to tone down the ancient Egypt theme and emphasize the modern architecture, so it seems like a long-term presence, as much as that's possible in Vegas.

Captain Swoop: Mugato: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

In the vacuum of space? Really not the same thing, is it?

Vacuum has little to do with it, the aerodynamic drag on something even that size would be fractional compared to the inertial forces (which are the same in a vacuum or not) that would be encountered by acceleration from zero to FTL as depicted in the show. Raygundan's point is valid, the mechanical shear stresses that you think would affect the structure in a gravity environment are the same ones it would have to stand up to under acceleration - only much worse. If you can believe the Enterprise can stand the acceleration, you can believe it can stand up to gravity acting on the poorly supported saucer and nacelles.

Take a model of the Enterprise and strap a couple of Model Rocket engines to the nacelles, then launch it and watch how long it stays in one piece. Air drag would definitely be at play, but most of the damages would be from the acceleration stress - and SOL is just a tad faster (by several orders of magnitude) than what you'd be doing (even scaled).

Guess what? Nacelles aren't rocket engines. They generate a field that envelops the entire ship- inertial forces don't come into it at all.

As a matter of fact, theoretical physicists have figured out that such a thing could work, if we could figure out how to generate the field. Basically, you bend space time in front of you so that you, in your little envelope, are continuously sucked forward into a lower 'pressure' area. As a result, you are never moving faster than light within your bubble, so Eisenstein physics aren't broken.

There are some problems, like anything in front of that field, like say, a planet, being broken apart on a subatomic scale when touched, but hey.

It's a completely different mechanism than action/reaction. Also, it's fiction.

cptjeff: Captain Swoop: Mugato: raygundan: Mugato: I don't see how a life sized Enterprise could exist in a gravity situation without the saucer and probably the nacelles falling off

But you're okay with those same nacelles and neck withstanding acceleration from zero to FTL in just a few seconds?

In the vacuum of space? Really not the same thing, is it?

Vacuum has little to do with it, the aerodynamic drag on something even that size would be fractional compared to the inertial forces (which are the same in a vacuum or not) that would be encountered by acceleration from zero to FTL as depicted in the show. Raygundan's point is valid, the mechanical shear stresses that you think would affect the structure in a gravity environment are the same ones it would have to stand up to under acceleration - only much worse. If you can believe the Enterprise can stand the acceleration, you can believe it can stand up to gravity acting on the poorly supported saucer and nacelles.

Take a model of the Enterprise and strap a couple of Model Rocket engines to the nacelles, then launch it and watch how long it stays in one piece. Air drag would definitely be at play, but most of the damages would be from the acceleration stress - and SOL is just a tad faster (by several orders of magnitude) than what you'd be doing (even scaled).

Guess what? Nacelles aren't rocket engines. They generate a field that envelops the entire ship- inertial forces don't come into it at all.

As a matter of fact, theoretical physicists have figured out that such a thing could work, if we could figure out how to generate the field. Basically, you bend space time in front of you so that you, in your little envelope, are continuously sucked forward into a lower 'pressure' area. As a result, you are never moving faster than light within your bubble, so Eisenstein physics aren't broken.

There are some problems, like anything in front of that field, like say, a planet, being broken apart on a subatomic scale when to ...

I'll say there are some problems. It requires the energy and mass of a small galaxy; you can't see in front of you to steer; you likely can't create a self-contained warp drive within your ship and thus require the construction of a 'railroad' at sub-luminal speeds in order to travel superluminally, which defeats the purpose of superluminal space exploration... etc. (new window)

Hate to be a negative nancy, but long-distance space exploration is almost certainly going to be performed by durable, long-lasting, intelligent, and perhaps self-replicating AI machines traveling at relativistic-and-below speeds, not by monkeys in pockets of atmosphere shrouded in metal magically traveling at speeds faster than the universal laws permit.

We need to crossbreed some theoretical physicists with lawyers. The only way we're going anywhere is if we find some loopholes in Nature's laws.