Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5557 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:20 AM (3 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 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 20 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report