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

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