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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report