If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the original Enterprise is the best spaceship ever. Watch out, comic-con nerds, we're dealing with a badass over here   (youtube.com) divider line 170
    More: Obvious, Neil deGrasse, Enterprise, Comic-Con, NextGen, Sting  
•       •       •

5555 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-19 12:35:30 AM
the man speaks the truth
 
2012-07-19 12:39:15 AM
The thing I love about NDT is that when he's explaining things, he's like a little kid.

He just gets so happy and excited about the stuff he's talking about. That makes me want to get excited about it, too.
 
2012-07-19 01:06:05 AM
Man, I would love so much to just hang out with that guy, have some drinks, and shoot the shiat. NDT continues to be one of my heroes. :)

eraser8: He just gets so happy and excited about the stuff he's talking about. That makes me want to get excited about it, too.


Exactly!
 
2012-07-19 01:24:07 AM
In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors
 
2012-07-19 01:29:09 AM
He's right. It's looks like something functional that was built by humans. It was an imaginative revolution.
 
2012-07-19 01:34:44 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2012-07-19 01:34:51 AM

mamoru: Man, I would love so much to just hang out with that guy, have some drinks, and shoot the shiat. NDT continues to be one of my heroes. :)


I got to do this. Well, no drinks, it was hanging out after he testified in a congressional hearing, but he stuck around and chatted with a bunch of us mortals who had been in the audience for about a half hour, until his handler practically dragged him out of the room.

He actually delivers on what you imagine that would be like. Great stories, and he ranges into a wide array of philosophical topics, but with real, concrete anecdotes rather than detached theory.
 
2012-07-19 01:41:35 AM
Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?
 
2012-07-19 01:46:12 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?


You've seen one star, you've seen 300 trillion trillion. There's really nothing else left to do in astronomy.
 
2012-07-19 01:46:46 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


Sorry. NDT is objectively awesome. If you don't think so there is something dead and cancerous within you and you should probably seek medical help.
 
2012-07-19 01:52:21 AM

mamoru: Man, I would love so much to just hang out with that guy, have some drinks, and shoot the shiat. NDT continues to be one of my heroes. :)


I'd rather hang out and smoke a fattie with Carl Sagan, but since he's no longer with us I'd settle with drinks with deGrasse-Tyson. Third on my list would probably be lunch with Bill Nye.
 
2012-07-19 02:00:21 AM
In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.
 
2012-07-19 02:04:02 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?


Yep. Tough he wishes he had time to do more.
 
2012-07-19 02:05:17 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-07-19 02:07:00 AM
The man does have a point - but if you take it further back, I'd say Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix would take the prize - being the first human-built FTL starship in the Star Trek universe. Nothing in the Star Trek universe would happen if not for the Z's Phoenix.
 
2012-07-19 02:08:21 AM
A wonderfully insightful argument Mr. Tyson, thank you!
 
2012-07-19 02:09:54 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


I suggest a new profile pic for you:

www.newprophecy.net
 
2012-07-19 02:15:16 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?


LOL, your username... You obviously have a slight interest in astronomy.

If he inspires people, he's worth it. It's about time the sciences got a rockstar.
 
2012-07-19 02:20:00 AM

Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.


There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.
 
2012-07-19 02:34:02 AM
Has he even heard of the Tardis?!
 
2012-07-19 02:43:51 AM

0Icky0: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

You've seen one star, you've seen 300 trillion trillion. There's really nothing else left to do in astronomy.


I think he's moved above the actual "hovering over a hot telescope" phase of astronomy and into "curating a planetarium and explaining things to muggles" phase.
 
2012-07-19 02:55:04 AM
My math says otherwise, but who could argue with that man, my arguments are invalid.
 
2012-07-19 03:02:01 AM

kayanlau: The man does have a point - but if you take it further back, I'd say Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix would take the prize - being the first human-built FTL starship in the Star Trek universe. Nothing in the Star Trek universe would happen if not for the Z's Phoenix.


Um, no. And way to miss his point. He's not talking about the ship in relation to it's existence in the Star Trek universe, but as it exists in ours.
 
2012-07-19 03:09:58 AM
I have to totally agree with this man, back in 1965 the ONLY spaceships were just flying saucers or rocket ships and those were boring as can be.. but Roddenberry came along and gave us the Enterprise and then suddenly everyones idea for spaceships changed.. but ya.. when compared to what was available on Sept 8, 1966 the good old NCC 1701 no bloody A, B, C, OR D (love Relics TNG) was hands down the best one ever thought of at that time..
 
2012-07-19 03:11:36 AM

StopLurkListen: LOL, your username... You obviously have a slight interest in astronomy.

If he inspires people, he's worth it. It's about time the sciences got a rockstar.


We need someone to make kids say "I want to be a scientist when I grow up!". Right now I see too many people Tweeting from their iPhones on the Internet about how science sucks and doesn't do anything practical.
 
2012-07-19 03:29:09 AM

WhyteRaven74: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

Yep. Tough he wishes he had time to do more.


So you're saying he's going to invent a time machine O_o
 
2012-07-19 03:45:33 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: WhyteRaven74: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

Yep. Tough he wishes he had time to do more.

So you're saying he's going to invent a time machine O_o


Out of a DeLorean?

Seriously, I love this analogy. Babe Ruth would get his ass handed to him by quite a few minor league pitchers today, but back then he was so far ahead of everything else that it's still safe to consider him the greatest baseball player ever. And I know next to nothing about baseball, that's how pervasive his myth is!

Likewise, because the original Enterprise was so far ahead of everything else at the time, it is safe to consider it the best starship in all Sci-fi. This is brilliant.

/Would by the man a beer, but that would seem like an inadequate gift
//Whole keg it is!
 
2012-07-19 03:58:02 AM
But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?
 
2012-07-19 04:13:00 AM
He's got a point. It's stupid, uninteresting and meaningless, but a point, nonetheless.
 
2012-07-19 04:13:17 AM

Dave The Slushy: tinfoil-hat maggie: WhyteRaven74: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

Yep. Tough he wishes he had time to do more.

So you're saying he's going to invent a time machine O_o

Out of a DeLorean?

Seriously, I love this analogy. Babe Ruth would get his ass handed to him by quite a few minor league pitchers today, but back then he was so far ahead of everything else that it's still safe to consider him the greatest baseball player ever. And I know next to nothing about baseball, that's how pervasive his myth is!

Likewise, because the original Enterprise was so far ahead of everything else at the time, it is safe to consider it the best starship in all Sci-fi. This is brilliant.

/Would by the man a beer, but that would seem like an inadequate gift
//Whole keg it is!


Oh hell, I would so get drunk with him and end up in his bed if I had my way :)
 
2012-07-19 04:23:51 AM

Triumph: He's got a point. It's stupid, uninteresting and meaningless, but a point, nonetheless.


And there you go pooping on it.
 
2012-07-19 04:24:02 AM

ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?


The Borg use the Avast! free anti-nuclear bomb scanner.
 
2012-07-19 04:25:03 AM
I still think he's a freak for biting that guy's ear off.
 
2012-07-19 04:27:58 AM

ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?


See, that's where the Enterprise-D fails.

/Farking Love Boat in space.
 
2012-07-19 04:36:54 AM

ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?


Because a nuclear bomb is less powerful than a photon torpedo by several orders of magnitude, and even those barley made a dent in the cube. Granted it would do more damage from the inside than the out, but unless they knew exactly where to hit the cube it wouldn't be enough to destroy it. Plus it seems to be fairly easy to block transporter signals, so after you do it once they'd take steps to prevent it.
 
2012-07-19 04:38:46 AM

Ed Grubermann: ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?

See, that's where the Enterprise-D fails.


Kindly direct me to the episode where Kirk transports an explosive device inside an enemy ship.
 
2012-07-19 04:45:17 AM

Neondistraction: Ed Grubermann: ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?

See, that's where the Enterprise-D fails.


Kindly direct me to the episode where Kirk transports an explosive device inside an enemy ship.


neatnik2009.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-19 04:55:02 AM

RoyBatty: Neondistraction: Ed Grubermann: ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?

See, that's where the Enterprise-D fails.


Kindly direct me to the episode where Kirk transports an explosive device inside an enemy ship.

[neatnik2009.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]


Not exactly in the same spirit as what I had in mind, but technically it counts. Snark withdrawn.
 
2012-07-19 04:55:58 AM

Neondistraction: Ed Grubermann: ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?

See, that's where the Enterprise-D fails.


Kindly direct me to the episode where Kirk transports an explosive device inside an enemy ship.


Kindly show me an enemy vessel who didn't have shields that prevented transporters from working under battlefield conditions that the original Enterprise could not have easily defeated with phasers or photon torpedoes.
 
2012-07-19 05:00:17 AM
Am I the only one that thinks he may have had a few brewskies before getting up there?
 
2012-07-19 05:00:52 AM
Am I the only one that thinks he had a few brewskies before getting up there?
 
2012-07-19 05:30:15 AM

Dave The Slushy: tinfoil-hat maggie: WhyteRaven74: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

Yep. Tough he wishes he had time to do more.

So you're saying he's going to invent a time machine O_o

Out of a DeLorean?

Seriously, I love this analogy. Babe Ruth would get his ass handed to him by quite a few minor league pitchers today, but back then he was so far ahead of everything else that it's still safe to consider him the greatest baseball player ever. And I know next to nothing about baseball, that's how pervasive his myth is!

Likewise, because the original Enterprise was so far ahead of everything else at the time, it is safe to consider it the best starship in all Sci-fi. This is brilliant.

/Would by the man a beer, but that would seem like an inadequate gift
//Whole keg it is!


It shows... :P
 
2012-07-19 05:36:34 AM

cptjeff: mamoru: Man, I would love so much to just hang out with that guy, have some drinks, and shoot the shiat. NDT continues to be one of my heroes. :)

I got to do this. Well, no drinks, it was hanging out after he testified in a congressional hearing, but he stuck around and chatted with a bunch of us mortals who had been in the audience for about a half hour, until his handler practically dragged him out of the room.

He actually delivers on what you imagine that would be like. Great stories, and he ranges into a wide array of philosophical topics, but with real, concrete anecdotes rather than detached theory.


Let me say that cptjeff speaks the truth.

Whether he's on TV, giving a talk or chatting one-on-one, with NDT what you see is what you get.
Its not an act, folks: this is how he is when you're having dinner with him (as I was lucky enough to)
or when he's dealing with his kids and wife.

That, to me, is a mark of true greatness.
 
2012-07-19 05:38:54 AM

DeltaPunch: Am I the only one that thinks he had a few brewskies before getting up there?


Doubtful: while I don't think he's a teetotaler, I also doubt highly he drinks very much if ever..

The fact that he was sober and was still that animated and unselfconsciously goofy only makes him
better in my mind.
 
2012-07-19 05:52:48 AM

Ed Grubermann: Neondistraction: Ed Grubermann: ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?

See, that's where the Enterprise-D fails.


Kindly direct me to the episode where Kirk transports an explosive device inside an enemy ship.

Kindly show me an enemy vessel who didn't have shields that prevented transporters from working under battlefield conditions that the original Enterprise could not have easily defeated with phasers or photon torpedoes.


The Borg did put up a field to block transporters, though. They didn't at first, but after they beamed over looking for Picard and starting shooting shiat to knock them out of warp, they started putting up some kind of field to stop them from doing that. So yes, they technically could have beamed over an explosive once, but after that it wouldn't work.
 
2012-07-19 06:00:23 AM
NX-01 was the best ship of that name. Looked most like
Less smooth and sleek and more human designed
 
2012-07-19 06:02:51 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: NX-01 was the best ship of that name.
Less smooth and sleek and more human designed feel to it

Oops posted before I edited myself

 
2012-07-19 06:03:24 AM

DjangoStonereaver: I also doubt highly he drinks very much if ever..


He drinks. He posted a pic of him and Bill Nye having tequila sunsets the other day facebook.
 
2012-07-19 06:48:54 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


Damn that Neil deGrasse Tyson for being smart and likeable! Let's bring back the good ole days of having fewer people who could get anyone excited about science!
 
2012-07-19 06:57:42 AM
The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.
 
2012-07-19 06:58:02 AM

WhyteRaven74: DjangoStonereaver: I also doubt highly he drinks very much if ever..

He drinks. He posted a pic of him and Bill Nye having tequila sunsets the other day facebook.


When I had dinner with him, he didn't, and was just as animated as he was on the video.

Still: good to know he can hold his liquor.
 
2012-07-19 07:06:06 AM

DjangoStonereaver: WhyteRaven74: DjangoStonereaver: I also doubt highly he drinks very much if ever..

He drinks. He posted a pic of him and Bill Nye having tequila sunsets the other day facebook.

When I had dinner with him, he didn't, and was just as animated as he was on the video.

Still: good to know he can hold his liquor.


A friend of mine is good friends with him. He insists he really is the guy he comes across as on television, and an amazingly hard worker. He's on my shortlist of people to have a 1-on-1 dinner with at some point.
 
2012-07-19 07:08:19 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


Also, sadly, this.

I like NDT as much as anyone, but this constant cock gobbling gets ridiculous. Dunno if it's because I hate Reddit and Redditors in general.

They're a bunch of Dunning-Krugers who think they're better than everybody.

You're still cool, Farkers.
 
2012-07-19 07:15:23 AM

kayanlau: The man does have a point - but if you take it further back, I'd say Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix would take the prize - being the first human-built FTL starship in the Star Trek universe. Nothing in the Star Trek universe would happen if not for the Z's Phoenix.


He was speaking on a real-life cultural level, not one based inside the sci-fi universe of Star Trek.

I disagree with his premise. The original Star Trek Enterprise was the best because it grabbed the most attention for its time? Weak sauce.

I think the Voyager was the coolest-looking Star Trek spaceship. I can't speak for its performance in comparison with other ships, since I didn't really watch the show.
 
hej
2012-07-19 07:29:05 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?


I'm not sure what it means to "do" Astronomy, but he's "Astrophysicist & Director of the Hayden Planetarium."
Link
 
2012-07-19 07:29:43 AM

Kazahmish: I have to totally agree with this man, back in 1965 the ONLY spaceships were just flying saucers or rocket ships and those were boring as can be.. but Roddenberry came along and gave us the Enterprise


...which was a saucer with tail fins.
 
2012-07-19 07:38:59 AM

Lando Lincoln: Kazahmish: I have to totally agree with this man, back in 1965 the ONLY spaceships were just flying saucers or rocket ships and those were boring as can be.. but Roddenberry came along and gave us the Enterprise

...which was a saucer with tail fins.


Not to mention the huge disservice it has done to actual real life space travel by warping people's expectations. Plane-based "spaceships" are not a very viable mean of transportation in space and they're irrelevant since you don't need "aerodynamics" for space travel.

The Shuttle was okay since it was meant for re-entry on the atmosphere on a regular basis.

2001 still remains one of the best examples.
 
2012-07-19 07:44:34 AM
I liked the "badass" meme better when i thought it was the dude from Barney Miller.
 
2012-07-19 07:49:16 AM
He came and spoke at my school. Get him started on Newton. It friggin hilarious. "Newton's ma boi!!!"

Also, I don't like his argument on this one. I'm too young to know what came before the enterprise, but damnit the honor should go to an actual spaceship.
 
2012-07-19 07:54:45 AM
Does anyone talk about comics at Comic Con?
 
2012-07-19 07:56:20 AM

Lando Lincoln: kayanlau: The man does have a point - but if you take it further back, I'd say Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix would take the prize - being the first human-built FTL starship in the Star Trek universe. Nothing in the Star Trek universe would happen if not for the Z's Phoenix.

He was speaking on a real-life cultural level, not one based inside the sci-fi universe of Star Trek.

I disagree with his premise. The original Star Trek Enterprise was the best because it grabbed the most attention for its time? Weak sauce.

I think the Voyager was the coolest-looking Star Trek spaceship. I can't speak for its performance in comparison with other ships, since I didn't really watch the show.


Voyager was pretty cool, but the folding warp nacelles was an unnecesary gimmick ( and the folded in for warp when they should have folded out).
 
2012-07-19 07:57:35 AM

Kazahmish: I have to totally agree with this man, back in 1965 the ONLY spaceships were just flying saucers or rocket ships and those were boring as can be.. but Roddenberry came along and gave us the Enterprise and then suddenly everyones idea for spaceships changed.. but ya.. when compared to what was available on Sept 8, 1966 the good old NCC 1701 no bloody A, B, C, OR D (love Relics TNG) was hands down the best one ever thought of at that time..


img155.imageshack.us

1963 would like a word.

/And I was standing next to this exact one a couple of days ago. It's outside the main entrance of TV Centre in London.
//Pic not mine.
 
2012-07-19 07:58:17 AM

Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.


The spindly arms holding the nacelles on would snap first. Of course it was designed so it would be recognisable as it whooshed past the camera on your tiny 1966 TV screen, hence the dish, body, nacelles etc. In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.
 
2012-07-19 07:58:57 AM
Dejah 2012-07-19 06:57:42 AM

The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

Counter-rotation, ya dope.

One hypothetical Nacelle torque mechanism rotates along its own long axis this way, the other hypothetical Nacelle torque mechanism rotates along its own long axis that way.

[commences to demonstrate with Dejah's limbs]
 
2012-07-19 08:00:38 AM

Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.


I have to agree with you there, although the Enterprise is still bad-ass, and still probably tied for my favorite spaceship.

Because you just gotta love the elegant engineering, design and accurate U.S.S. Discovery One from 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is one spaceship that seem scientifically accurate.
 
2012-07-19 08:01:17 AM

rocky_howard: Lando Lincoln: Kazahmish: I have to totally agree with this man, back in 1965 the ONLY spaceships were just flying saucers or rocket ships and those were boring as can be.. but Roddenberry came along and gave us the Enterprise

...which was a saucer with tail fins.

Not to mention the huge disservice it has done to actual real life space travel by warping people's expectations. Plane-based "spaceships" are not a very viable mean of transportation in space and they're irrelevant since you don't need "aerodynamics" for space travel.

The Shuttle was okay since it was meant for re-entry on the atmosphere on a regular basis.

2001 still remains one of the best examples.


This. Incredible to think it was made before man set foot on the Moon. They even had iPads. Yet by the sequel 2010 they'd gone back to CRT monitors.
 
2012-07-19 08:03:21 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-19 08:09:21 AM

Flint Ironstag:
This. Incredible to think it was made before man set foot on the Moon. They even had iPads. Yet by the sequel 2010 they'd gone back to CRT monitors.


No, no! The glorious Soviet people had already invented the 4th generation iPads, but they were only for use by the Politburo members! No need to waste such wonderful Russian technology on a probable suicide space mission to Jupiter!
 
2012-07-19 08:09:32 AM

ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?


I've wondered how come they haven't weaponized warp cores? Sure, they're big and all, but from several episodes, a warp core breach will take down nearby ships even with shields.
 
2012-07-19 08:13:54 AM

thecpt: He came and spoke at my school. Get him started on Newton. It friggin hilarious. "Newton's ma boi!!!"

Also, I don't like his argument on this one. I'm too young to know what came before the enterprise, but damnit the honor should go to an actual spaceship.


I like his comments about Newton's false modesty. Always a trip.
 
2012-07-19 08:19:12 AM

rocky_howard: Not to mention the huge disservice it has done to actual real life space travel by warping people's expectations. Plane-based "spaceships" are not a very viable mean of transportation in space and they're irrelevant since you don't need "aerodynamics" for space travel.


Point to me the parts of the original Enterprise that were "aerodynamic" or "plane-based".
 
2012-07-19 08:22:26 AM

StopLurkListen: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

LOL, your username... You obviously have a slight interest in astronomy.

If he inspires people, he's worth it. It's about time the sciences got a rockstar.


I kind of hope that there are some certain farkers who will know who they are and who will be proud of me. So, I am a wee bit high tonight, but I have said it before. I have a man-crush on Brian Cox. I don't think I'm gay so I don't want to sleep with him but I want to give him a life's worth of comfort so that he can do nothing but what he wants to, and hopefully, talk to him while he does so.
 
2012-07-19 08:25:15 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-19 08:29:40 AM

theorellior: rocky_howard: Not to mention the huge disservice it has done to actual real life space travel by warping people's expectations. Plane-based "spaceships" are not a very viable mean of transportation in space and they're irrelevant since you don't need "aerodynamics" for space travel.

Point to me the parts of the original Enterprise that were "aerodynamic" or "plane-based".


In theory, the saucer section of the NCC-1701 was intended to enter atmosphere in its lifeboat mode,
and according to the official deckplans, the decks are all laid out parallel to the direction of motion,
not perpendicular. But aside from matter transmission the STAR TREK universe also has practical
artificial gravity, making the layout of the decks moot: they could point in any direction.

So wither theorellior's not really a Trekkie (otherwise he'd know that) or he's just a troll. I'm
voting the latter since, well, this is Fark and who among is isn't a Trekkie to some degree?
 
2012-07-19 08:35:26 AM

BalugaJoe: Does anyone talk about comics at Comic Con?


They're Graphic Novels! Don't make the neck beards feel bad by calling them comics.
 
2012-07-19 08:40:42 AM

ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?


The only time they tried to weaponize a transporter that I know of was in DS9 with a rifle. The transporter is just a plot device they used because they couldn't afford a shuttlecraft in the first season. The whole idea should have been scrapped in the reboot.
 
2012-07-19 08:40:48 AM
A rare miss for Mr. Tyson.

images.wikia.com
 
2012-07-19 08:48:12 AM

Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.


in space?
 
2012-07-19 08:55:49 AM

Neondistraction: mamoru: Man, I would love so much to just hang out with that guy, have some drinks, and shoot the shiat. NDT continues to be one of my heroes. :)


I'd rather hang out and smoke a fattie with Carl Sagan, but since he's no longer with us I'd settle with drinks with deGrasse-Tyson. Third on my list would probably be lunch with Bill Nye.


Jello shots with Adam Savage?
 
2012-07-19 09:01:55 AM

Neondistraction: I'd rather hang out and smoke a fattie with Carl Sagan, but since he's no longer with us I'd settle with drinks with deGrasse-Tyson. Third on my list would probably be lunch with Bill Nye.


You'll get a lukewarm cup of coffee with Beakman and you'll like it!
 
2012-07-19 09:04:01 AM

Ooba Tooba: I liked the "badass" meme better when i thought it was the dude from Barney Miller.


I thought it was Stanley from the office. The voice fits better in my head.
 
2012-07-19 09:04:07 AM
I have soft spot for the Nostalgia for Infinity. Reynolds had really sound reasoning behind the design of lighthuggers, and it totally makes sense to return to long, pointy ships under those conditions.

storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-19 09:04:08 AM
I had the good fortune to have Dr. NDT for Astronomy 101 back in 1987. He was brilliant engaging 300+ college students just looking to cross the science requirement off the list. By the end of the semester, most large lecture halls were at 25% capacity, but NDT had the kids coming back. Twenty-five years later, he is the professor I remember most from my college days. I even recall specific lectures, like the time he was explaining how life was brewed from the primordial soup. He had fog going, was jumping up and down on a table, pretty much acting the fool. But boy did he have the class engaged.

As far as I'm concerned, that guy is a rock star. In science. In astronomy. That's pretty remarkable.
 
2012-07-19 09:15:17 AM

DjangoStonereaver: So wither theorellior's not really a Trekkie (otherwise he'd know that) or he's just a troll. I'm
voting the latter since, well, this is Fark and who among is isn't a Trekkie to some degree?


Why am I a troll for asking if the original Enterprise was aerodynamic? It's not. There are no lifting surfaces, ailerons, rudders or anything associated with atmospheric flight in the layout of the spacecraft. If you ask a naïve viewer if he thought the saucer would work as an atmospheric craft he'd look at you funny. And maybe it's easier to design a spacecraft so that all the decks are oriented the same way, rather than have one deck 90 degrees from another and another one looping around in a curve just because it would be cool in the artificial gravity.

In its own way, the Enterprise was a break from the "airplane in space" paradigm just as much as the Discovery was, even though the Discovery has the names of Kubrick and Clarke associated with it, which I guess gives it more engineering cred.
 
2012-07-19 09:16:40 AM

kayanlau: The man does have a point - but if you take it further back, I'd say Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix would take the prize - being the first human-built FTL starship in the Star Trek universe. Nothing in the Star Trek universe would happen if not for the Z's Phoenix.


I think you're missing the man's point. Cochran's invention makes its appearance in context of Star Trek itself. (The Cochrane character first appears in a TOS epidsode, "The Companion," where he's only referred to as the 'inventor of the warp drive.' But we don't see that, or hear any more about it, until the character reappears decades later in film.) Tyson's point is that the TOS Enterprise, in context of the culture it first appeared in -- 1966 television -- was "astonishing" for being such an extremely fresh vision of the future, entirely unlike anything those audiences had *ever* seen before. You need to grasp that prior to Star Trek, absolutely *all* fictional space travel by humans was done in various 'rockets' or 'flying saucers'. Consider that the nearest SF antecedent to Star Trek was this (Forbidden Planet, 1956), and you start to get his point.
 
2012-07-19 09:20:01 AM

Kyro: A rare miss for Mr. Tyson.

[images.wikia.com image 850x680]


Not really, according to his argument.
The millennium falcon was a cargo ship and nothing new at the time aside from its rusting state. The enterprise predates it and was one of the fist times a starship was depicted on tv as a proper functioning warship.

/Bear in mind that all Space ships of this era looked more like the Jupiter 2.
/and that star wars never did science.
 
2012-07-19 09:20:05 AM

Kyro: A rare miss for Mr. Tyson.

[images.wikia.com image 850x680]


What a piece of junk.
 
2012-07-19 09:23:21 AM

0Icky0: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

You've seen one star, you've seen 300 trillion trillion. There's really nothing else left to do in astronomy.


Explain dark matter? Explain dark energy?
 
2012-07-19 09:24:52 AM
i.imgur.com

Nothing said "rock and roll" to me as a kid like an X-Wing fighter.
 
2012-07-19 09:25:10 AM

thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.


One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.
 
2012-07-19 09:26:00 AM
Yeah, but can it do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs?
 
2012-07-19 09:30:51 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.


Burke was pretty fun and enjoyable.
 
2012-07-19 09:38:03 AM
I've always had a soft spot in my heart for all the cool ships (and aliens) in the book Tour of the Universe. (pops)

I'm almost positive this book was just a contextually narrative way to put together tons of pre-licensed sci-fi book cover paintings (adding a few new bits of art here & there). But it was done very cleverly and was one of my favorite books to check out from the library in the early '80s...

You can find it for a buck now...
 
2012-07-19 09:38:44 AM
Ah, it's the weekly ND Tyson thread.

//badass eyeroll
 
2012-07-19 09:40:45 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.

One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.


I'm commenting from my iPad, so it's too hard to link directly, but I see Connections is on YouTube. So is Cosmos and Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man.
 
2012-07-19 09:42:33 AM

Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.


The nacelles produce rotational torque? I thought they "warped" space, why is there any need to assume that they'd create a linear force in any direction?
 
2012-07-19 09:43:42 AM

Mrbogey: ausfahrk: But how come they couldn't just transport a nuclear bomb into the middle of the Borg cube?

I've wondered how come they haven't weaponized warp cores? Sure, they're big and all, but from several episodes, a warp core breach will take down nearby ships even with shields.


IIRC, the Dominion had a plot to detonate a warp core near a star to annihilate a Federation fleet that had assembled nearby. I think all the major powers in the Alpha Quadrant had treaties with each other that forbade WMD-style attacks like that.
 
2012-07-19 09:44:46 AM

theorellior: DjangoStonereaver: So wither theorellior's not really a Trekkie (otherwise he'd know that) or he's just a troll. I'm
voting the latter since, well, this is Fark and who among is isn't a Trekkie to some degree?

Why am I a troll for asking if the original Enterprise was aerodynamic? It's not. There are no lifting surfaces, ailerons, rudders or anything associated with atmospheric flight in the layout of the spacecraft. If you ask a naïve viewer if he thought the saucer would work as an atmospheric craft he'd look at you funny. And maybe it's easier to design a spacecraft so that all the decks are oriented the same way, rather than have one deck 90 degrees from another and another one looping around in a curve just because it would be cool in the artificial gravity.


You just seemed to be a little too devil's advocat-y not to be trolling, especially since one of the
biggest points about the ENTERPRISE's design was that it could only work in space (this was
mentioned, ISTR in THE MAKING OF STAR TREK).

In its own way, the Enterprise was a break from the "airplane in space" paradigm just as much as the Discovery was, even though the Discovery has the names of Kubrick and Clarke associated with it, which I guess gives it more engineering cred.

Very true, and as the first-generation ancilliary works like THE STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL
and the deck plans show, Franz Josef Designs was no slouch in the practical conceptualization
department either.
 
2012-07-19 09:45:54 AM

theorellior: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.

Burke was pretty fun and enjoyable.


The only bad thing about Burke in CONNECTIONS was his rather unfortunate hair style.

Other than that, he's bulletproof.
 
2012-07-19 09:46:04 AM

theorellior: Why am I a troll for asking if the original Enterprise was aerodynamic? It's not. There are no lifting surfaces, ailerons, rudders or anything associated with atmospheric flight in the layout of the spacecraft


That's why it was so goofy that in the new movie it was built on the ground (Iowa of all places). I know for story reasons it was so Kirk could see it being built and get a revelation or whatever but anyone who tried to build a model of the Enterprise will tell you that the structure doesn't do well with gravity.
 
2012-07-19 09:47:41 AM

Sarsin: StopLurkListen: LOL, your username... You obviously have a slight interest in astronomy.

If he inspires people, he's worth it. It's about time the sciences got a rockstar.

We need someone to make kids say "I want to be a scientist when I grow up!". Right now I see too many people Tweeting from their iPhones on the Internet about how science sucks and doesn't do anything practical.


I was raised by scientists, so it's hard for me to understand the "But what is it GOOD for?!" mentality. It actually makes me stabby, since almost everything we have started out as some scientist's musing not about what it would be good for, but just how it worked, for its own sake. GPS relies on relativity, but Einstein wasn't thinking about what relativity might be good for. (And he was personally horrified that his discovery led to the most powerful weapon the world had ever seen.) Goddard was interested in the principles of rocketry for their own sake, not what the practical applications might be. People before him had worked on practical answers with little success: his focus on principles solved those problems. Tsiolkovsky knew full well that a ladder to space was 'impossible' -- he just wanted to sort out the maths for his own amusement. But a century later, his work is at the core of working concepts of space elevators, and all that remains are a few materials problems we're getting closer to solving every day -- thanks to nano scientists who themselves weren't trying to solve the problem, only understand nano-scale structures.

People don't get that scientific research isn't about making new things or solving problems, it's about understanding the underlying natural properties that eventually lead to those solutions. Scientists aren't even good at that part; that's the province of applied sciences, better known as engineering. Einstein understood the principle behind the atom bomb better than anyone, but he didn't know the first thing about building one -- it took Oppenheimer and a small army of applied sciences experts years to figure that out. But we can't solve the problems until we understand them, and that's what science is about: understand how it all works. We can't know what practical applications might exist for new knowledge, until well after we have the knowledge itself. But if we don't have the knowledge first, we have little hope of making use of it.

Even that's just a sideline, though. Science isn't about solving problems, it's about solving mysteries. Knowledge for its own sake. We almost always get something useful out of it, but that's not the real goal. The real goal is just knowing more tomorrow than we did yesterday.
 
2012-07-19 09:52:05 AM

Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.


You're assuming the thrust is straight out the back of the nacelles like a rocket.
Thats not how warp propulsion works.
 
2012-07-19 09:58:02 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I was raised by scientists, so it's hard for me to understand the "But what is it GOOD for?!" mentality.


Any pure science will eventually be used for something.
 
2012-07-19 09:58:26 AM

SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?


You mean, besides being director for the Hayden Planetarium? Give the man some love. He's done more to make science interesting and appealing to the layman than just about anyone since Sagan.
 
2012-07-19 10:00:32 AM

theurge14: [i.imgur.com image 600x257]

Nothing said "rock and roll" to me as a kid like an X-Wing fighter.


I agree with the above statement.

Of course, it helped that I played X-Wing a lot. Got a little soft spot for the balanced fighter. Took down many a Star Destroyer and then got to do the trench run.

/locks s-foils in
//diverts power from weapons to shields and engine, sets the rear shields to full, aft shields to zero, puts the throttle up to 100%, and prays
 
2012-07-19 10:01:13 AM

Flint Ironstag: Kazahmish: I have to totally agree with this man, back in 1965 the ONLY spaceships were just flying saucers or rocket ships and those were boring as can be.. but Roddenberry came along and gave us the Enterprise and then suddenly everyones idea for spaceships changed.. but ya.. when compared to what was available on Sept 8, 1966 the good old NCC 1701 no bloody A, B, C, OR D (love Relics TNG) was hands down the best one ever thought of at that time..

[img155.imageshack.us image 640x480]

1963 would like a word.

/And I was standing next to this exact one a couple of days ago. It's outside the main entrance of TV Centre in London.
//Pic not mine.


Again, you're missing the man's point. The TARDIS is not a concept of a futuristic space vessel built by humans. Tyson's point is that the original Enterprise represented for audiences of the time a vision of *their* future. Doctor Who predated Star Trek by three years, yes; but it was a vision of an otherwordly genius -- an alien, essentially -- who travelled in a rather curious analogue of the alien flying saucers that everyone was already familiar with it. Audiences of the time understood that aliens were advanced, not like us, and had amazing machines -- not like ones we would ourselves, *for* ourselves. It is not analogous to the point Tyson is trying to make here.

Besides, true Whovians know it's not even really shaped like a Police Box, but only looks that way because of its chameleon circuit, originally meant to help it blend in with its surroundings. In some very early DW episodes, you see it sometimes working as intended, appearing as various other objects. So it's not even a spaceship 'design' as such, either.
 
2012-07-19 10:05:42 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Besides, true Whovians know it's not even really shaped like a Police Box, but only looks that way because of its chameleon circuit, originally meant to help it blend in with its surroundings. In some very early DW episodes, you see it sometimes working as intended, appearing as various other objects. So it's not even a spaceship 'design' as such, either.


Actually, the Doctor's TARDIS never changed shape until the Colin Baker years (and then, it only
happened in one episode). Susan (the Doctor's granddaughter) mentions it changing shape in,
I believe, the 2nd episode in the context of being flummoxed that it retained the Police Box shape
when they travelled from 1963 England to prehistory.

The Master's TARDIS, OTOH, always had a fully functional Chameleon Circuit.

/Stop looking at me like that
 
2012-07-19 10:07:07 AM

Flint Ironstag: Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

The spindly arms holding the nacelles on would snap first. Of course it was designed so it would be recognisable as it whooshed past the camera on your tiny 1966 TV screen, hence the dish, body, nacelles etc. In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.


Except it doesn't work that way. The warp nacelles are not 'rockets' that provide physical thrust. They are massive reaction chambers that produce an enveloping effect, the warp bubble, which surrounds the entire ship. The warp bubble is a contained pocket of normal space that the rest of space slides around. The warp 'drive' is a function of the power of this field, and no actual 'thrust' takes place within it, only outside it. In normal space, sublight thrust is provided by the impulse drives, which are placed very sensibly near the centre of mass at the rear of the primary hull ('saucer' section).
 
2012-07-19 10:07:31 AM

Mugato: That's why it was so goofy that in the new movie it was built on the ground (Iowa of all places).


Why not build on the ground? The working commute is easier, parts are marginally easier to get there and at the end of it since you have gravity control and near unending power supplies you need not lift off at any great speed. Just meander up at a few hundred miles an hour and you'll be in space quick enough. Yes you need a supporting frame (either physical or energy based) but you'd better build it strong enough to take 1G if you're going to be thrown around like it was.
 
2012-07-19 10:22:02 AM

Mr. Eugenides: Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

The nacelles produce rotational torque? I thought they "warped" space, why is there any need to assume that they'd create a linear force in any direction?


What he probably means is the impulse engine, which is located on the saucer section. Presumably it does not warp space and is only a thruster, which would cause rotation of the ship.
 
2012-07-19 10:24:42 AM
Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.
 
2012-07-19 10:25:02 AM

DjangoStonereaver: theorellior: rocky_howard: Not to mention the huge disservice it has done to actual real life space travel by warping people's expectations. Plane-based "spaceships" are not a very viable mean of transportation in space and they're irrelevant since you don't need "aerodynamics" for space travel.

Point to me the parts of the original Enterprise that were "aerodynamic" or "plane-based".

In theory, the saucer section of the NCC-1701 was intended to enter atmosphere in its lifeboat mode,
and according to the official deckplans, the decks are all laid out parallel to the direction of motion,
not perpendicular. But aside from matter transmission the STAR TREK universe also has practical
artificial gravity, making the layout of the decks moot: they could point in any direction.

So wither theorellior's not really a Trekkie (otherwise he'd know that) or he's just a troll. I'm
voting the latter since, well, this is Fark and who among is isn't a Trekkie to some degree?


Actually, it's even more pedestrian than that. In the original concept, the primary hull could land on its own, safely and soundly, and take off again. (Look at the original official blueprints, and you'll see massive retractable landing gear on the ventral side.) But they were a bit uneasy about that, because they wanted to get away from the 'flying saucer' trope. In the end, money was the deciding factor: Star Trek ran on a tight budget, and this proved too costly to film. Yes, the transporter was invented to solve a budget problem.

Star Trek debuted three years before the first Moon landing. Over time, increasingly tech-savvy viewers came to understand that the 'saucer' could never really do what it had originally been designed to do, not without some serious problem-solving that had never been addressed. (What are 'impulse' engines anyway, how do they work, how would it work with only attitude thrusters on the underside, how would it not incinerate everything under it on landing without superscience reactionless thrusters that we never mentioned before, and more.) Rather, it might survive a crash: its aerodynamic form, in unpowered (or minimally powered) flight, could provide an effective if inefficient lifting body capable of gliding to the surface similar to how the Space Shuttle landed, though obviously less gracefully. And it was big enough to hold everyone on board. (Since the tubular secondary hull was really more of an engineering structure, and had no living quarters or permanent inhabitants.) Hence, the ret-con into a single-use lifeboat that could manage a single 'controlled landing.'
 
2012-07-19 10:29:26 AM

Kyro: A rare miss for Mr. Tyson.

[images.wikia.com image 850x680]


You also missed the point.

Star Wars was a decade after Star Trek. By that point, Star Trek had already established modern popular science fiction tropes, including odd-shaped spaceships. That's actually his real point -- that before the Enterprise, everything was either a rocket, a saucer, or something magical.

More, the Enterprise is very specifically and very intentionally a human-built vessel, a product of human ingenuity and engineering, something from our own world and future history. Absolutely nothing in Star Wars is.
 
2012-07-19 10:34:22 AM

threadjackistan: Ooba Tooba: I liked the "badass" meme better when i thought it was the dude from Barney Miller.

I thought it was Stanley from the office. The voice fits better in my head.


It's an animated framegrab from a well-known clip where Tyson talks about Newton. The original context is his astonishment and awe at how brilliant Newton was, not anything to do with badassery. It comes at the point where he explains that Newton invented differential calculus* before he turned 26.

(* Yes, I'm aware of Leibnitz. My understanding is that as near as anyone can tell, both invented it about the same time, independently of each other.)
 
2012-07-19 10:34:55 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Has he even heard of the Tardis?!


Came here to say this. It's the first ship I know of where form was meaningless. It could be literally any shape, since it relied on such an advanced form of "propulsion" that wasn't ever broached in sci fi before (as far as I know).

I think the enterprise is really just a flying saucer with crap stuck to it. A borg cube would make much more sense. Being a spaceship, it doesn't have to be remotely aerodynamic, and if creating a warp field to surround the ship is the star trek universe's way of traveling, then why put them so far from the rest of the ship?
 
2012-07-19 10:40:17 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Actually, it's even more pedestrian than that. In the original concept, the primary hull could land on its own, safely and soundly, and take off again. (Look at the original official blueprints, and you'll see massive retractable landing gear on the ventral side.) But they were a bit uneasy about that, because they wanted to get away from the 'flying saucer' trope. In the end, money was the deciding factor: Star Trek ran on a tight budget, and this proved too costly to film. Yes, the transporter was invented to solve a budget problem.


I had forgotten about the saucer section having landing feet (not unlike LOST IN SPACE's JUPITER
2, now that I think on it).

Star Trek debuted three years before the first Moon landing. Over time, increasingly tech-savvy viewers came to understand that the 'saucer' could never really do what it had originally been designed to do, not without some serious problem-solving that had never been addressed. (What are 'impulse' engines anyway, how do they work, how would it work with only attitude thrusters on the underside, how would it not incinerate everything under it on landing wi ...

I could swear that in MAKING OF (which was, ISTR, written between seasons 2 and 3 of TOS) they
mentioned the capability of the primary saucer section being a landable life boat.
 
2012-07-19 10:43:02 AM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors


jamiewalkerball.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-19 10:45:59 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: then why put them so far from the rest of the ship?


'cause they go boom? I really have no idea.
 
2012-07-19 10:46:56 AM
"Stop saying nice things about Tyson, Farkers! We are not supposed to compliment people who do good jobs and manage to become famous in the process! We are supposed to tear them down and destroy them! No one should ever do well! Everyone's life must suck as much as our own! Stop giving out beejs, Farkers and Redditors! Tear down the scientists! Listen to my Indie Band!"
 
2012-07-19 10:48:22 AM

mainstreet62: Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors

[jamiewalkerball.files.wordpress.com image 300x367]


i15.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-19 10:54:02 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: threadjackistan: Ooba Tooba: I liked the "badass" meme better when i thought it was the dude from Barney Miller.

I thought it was Stanley from the office. The voice fits better in my head.

It's an animated framegrab from a well-known clip where Tyson talks about Newton. The original context is his astonishment and awe at how brilliant Newton was, not anything to do with badassery. It comes at the point where he explains that Newton invented differential calculus* before he turned 26.


Original badassery video

Animated gif that's probably too big for fark: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/198/010/tysonreaction .gif
 
2012-07-19 10:58:36 AM

Flint Ironstag:
1963 would like a word.


Whilst I like the cut of your jib that isn't... technically... a spaceship. It can sustain it's own enviroment and move through open space yes, however it's primarily a time machine made of pure plotonium.
 
2012-07-19 10:59:19 AM
When Data told Tasha Yar he was "fully functional", did that include artificial semen? If so, did he have to refill when he ran out, and where did he get the refills from? Could you make it in the food synthesizer?
 
2012-07-19 11:04:41 AM

thisispete: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.

One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.

I'm commenting from my iPad, so it's too hard to link directly, but I see Connections is on YouTube. So is Cosmos and Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man.


Cosmos is available on DVD, if you look around enough, and I did pick that up. Connections is, too, but it's harder to find and very expensive. (A couple hundred bucks or so, last time I checked.) And there are actually three Connections series, plus The Day the Universe Changed, if you want to be a Burke completist. (The latter is based on his excellent book of the same title.) I have a DVD of capped YT vids of Connections, but the quality is poor. :(

Still, the introduction to the whole thing -- the 'Technology Trap' segment from "The Trigger Effect" still sends shivers down my spine. It's some of the most intense informational programming I've ever seen. (This bit follows a lengthy segment on the Northeast Blackout of 1965.) A lot of people misinterpret Burke's intent here, as a rant against technology and society itself. Which is not his point at all. His point is that we are as much a product of our technology as it is of us, and we are inextricably bound to it due to the history of technology that brought us to where we are now, which is what the series is about. His real intent is to make people care about understanding why the world is the way it is.
 
2012-07-19 11:08:22 AM

theorellior: Why am I a troll for asking if the original Enterprise was aerodynamic? It's not. There are no lifting surfaces, ailerons, rudders or anything associated with atmospheric flight in the layout of the spacecraft.


It's a SPACE ship. Designed to go through the vacuum of space where aerodynamics don't matter one little bit. It could look like an umbrella and it would still "fly" just as well in space.

There's no atmosphere, no resistance, no friction, nothing.

As for the TARDIS, it's not a space ship, it's a time-travelling ship. And since it looks, for all intents and purposes as a phone booth, there's no "design" involved. They just used a phonebox.
 
2012-07-19 11:10:44 AM

rocky_howard:
Not to mention the huge disservice it has done to actual real life space travel by warping people's expectations. Plane-based "spaceships" are not a very viable mean of transportation in space and they're irrelevant since you don't need "aerodynamics" for space travel.


Wut? The NCC-1701 is as aerodynamic as a brick and on the few occasions it does go deep in to an atmosphere it's usually accidental (i.e. plot based teleport) rather than under its own steam. It REALLY isn't designed to fly in an atmosphere. Most of its internal space is also to hold the FTL system which is fairly accurate for space travel (crew & stores take the least space compared to fuel/reaction mass).

Best depiction of a human built space ship in SciFi? That honour goes to the CCCP Alexi Leonov with an Omega class destroyer and it's StarFury wings in hot pursuit. All three look very rugged, exceptionally practical, designed to do a job and do it well with a very no-nonsense approach but with a certain beauty... exactly how humans would build something.
 
2012-07-19 11:17:31 AM

UnspokenVoice: StopLurkListen: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

LOL, your username... You obviously have a slight interest in astronomy.

If he inspires people, he's worth it. It's about time the sciences got a rockstar.

I kind of hope that there are some certain farkers who will know who they are and who will be proud of me. So, I am a wee bit high tonight, but I have said it before. I have a man-crush on Brian Cox. I don't think I'm gay so I don't want to sleep with him but I want to give him a life's worth of comfort so that he can do nothing but what he wants to, and hopefully, talk to him while he does so.


Glad someone brought up Brian Cox in this context, since, you know, he actually WAS a rockstar. well, OK, he was in a band at least.
 
2012-07-19 11:24:06 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Saucer life boat


The saucer section has, to my knowledge, always been an escape craft for the crew. However it's been a bit air fairy at times with the whole "getting back to orbit" thing... the general consensus being "Nope". Of course, you could say the landing gear is a very human thing to do: Yeah we're going to crash *whirr clunk* Hey, might soften the landing a bit *splat*
 
2012-07-19 11:27:29 AM

Firststepsadoozie: Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

You're assuming the thrust is straight out the back of the nacelles like a rocket.
Thats not how warp propulsion works.


What I was going to say. Pretty much all scifi tech, unless you can say you know how it works, you can't really say it doesn't .

I know how green women work.
 
2012-07-19 11:28:09 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: UnspokenVoice: StopLurkListen: SN1987a goes boom: Does this guy do any actual Astronomy, or does he just muse on Sci-fi, movies, and politics all day?

LOL, your username... You obviously have a slight interest in astronomy.

If he inspires people, he's worth it. It's about time the sciences got a rockstar.

I kind of hope that there are some certain farkers who will know who they are and who will be proud of me. So, I am a wee bit high tonight, but I have said it before. I have a man-crush on Brian Cox. I don't think I'm gay so I don't want to sleep with him but I want to give him a life's worth of comfort so that he can do nothing but what he wants to, and hopefully, talk to him while he does so.

Glad someone brought up Brian Cox in this context, since, you know, he actually WAS a rockstar. well, OK, he was in a band at least.


What an astronomy rock star actually looks like:

www.brianmay.com
 
2012-07-19 11:43:03 AM
Ya know what I never got... why they didnt weaponize the transporters. You can just disassemble large portions of a ship and scatter the atoms into space with the damn thing. Just pick random spots in the bridge or the engines and "Transport" out a 2m/2m block of critical engine parts/crewmembers.
 
2012-07-19 11:59:54 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Besides, true Whovians know it's not even really shaped like a Police Box, but only looks that way because of its chameleon circuit, originally meant to help it blend in with its surroundings. In some very early DW episodes, you see it sometimes working as intended, appearing as various other objects. So it's not even a spaceship 'design' as such, either.

Actually, the Doctor's TARDIS never changed shape until the Colin Baker years (and then, it only
happened in one episode). Susan (the Doctor's granddaughter) mentions it changing shape in,
I believe, the 2nd episode in the context of being flummoxed that it retained the Police Box shape
when they travelled from 1963 England to prehistory.

The Master's TARDIS, OTOH, always had a fully functional Chameleon Circuit.

/Stop looking at me like that


Thanks for the fill-in, I'm pretty rusty on most of that. I was never a Whovian myself, but I've known plenty.
 
2012-07-19 12:02:24 PM

theurge14: Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.


Except that the TOS ship was explicitly constructed in an orbital facility of San Francisco Yards. But this being JJ Abrams' reboot, all bets are off on everything. Giant cliffs in Iowa? Sure, why not.
 
2012-07-19 12:04:15 PM

DjangoStonereaver: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Actually, it's even more pedestrian than that. In the original concept, the primary hull could land on its own, safely and soundly, and take off again. (Look at the original official blueprints, and you'll see massive retractable landing gear on the ventral side.) But they were a bit uneasy about that, because they wanted to get away from the 'flying saucer' trope. In the end, money was the deciding factor: Star Trek ran on a tight budget, and this proved too costly to film. Yes, the transporter was invented to solve a budget problem.

I had forgotten about the saucer section having landing feet (not unlike LOST IN SPACE's JUPITER
2, now that I think on it).

Star Trek debuted three years before the first Moon landing. Over time, increasingly tech-savvy viewers came to understand that the 'saucer' could never really do what it had originally been designed to do, not without some serious problem-solving that had never been addressed. (What are 'impulse' engines anyway, how do they work, how would it work with only attitude thrusters on the underside, how would it not incinerate everything under it on landing wi ...

I could swear that in MAKING OF (which was, ISTR, written between seasons 2 and 3 of TOS) they
mentioned the capability of the primary saucer section being a landable life boat.


It's been many years since I read that book, so you may be right. And I haven't looked at the blueprints in nearly as long, either.
 
2012-07-19 12:04:34 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: theurge14: Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.

Except that the TOS ship was explicitly constructed in an orbital facility of San Francisco Yards. But this being JJ Abrams' reboot, all bets are off on everything. Giant cliffs in Iowa? Sure, why not.


After they escaped the black hole, I decided to just sit back and enjoy the popcorn. I really liked the movie, but that forced me to turn my brain off.
 
2012-07-19 12:07:27 PM

liverpoolumd: Ya know what I never got... why they didnt weaponize the transporters. You can just disassemble large portions of a ship and scatter the atoms into space with the damn thing. Just pick random spots in the bridge or the engines and "Transport" out a 2m/2m block of critical engine parts/crewmembers.


The Andromedans in STAR FLEET BATTLES use transporter-based weaponry, though that is nowhere
near canonaical Trek.
 
2012-07-19 12:07:54 PM

Ed Grubermann: kayanlau: The man does have a point - but if you take it further back, I'd say Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix would take the prize - being the first human-built FTL starship in the Star Trek universe. Nothing in the Star Trek universe would happen if not for the Z's Phoenix.

Um, no. And way to miss his point. He's not talking about the ship in relation to it's existence in the Star Trek universe, but as it exists in ours.


I got his point. I merely disagreed with why he is saying the 1701 is the greatest imagined spaceship in our culture, because FTL travel (and the imagination of it) is more important than sexy spaceships.

Besides, the creators of Star Trek depicted Zephram Cochrane using a weapon of destruction (Titan II Nuclear Missile) as the means to further mankind's technological advancement (the first warp capable human spaceship) - the idea can't get anymore poetic and beautiful than that. I don't care if it was told in a recent movie or if it was in TOS.

So the 1701 was a sexier idea than a flying saucer - big deal.
 
2012-07-19 12:18:37 PM

jakomo002: As for the TARDIS, it's not a space ship



img204.imageshack.us

not sure if serious
 
2012-07-19 12:19:37 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mainstreet62: Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors

[jamiewalkerball.files.wordpress.com image 300x367]

[i15.photobucket.com image 100x100]


Tony Stark is awesome.
 
2012-07-19 12:19:52 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.

One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.


Yep. I loved "Connections", and the follow-up show "The Day the Universe Changed".

/He also came up with the term "web" to describe the interconnectedness of information.
 
2012-07-19 12:28:31 PM

mainstreet62: BraveNewCheneyWorld: mainstreet62: Contrabulous Flabtraption: In related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson freaking out he went two days without having his cock sucked by Farkers or Redditors

[jamiewalkerball.files.wordpress.com image 300x367]

[i15.photobucket.com image 100x100]

Tony Stark is awesome.


I figured the point had a good chance of being lost on you.
 
2012-07-19 12:32:05 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: theurge14: Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.

Except that the TOS ship was explicitly constructed in an orbital facility of San Francisco Yards. But this being JJ Abrams' reboot, all bets are off on everything. Giant cliffs in Iowa? Sure, why not.


There are giant cliffs in Iowa in THE FUTURE!
 
2012-07-19 12:34:31 PM

Tax Boy:

[www.brianmay.com image 485x434]


Is that the doctorate or CBE he's holding though? That man has some quite serious letters after his name.
 
2012-07-19 12:39:01 PM
Anyone else think he may have been a little drunk?
 
2012-07-19 12:40:17 PM

imontheinternet: IIRC, the Dominion had a plot to detonate a warp core near a star to annihilate a Federation fleet that had assembled nearby.



Sound's like a worthy entry in the "scifi writers have no sense of scale" listing on tvtropes.

Assuming it was a star similar to our sun, that star would fuse 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. The fusion process converts 0.7% of that mass into energy, equal to 4.3 million tons of annhilation, every second.

The largest warp core would have what, one ton of annhilation, once?

The star wouldn't notice. It would be like throwing a lit match into a blast furnace.
 
2012-07-19 12:44:19 PM

Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.


You glorious troll.
 
2012-07-19 12:49:23 PM

liverpoolumd: Ya know what I never got... why they didnt weaponize the transporters. You can just disassemble large portions of a ship and scatter the atoms into space with the damn thing. Just pick random spots in the bridge or the engines and "Transport" out a 2m/2m block of critical engine parts/crewmembers.


There's a brilliant bit of fanfic/alt universe fic from Alara Rogers, where a human Q (who never regained his omnipotence but remained a human after that 3rd season episode, "Deja Q") is on a ship trapped by Ferengi who want to sell him off to the highest bidder. His partner (a Vulcan therapist/former Starfleet operative, raised in Texas) is helping him to evade them during a sabotage. He apparently had created a very secret bit of programming during his work with Starfleet that allowed the transporters to flip the subatomic element properties of the matter in the stream to create antimatter.

He has the therapist put a few strands of her hair on the transporter platform, then beams it over to the Ferengi ship, which upon rematerialization is now anti-matter that destroys the ship.

He actually mentions in the aftermath why he designed it only as a failsafe against the Borg, since their assimilation of the idea would make them nigh unstoppable. At one point in the story it's said the Q have their particular version of the Prime Directive, and he's very cautious as a human - trying to stay in their good graces - not to give humans anything that would create too much of a power imbalance in the Alpha Quadrant).

"Only Human" is probably the best unpublished Trek story I've read. It's alt-universe, so it doesn't work in the traditional Pocket Books 'canon' of acceptable stories for publication, but it's well-written, compelling and ingenious.

/Nerd moment over
 
2012-07-19 01:11:19 PM

Tax Boy: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: theurge14: Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.

Except that the TOS ship was explicitly constructed in an orbital facility of San Francisco Yards. But this being JJ Abrams' reboot, all bets are off on everything. Giant cliffs in Iowa? Sure, why not.

There are giant cliffs in Iowa in THE FUTURE!


i.imgur.com

Clearly this is supposed to be a quarry or a strip mine.

i.imgur.com

This is a real one in Kansas.
 
2012-07-19 01:19:30 PM

Cubicle Jockey:
The star wouldn't notice. It would be like throwing a lit match into a blast furnace.


If a planets atmosphere is somewhere you average Trek ship would rather not go, then "anywhere near a star" is higher up the list.

The DS9 episode with the BoP running close to a stars surface was hilarious for me. A) The BoP couldn't generate sufficient power to hold its shields B) even if it could the crew are dead. Hard/Soft raditation, exotic particles, hell even pure heat; even 1% of that leaking through the shield will melt the hull. C) That far in to that massive a gravity well? Crushed like an empty can of drink.

Stars are just stupidly large numbers no matter the SciFi universe.
 
2012-07-19 01:21:43 PM

theurge14:

This is a real one in Kansas.


I attributed it to the Xinti attack, which is cannon. I mean they did pretty much draw a cock n balls on the planet with their Sphere O'fear.
 
2012-07-19 01:37:20 PM

Flint Ironstag: Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

The spindly arms holding the nacelles on would snap first. Of course it was designed so it would be recognisable as it whooshed past the camera on your tiny 1966 TV screen, hence the dish, body, nacelles etc. In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.


Actually a sphere would be the most efficient sharp. Most internal space with the least surface area.
Therefore the Death Star is the best space ship ever.
 
2012-07-19 03:09:40 PM
Guess I'll do it since no-one else did...
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-19 03:31:17 PM
And here I always thought that meme was of Steve Harvey. How about that.
 
2012-07-19 04:14:39 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I was raised by scientists, so it's hard for me to understand the "But what is it GOOD for?!" mentality...
People don't get that scientific research isn't about making new things or solving problems, it's about understanding the underlying natural properties that eventually lead to those solutions...


"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it."
― Richard P. Feynman
 
2012-07-19 05:03:09 PM
Everything prior to Star Trek (1966) was a Rocket or Disc shaped flying saucer. Forbidden Planet, This island Earth, Day the Earth Stood Still...

Except this one...

blogs.evtrib.com
 
2012-07-19 05:06:26 PM

Tax Boy: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: theurge14: Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.

Except that the TOS ship was explicitly constructed in an orbital facility of San Francisco Yards. But this being JJ Abrams' reboot, all bets are off on everything. Giant cliffs in Iowa? Sure, why not.

There are giant cliffs in Iowa in THE FUTURE!


I just assumed the (obviously machine dug, based on their walls) canyons were mines for materiels excavation for building ships.
 
2012-07-19 06:45:30 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.

One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.


THIS

Link
 
2012-07-19 08:18:58 PM
i172.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-19 08:31:58 PM

bbfreak: Explain dark matter? Explain dark energy?


Do I need to explain sarcasm too?
 
2012-07-19 08:44:49 PM

0Icky0: bbfreak: Explain dark matter? Explain dark energy?

Do I need to explain sarcasm too?


www.lolbrary.com
 
2012-07-19 08:53:50 PM
Asteroids are nature's way of asking, "How's that space program coming?"
 
2012-07-19 08:56:29 PM

Flint Ironstag: Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

The spindly arms holding the nacelles on would snap first. Of course it was designed so it would be recognisable as it whooshed past the camera on your tiny 1966 TV screen, hence the dish, body, nacelles etc. In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.


farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-07-19 11:35:51 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.

One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.


Connections is now *ENTIRELY* free online. *Legit* online, not a shady backwater torrenter.

I wish I knew how to break into the buisness of being a commenter-I've been told I'm quite energetic, and have a knack for explaining things. And I do lament that this generation has no up and coming Bill Nye.
/I should probably finish my Physics PHD first.
 
2012-07-19 11:58:46 PM

Tax Boy: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: theurge14: Iowa of all places? They have the room and the workforce for shipyards of that size. It's not the ocean they're building for, Iowa is as close as space as any other state.

Except that the TOS ship was explicitly constructed in an orbital facility of San Francisco Yards. But this being JJ Abrams' reboot, all bets are off on everything. Giant cliffs in Iowa? Sure, why not.

There are giant cliffs in Iowa in THE FUTURE!


The weirdest part of the whole movie for me was him listening to Beastie Boys while driving. Because that makes it canonical that the Beastie Boys are in JJ Abrams' imagined reboot future. And the Beatie Boys are real. And did a song mentioning Mr. Spock.

I'm not sure if this was Abrams trying to be so clever that he divided by zero, or he really is that daft. I could go with either theory. Or both.
 
2012-07-20 12:12:23 AM

theurge14: Clearly this is supposed to be a quarry or a strip mine.


It is. It's the famous 'Rock of Ages' E.L. Smith granite quarry in Barre, Vermont.

To be fair, there are quarries in Iowa. But so far as I know, none like that. I'll try to remember to ask my geologist father when I get a chance. My real point, though, is that Abrams just don't give a crap. He admitted he'd never even seen the original show when he was tapped for the project. So, Paramount really don't give a crap, either, it seems, as long as the dollars come in. In a way, they're right, and Plinkett makes a good point when he explains that the kind of film serious fans would like to see probably can't be made, at least not by the likes of Paramount. That explanation went a long way towards softening my strong disgust with the film, but it does little to mitigate my disgust with some of Abrams antics. The whole thing seemed very Buck Rogers to me.
 
2012-07-20 12:27:33 AM

The_Time_Master: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: thisispete: Noah_Tall: In actual news (meaning something that is happening, not just snark) there is going to be a new Cosmos series with Tyson as the host.

I can't think of a better successor to Sagan.

There has to be articulate, engaging advocates for science, otherwise the public at large just won't get it or care. Sagan is gone. Sir David Attenborough is an old man. But we have the likes of Tyson and Brian Cox taking up the mantle of scientific advocacy, which is a good thing. After all, how else is a humanities grad like me going to understand all the cool stuff going on.

One who deserves mention but has rarely gotten any is James Burke, a brilliant and very engaging historian of science who's still with us and still writing, but pretty long in the tooth now. His UK productions (mostly of the mid-'70s through the '80s) trickled into the U.S. through various outlets over the years, but for some reason never sparked the same way Sagan and Attenborough's work did. Agreed, it's much denser: 'Connections' is not for those who like to do cross-stitch in front of the TV. But if you follow it, it's amazing stuff. It's hard to find now -- the academic videos are expensive, and only some libraries carry the original shows -- but well worth it, if you get the chance. If you want to understand how science, invention, and technology *really* work, especially in context of human civilisation, Burke's work is essential.

THIS

Link


He's got a terrific sense of humour, too, in a rather subtle British way. 'The Technology Trap' is harrowing to consider, but at the end of it, if you pay close enough attention, you'll see that the plow is hooked up to the *front* of the yoke, a subtle visual analogy to 'cart before the horse.'
 
2012-07-20 12:41:14 AM

Felgraf: Connections is now *ENTIRELY* free online. *Legit* online, not a shady backwater torrenter.


I'll be damned, there it is -- thanks!
 
2012-07-20 03:04:59 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Flint Ironstag: Dejah: The ship is not stable against the rotational torque its nacelles produce. It would flip over and over.

The spindly arms holding the nacelles on would snap first. Of course it was designed so it would be recognisable as it whooshed past the camera on your tiny 1966 TV screen, hence the dish, body, nacelles etc. In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.

Except it doesn't work that way. The warp nacelles are not 'rockets' that provide physical thrust. They are massive reaction chambers that produce an enveloping effect, the warp bubble, which surrounds the entire ship. The warp bubble is a contained pocket of normal space that the rest of space slides around. The warp 'drive' is a function of the power of this field, and no actual 'thrust' takes place within it, only outside it. In normal space, sublight thrust is provided by the impulse drives, which are placed very sensibly near the centre of mass at the rear of the primary hull ('saucer' section).


thank you. someone actually gets it. other than me of course, because that was a perfect explanation. good work sir.
 
2012-07-21 09:10:46 AM

Flint Ironstag: In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.


Watch out, guys. We're dealing with someone who's been assimilated over here.
 
2012-07-21 08:52:48 PM

Counter_Intelligent: Flint Ironstag: In space the Borg cube is the most efficient shape.

Watch out, guys. We're dealing with someone who's been assimilated over here.


You'd think someone assimilated and thus part of the hive minds intellect would realise a sphere would be better than a cube. Indeed, a Star Destroyer's wedge shape is also somewhat sensible assuming you don't mind doing 180's to decelerate.

A cube is a really crappy & inefficient design for a space ship.
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report