I can’t watch this, it doesn’t have a deflector!
Just because you don’t see a deflector dish, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a deflector. The fact that it can fly through space without being shredded is evidence that the vehicle has some sort of deflector system. One of the imponderables of this craft, and actually there were many instances like this on Star Trek, was how did it dock with the Enterprise? It really isn’t something to stop the show about, because it’s enough to see that were able to. Part of the fun for the gear heads is filling in the blanks. I remember discussing “transporter maleable docking collars” for DS9 with Mike. Why not? That’s the beauty of science fiction. You can participate. You are invited to use your imagination.
The audience can be divided up several ways. There are those who cannot watch a show if something technical doesn’t make sense. They see it as an offense. Then there are those who that makes absolutely no difference to, as long as the story is entertaining, and the characters engaging.
I think what most attracts me to this design for the Suliban cell ship is it’s uncanny resemblance to Cavor’s sphere in the Ray Harryhausen flick “First Men In The Moon”. The other thing that made it attractive is… well… that we had a full scale mockup just downstairs on stage that we could sit in. What’s not to like about that?
The Suliban Cell ship was built by modeler Jose Perez, and drawn up by John Eaves
3/4
Side
Top\Bottom
Illustration board mockup for full scale Cell ship.
Screen caps courtesy Jörg
Thanks for the great shots of the model, Doug! This means there were actually at least three different models of the Suliban cell ship. The one from this post (no windows), the one with square windows and a larger one with several triangular windows. You can see the second and third version (with the square and triangular windows) on the screenshots that show the Suliban Helix falling apart, the light is reflected in the windows.
I can suspend my disbelief that a very small one man craft with no room for engines or heavy machinery might be capable of sublight space flight, but the same craft traveling at warp speeds and take direct fire without popping like a light bulb? … sorry that would take alot more convincing.
That’s pretty funny! Where do you draw the line? I’m not even sure if you are kidding me or not!
Don’t forget that the Cabal have been getting advanced technology from “Future Guy”. I rather like the idea of a ship where you can’t figure out where everything is and how it can work.
After all, there’s no law that says warp drives have to have nacelles sticking out of the hull or big M/AM reactors. I prefer to think that these ships are so advanced the Cabal have found a way to seriously miniaturise these technologies.
Kidding or not, I know what you mean! But this ship it is alien technology and there’s nothing to say that the Suliban aren’t accessing an advanced knowledge base from far in the future to make the impossible possible!
In this situation I find the believability is salvaged when our heroes at least pass comment on how difficult it is for them to appreciate how these apparently basic, small, (little more than a shell really!) ships are able to pack technology so advanced that they can stand toe to toe against a far larger vessel.
Anyone remember the Federation timeship Aeon from the Voyager episode “Futures End”? This was smaller than a standard Starfleet shuttle and yet not only could this thing visit any sector in the galaxy but it could also open massive rifts in space and travel through time! Rasmussen’s timeship from the Next Gen episode: “Matter of Time” possessed the same sort of contrast in technology to it’s simplicity of design.
Admiral Janeway’s shuttle from the future in the Voyager series finale “Endgame”. A small craft packing some serious technological advances essentially making it impervious to all known forms of weapons fire!
Cheers for the renders Doug!
Many Suliban systems are located off-ship and connected to the capsule via a 22nd century (or much later!) equivalent to EPR entanglement. This renders Suliban ships deceptively small for their capabilities, and surprisingly tough to damage since critical equipment may be located light-years away.
How’s that sound?
Maybe they were built by Knight Industries and have a baby’s bottom smooth coating that keeps them from damage or popping if shot by a bazooka…er quantum torpedo or two….
Just a thought.
I swear I thought of “First Men in the Moon” when I first saw this episode. Anyone schooled in the classics couldn’t do otherwise.
I fall firmly into the “stuff needs to make sense” category, but not obsessively so. As long as it doesn’t shatter the rules as the show has established them, I try to go with the flow.
I love the full-scale set piece! That always adds to the verisimilitude.
Pacal: I always fall back onto Arthur C. Clarke’s concept of “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. No nacelles? No worries.
The Suliban ship I really liked was that elongated cuboid one. I think it’s in the second to last screenshot up there. Not sure why… I just think it’s cool to see “obscure” ships that are part of one big happy fleet. As I remember it, the ship was only an extra now and again for a long while, until in one episode it had its own close up.
As far as engineering issues go, I’m not very clued up when it comes to how tech works, especially if it hasn’t been invented yet, so I do get a bit miffed if I notice something’s amiss. It’s not a good sign if even *I* realise something doesn’t add up engineering-wise.
Never wondered about the Suliban docking procedures, though. Hey, they can crawl on ceilings and squidge under doors, I’m sure they have a few bits of tech we can’t even imagine. But I can see why it’d be fun to try.
The longer Suliban ship appeared in “Broken Bow”, “Shockwave I+II”, “Future tense” (where it is nicely blown to pieces) and “The expanse”. It would have been cool to see the inside of that ship as well, must have been really submarine-like.
Thanks for the info, Jörg. I didn’t realise it turned up that early on!
Regarding the docking question, I am not sure if people are wondering how ships like this docked in terms of simply allowing entrance to the Enterprise for its Suliban crewmen or if they are wondering how one of the ships got into a storage area as seen in “The Communicator.”
It looks to me like the doors on the cell ship we see the crew using in “The Communicator” would make it pretty easy to seal up with one of the Enterprise airlocks…heck, transporter-malleable might be overkill for that, as I bet regular old malleable would be good enough
If people wondered how it got into one of the bays, well, don’t those open up to space so cargo can be loaded directly into them? Sure looks to me like the Suliban cell ship would fit.
Seeing that makes me want to be D&D.
Though the one thing I wish would’ve been explained more is the Tholian’s involvement during the Time Capsule episode. Got the impression how the Tholians were being like the Vorlons in B5.
What’s really funny is that the cell ship immediately and forever reminded me of Vegeta’s ship (from Dragonball Z) when he was first travelling to Earth! It too was a tiny little pod with no machinery capable of extended interstellar travel. Of course, considering how insane Dragonball was, that was one of the least insane!
“The audience can be divided up several ways. There are those who cannot watch a show if something technical doesn’t make sense. They see it as an offense. Then there are those who that makes absolutely no difference to, as long as the story is entertaining, and the characters engaging. ”
I tend to come from the line of thought that there are going to be some things the writers of a futurist storyline can not explain, because even their fertile imaginations can’t see the future [or they'd be inventing it, right?], but that if ‘mythic’ physics have been established by previous contributors, the newest writer should respect the continuity of the explained process. This is in order to support the important element of suspension of disbelief. I perceive that this is an important part of making the story ‘real’ to the viewer. The more ‘real’ the more invested the recipient becomes.
In truth, maintaining such continuity is a pain for writers. It encourages them to think inside a box, which is often an anathema to their instincts. But in a collaborative piece, it becomes necessary to maintain the emotional and intellectual investment of the viewer over the course of the series of stories. This is why single written storylines are so much easier; the writer becomes the ‘god’ and his or her only standards are those imposed by the readers in the form of allocated interest.
Does this mean nothing should change in the universe that is presented? Of course not. Upgrading photon torpedoes to quantum torpedoes changes the details but does not alter the underlying reality of the experience, per the physical ‘reality’ previously represented. It adds motion to the story; something new both the characters and viewer adjust to together.
Now building 800 foot long starships in Iowa cornfield??? That move may make for a great screen shot, but divorces a segment of the viewing public because it violates the basic physical laws that the storyline had previously established; those the viewer was schooled in to expect represented in the storyline [basic Newtonian limits of materials versus gravity] and therefore breaches suspension of disbelief.
It is a hard task, to be certain. But to raise your standards of suspension of disbelief to the most educated member of your viewing public increases the quality of your product and the investment of your audience. It may even establish a following over four decades.
IOW’s; ‘to thine own writing be true….”
The DC
Ah the impeccable dimensions of The DC strikes again!
I consider myself a story-first sort of guy, and blithely disregarded most ENT things the nerds raged about so I could enjoy some high-quality story and acting, but I have to admit that the cell ships as depicted were goofy. Love how they look, love the idea of the Helix (not that it was used much), thought how they were used was ridiculous.
They would’ve been awesome as Suliban TIE fighters – swarmy, short-range, maneuverable tiny sublight ships, needing a carrier ship for FTL travel. Flying at Warp 5+ alone? C’mon, 200 years later in the Trek universe nobody can make power sources and warp coils that small. It’s supposed to be a prequel, dammit!
High-warp cell ships, I think, were one of the few genuinely bad design decisions I saw on ENT (the love of pointy nacelles being another). Would’ve been much better to see carrier ships, maybe mini-Helixes, chasing Enterprise covered in the little cells, which could act as gun batteries, or be dumped at sublight for swarm attacks. That would’ve been great to see!
Syd – You’re assuming that the Suliban even use warp drive technology; don’t forget they’re collaborating with beings from the future they could be using something completely different.
In the Next Gen. episode: “The Nth Degree” our heroes discover an alien probe milling about next to one of the Federations massive subspace telescopes (The Argus array I believe – Next thread Doug, Yeah? Yeah?? Yeah???:)). The dialogue in that episode indicated that the probe was able to move at sub-light speeds without the use of an impulse drive and warp speeds without having to generate a warp field – They couldn’t explain how it was able to move!
They do, though! Reed scans a couple of cell ships during the pilot episode, just before they snag one with the grappler. Impulse and warp drives.
I love ENT, but I recognize some truly awful decisions were made during its production. I look past it to enjoy the really excellent performances by the cast, and the generally strong and compelling writing.
Oh do they? I don’t recall that at all!
Well then that must be a scripting error! – Silly people!!
Lol!
(to clarify, I mean bad from an in-universe continuity perspective, not from a pure design perspective. It all LOOKS seriously cool!)
Thanks for posting these, Doug.
I really like Barrie’s idea that the cell ships’ technology could’ve come from Future Guy, that brings the Arthur C. Clarke ’sufficiently advanced’ line of thought nicely into play, and makes great sense. And re the technically realistic versus engaging characters debate, surely it’s not a case of one or the other, but a continuum? When I was younger, lack of technical consistency and the like would drive me up the wall, but these days I’m much more chilled on that front, and the entertainment factor trumps it nine times out of ten (I draw the line at ‘Deck 78′ though!
). I guess that’s why I’m in the camp that really enjoyed the new movie, despite the occasionally debatable interpretation of Treknology and so on.
BTW did anybody working on Enterprise actually know who Future Guy was intended to be? That was the one big plot line that I was miffed never got wrapped up. Personally I assumed he was a future Romulan (…er though perhaps no longer from Romulus
), and again that would nicely explain the cloaks and hi-tech look of the beautiful early Romulan Birds of Prey. Would be great to finally know for sure though!
I’m the same! In my teenage years when Star Trek was all new to me (great days!) I lapped up even the smallest detail they could throw at me, indeed I was one of those junkies that would pounce on the show the moment the people creating it broke continuity! I was cruel and unforgiving; I even bought all of Phil Farrands Nitpickers Guide books (haha!!)
Some of their mistakes were major (The Traveller: Comes from planet Tau Alpha C one minute and then Tau Ceti the next! Tut-tut!) but other times I’d get quite petty (The ships at warp so where are the star-streaks out that window!!!)
Now I’m older I appreciate that it’s hard for Team-Star Trek to find a staff of writers that possess a full understanding of every word of dialogue and every frame ever shot on a single Trek-series but to have a staff that has all five series nailed? Aren’t continuity skips inevitable??
So I’ve relaxed that side of the Trek-centre of my brain a little and let the last couple of series of Voyager and pretty much the whole of Enterprise tell their stories without the episodes being placed under my microscope! – I simply don’t have that kind of time on my hands anymore!! (hey, I wish I did!)
Mind you, now that I’m older… I’m a lot more interested in production, visual effects and musical score in shows and movies now than ever before! That’s why I could walk out of Star Trek The Movie with a smile on my face despite the fact it wasn’t what I’d call Star Trek! There’s no denying that production stuff – It was full on!!
I loved the cell ships! They always reminded me of a swarm of insects and defintely had strength in numbers. Knock one off, well, there’s 30 – 40 others that you had to content with.
I think one of the great things about science fiction is that we get to escape the confines of our own reality, stretch our imaginations for a short period of time, and enjoy the “what ifs” that are out there. My humble opinion is that if you spend most of your time worrying about the minute details of the presentation, you may be missing a really fantastic story. I always like to let myself enjoy the story first and then come back later for a better observation of what made up the composition that was that story.
Once again, we think alike, Matt. I claim your post was plagerized…you must be telepathic! I did like seeing the Tholians take out the cell ships in Time Capsule (I think that’t the one).
These ships and the Helix are always fun to see and fit the Suliban to a “T”, IMO.
I always end up getting caught up in the story and the actors more than anything the first time I see a movie or show. But heck, there’s *plenty* of time to go over the details again and again.
Doug, so did you get the full scale cell ship to warp speeds when you were playing with it?
You know what they say, Dea! Great minds…
Maybe it’s just the size and colouration, but this ship always put me in mind of the carnival/junkyard spaceship from “Explorers” (the Joe Dante film, not the DS9 episode!)
Anyone who’s not heard of it (which is most people, I gather) might want to check it out. Aside from being an entertaining little adventure, it has some very funny performances from James Cromwell & Robert Picardo and some very out there alien make-up designs.
I love “Explorers”! It’s a great little film that gently pokes a little fun at all those 50’s B movies without descending into plagarism or insult.
It also has a great cast including Ethan Hawke and River Phoenix (R.I.P) as well as genre stalwart Dick Miller.
I highly recommend it!
Thanks a lot for posting!
So as Jörg noticed there are three types of “short” cell ships:
- the smallest one without windows (ca. 2.6m)
- the mid-sized one with rectangular windows (ca. 5m)
- the big one with triangular windows (ca. 7m)
They are all visible in the orthographic views of the helix too where I measured them:
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/suliban-helix/
BTW, great post, The DC!
Thanks, chief!
I know I can be a killjoy about detail and continuity; I’m always arguing for a thinking man’s entertainment. To be honest, this soap box of mine started over an emotional feeling over what I interpreted as a lower level of effort on the part of television writers, which left me feeling blah & bored. It then metamorphosized into another emotional frustration of seeing works, like Star Trek, being remade into “more accessible,” ie. dumbed down, versions that left me feeling cheated; kind of like when they reduce your portion size at a restaurant.
Now the issue is more complex for me. I hear many argue entertainment should be escapist and easy. I can not support this. It is not a matter of personal choice but of social responsibility. First, I am not convinced that thinking is any less enjoyable than physical exercise. It is certainly better for you! When I read Lovecraft, Vonnegut, & Palahniuk I get to have the fun of the stream of the story, but still be mentally exercised with the use of complex imagery and language. I believe something can be flashy and provocative at the same time. It doesn’t need to be one or the other, and when best made, entertainment provides both.
It is like the tendency for people to sit on their couches then gripe about their weight and loose muscle. If the mind is not exercised and challenged, it becomes less flexible in the face of difficulty. Less emotionally resilient when facing stress. I see the desire of simple solutions and easy escapism as related to a lazy manner of exploring and processing the world. I have directly seen this habit result in people not questioning their elected leaders sufficiently and large scale rules being made to the detriment of others. I have seen that laziness spread into a design of selfism, since thinking about your behavior & the consequences of it, requires effort. Being lazy requires little effort toward considering the proper treatment of each other. It become easier to cheat on a significant other if ‘I didn’t think about it at the time.’ It is becoming more common to hear people use the excuse ‘I didn’t realize what I was doing,’ as though that negates their responsibility somehow, after they just DUI’ed somebody to death or stole millions from old people in a financial scam. I have even seen the rationalizing of the abuse of children so long as the proported abuser provides enough talent or entertainment. Those arguing for dismissing a person’s behavior, in light of their entertainment contributions, probably don’t think they are supporting antisocial activity, but they can’t seem to make the logical connection between further supporting the entertainer in the name of ‘fun’ regardless of whether the person abuses others ‘in the privacy of their own home.’ That leads to two justice systems…one for the exciting [at the expense of the vulnerable] and a another for the boring. Shewaaa?!!
Physical laziness results in poorer physical health that evolves into medical issues. Mental laziness evolves into social issues we all must endure. If we want an open society where there is equal participation, we face the awkward choices between freedom of excess versus social responsibility. I’m not saying bad entertainment causes social ills, that’s deferring the responsibility; I am proposing mental laziness promotes social ills and contributes to the further purchasing of bad entertainment.
As we begin to live off the dreams of others, the quality of those dreams declines while our less healthy society encourages more escapism! A nasty circle. As our reduced demand for ourselves diminishes, our responsibility toward others does as well and our creativity and quality of ‘escape’ diminishes in direct proportion to our social decline. To paraphrase a Star Trek analogy, we embrace the Taslosians…
I guess I’ll just have to live up to my own standards in what I’m writing! Time to put my money where my mouth has been shot off…
Still thunking…
The DC
I don’t often take the time, or have the time, to respond in depth, but I felt this warranted a response. I want to make it clear that I am drawn to Star Trek because of the continuity; however, there are some general concepts here that I feel are flawed. Here are a few points on which I respectfully disagree….
“I see the desire of simple solutions and easy escapism as related to a lazy manner of exploring and processing the world. I have directly seen this habit result in people not questioning their elected leaders sufficiently and large scale rules being made to the detriment of others. I have seen that laziness spread into a design of selfism, since thinking about your behavior & the consequences of it, requires effort. Being lazy requires little effort toward considering the proper treatment of each other. It become easier to cheat on a significant other if ‘I didn’t think about it at the time.’ It is becoming more common to hear people use the excuse ‘I didn’t realize what I was doing,’ as though that negates their responsibility somehow, after they just DUI’ed somebody to death or stole millions from old people in a financial scam…
I will be mentioning personal responsibility more than once here, since I feel that is the foundation of social responsibility. I can enjoy mental forms of entertainment and often do. There are times when I’ve had a long day at work and school and enjoy popping Disney’s animated Robin Hood (I’m a RH fan) or Singin’ in the Rain into the DVD player because I don’t have to think to enjoy them. Even though I enjoy mindless pursuits at times, I’d like to point out that I give financially, volunteer my time, treat others with respect, haven’t driven after drinking since 1987 (I remember the actual occurance), never cheated on my husband and do know how to think and make decisions pertaining to political issues and candidates. There are, unfortunately, those who do not discipline themselves to exercise their minds and make choices for themselves, but this is not necessarily a result of easy, mindless entertainment. If fact, I believe entertainment is driven, much like all sectors of the economy, by supply and demand. There are other factors that, I believe, have resulted in a diminished sense of personal responsibility over several decades. Moral values in the home being at the top of the list; however, this is not my main point. I simply see different types of entertainment as a freedom of choice, as well as choosing to actually learn about issues and voting your candidate wisely or being lazy. The latter is, of course, a socially irresponsible choice, but this is America, after all.
“I hear many argue entertainment should be escapist and easy. I can not support this. It is not a matter of personal choice but of social responsibility.
I just wanted to put this quote here as I have addressed this to a degree already. Social responsibility is very important, in my book. There are areas that are regulated by law that directly and adversely affect others and society, such as murder and robbery being illegal. However, entertainment is a freedom, so long as it doesn’t break the law.
“It is like the tendency for people to sit on their couches then gripe about their weight and loose muscle.
I’ll be the first to admit that I could be more disciplined regarding physical activity, but I certainly don’t expect to have my exercise routine regulated. This is an area of personal responsibility that, no matter how much benefit can be derived personally or societally, is left to the individual to choose when, what and how often they will participate in physical exercise. Individual freedom in this country also pertains to mental excercise.
I’m very glad to say the everyone has plentiful options of challenging and thoughtful entertainment. I am recording the Revolutionary War series on the History channel this month and look forward to watching it. I do take care to see who made it and know their history and what prejudices they may have so I can make my own judgements. I’m starting my second reading of A Tale of Two Cities because I find the insight to the times both before and after the people’s revolution amazing.
Enough about me. I just thought that a more 3 dimensional look at one of those who enjoyed the new movie and other Trek for the stories, effects and such may be helpful.
DC, have a great Independence Day weekend!
I don’t believe The DC is asking for socialized (which one could argue then very quickly becomes fascist) control over entertainment or personal excercize regimens.
I also don’t think he is totally opposed to having some escapist material, it is rather that the bad entertainment has become so prevalent it is bordering on ubiquity (if it already isn’t, LOL), thus we escape into terrible rehashes of mediocre plots and characters. It is this he finds to be most dangerous (and I tend to agree).
Dea- First, that you for your service to others. Though I may not have personally benefited from it, I believe such unselfish acts have positive ripple effects and I will benefit for your making the world a better place.
“I don’t often take the time”
>I am glad you did. Differing views challenge the daily malaise. I disagreed with some comments but enjoyed your presentation, non-the-less.
“If fact, I believe entertainment is driven, much like all sectors of the economy, by supply and demand. There are other factors that, I believe, have resulted in a diminished sense of personal responsibility over several decades. Moral values in the home being at the top of the list”
>Agree about moral values, but I’d like to point out that morals are a choice and choosing better is an exercise not a natural matter. It takes practice; both in childhood rearing and adult decisions and daily choices. The mind is like a muscle; either exercised to sharpness or when neglected becomes flabby.
“I simply see different types of entertainment as a freedom of choice, as well as choosing to actually learn about issues and voting your candidate wisely or being lazy. The latter is, of course, a socially irresponsible choice, but this is America, after all.”
>But freedom does not have to be dumb. Choosing what you want despite its value to your mind, rather than what is better for you or society, is a passive way of supporting a less durable culture. It is making a market for anything from video games involving beating up prostitutes to actual snuff films of a similar nature. The lines between that path can get rather fuzzy. Another part of freedom is self restraint for the sake of the body politic and self improvement for the sake of the self. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy [I can't remember who I stole that from! Sorry!].
“Social responsibility is very important, in my book. There are areas that are regulated by law that directly and adversely affect others and society, such as murder and robbery being illegal.”
>Agreed.
“However, entertainment is a freedom, so long as it doesn’t break the law.”
> Such as prostitution, legal in some areas of the country. It is also legal to protest at the funerals of dead soldiers. It is legal to implant programs into people’s computers to spy on their purchasing habits, so long as you are a ‘legitimate company.’ It is even legal for credit agencies to lower your credit rating for buying generic products. It is legal to do many things that are not moral. Legality is a poor gauge of morality. It falls low on Kholberg’s Scale of Moral Reasoning and is not a good history of moral action; recall it was once legal to own other people in this nation. It remained legal under an invested group’s argument of no one interfering in their choices until people with strong moral convictions, who didn’t waste a great deal of time in escapism, committed themselves to changing the laws to reflect moral good.
One reason people escape is to feel better. An alternative to escaping to feel better is to do better.
“but I certainly don’t expect to have my exercise routine regulated. This is an area of personal responsibility that, no matter how much benefit can be derived personally or societally, is left to the individual to choose when, what and how often they will participate in physical exercise..”
Except we as a country are now debating spending 1.6 trillion dollars on tax payer funding for public healthcare. If such is passed, those paying for the healthcare will likely demand to have their money justified. This is hard to do in our present ‘free choice’ lifestyle. The logical result? There will be legal restraints on your health choices. This has already begun in recently passed laws.
The five leading causes of death in the US are all preventable by lifestyle choice. Preventable. Is killing yourself a personal choice? Well, that’s a whole new debate…but if we are allowing healthcare to become a publicly paid matter, we will be inviting infringement into personal choice.
“I just thought that a more 3 dimensional look at one of those who enjoyed the new movie and other Trek for the stories, effects and such may be helpful.”
Your comments and expression of difference were appreciated. I hope in the light of our nation’s birth, our ability to agree to disagree will prevail. But please consider; advocates of lacing pop music with violent statements against women has a researchable effect. Is the maker of the music responsible for a corresponding rape? I am NOT willing to back that statement. But we, as a society, are responsible when we allow the envelope to widen as to what is acceptable on the argument of choice over resnsibility. NAMBLA still marches on the premise they have a right to do what makes them feel good, and remeber, they have a legal right to promote their beliefs.
Drawing the line is difficult between censorship and responsibility. But when the line is ignored in the argument of pure freedom of choice, one can not then argue as well to not be a victim of what someone else describes as ‘fun.’ One’s unpleasant experience, at the pleasures of another, were justified under the original argument.
Now on the other hand, if we, not due to laws, but due to personal responsibility pushed ourselves harder to eat better and exercise, our health issues would wane considerably. Our healthcare costs would be making much of the present debate mute, given how much they’d drop. If we were to push ourselves to think more and escape less, we would be spending more time tackling projects needing to be fixed and be more mentally resilient for our own problems. We would also not be funding morally and intellectually questionable mediums of entertainment and putting money into the pockets of entertainers who violate our moral codes on the basis of ‘but they are so talented.’. We wouldn’t need to escape a world we were making better.
I do not claim to be a paragon of self improvement, I’m only looking for others as mental exercise buddies to help foster a healthier environment. I have responded to your critique with the respect and dignity of a peer. May you and your family enjoy your holiday as well and I will now look for the show you have recommended.
The DC
I like bunnies.
I am in the middle of the road in this argument. I think the primary mission of SF should be to entertain, and that certainly entails a certain suspension of disbelief. I agree the story’s integrity is made up of internal continuity. The problem you run into with my beloved Star Trek is the idea the narrative is about 700 hours long with dozens, if not hundreds of writers, each of whom also have a different idea of how important continuity is versus story. I notice personally I was a lot more willing to forgive the gaffes of the Trek shows I likes, than the one I didn’t.
I like the new movie. A lot. So, I am willing to forgive some things I don’t agree with (I sure hope there’s a proper engineering section in the sequel- something installed on Tuesday). I do think there are things we as fans are “fervently discussing” which are not really issues. One of these is the launch of the Enterprise. Now, the idea of a 700+ meter ship is still something I am not really ready to jump on (I prefer the original 366m idea). Launching a ship that size from a planet though is completely consistent with earlier Trek, even without the “scans of the Narada improved Starfleet tech” excuse. A century later, Starfleet had ships that size that were not only capable of atmospheric entry, but could hover and land, and then launch themselves unaided back into space. If I can accept the Intrepid Class can land and take back off on a planet with no assistance, why is it unreasonable to assume that a century earlier Starfleet couldn’t do it with some sort of assist vehicles? There’s an image for a future SOTL calendar; the Ryan Church Enterprise lifting off while towed by support ships!
Doug- great images of the Suliban ship. I almost always forgave “Enterprise.” It was just fun to watch.
Weerd1 (formerly a Dan) – “Launching a ship that size from a planet though is completely consistent with earlier Trek, even without the “scans of the Narada improved Starfleet tech” excuse. A century later, Starfleet had ships that size that were not only capable of atmospheric entry, but could hover and land, and then launch themselves unaided back into space”
Are you referring to a series of novels or something cos the only large vessel from the ‘early days’ that I can recall is that mining facility that moved from the Moon to Mars in the Enterprise episodes: “Demons”/“Terra Prime”
Whilst this story does indeed prove that even in 22nd Century it is within the realms of Earths engineering abilities to construct large vehicles that can launch themselves from a planet and land on another it still doesn’t sit well with me that the JJ-Enterprise should be able to do the same. The mining facility, though large had reasonable symmetry and a centre of gravity that was probably dead-centre. Now, if JJ was going to reduce the complexity of his hero ship to that of a simple saucer we’d probably just accept the whole concept of its planet-based construction and that even a massive JJ-Enterprise was acceptable; indeed flying saucers and science fiction have been holding hands since the genre was born! However the JJ-Enterprise has its huuuge saucer with one point of attachment to the rest of the ship and it’s being held in probably the worst possible way; this is not an engineering solution, this is a disaster waiting to happen! This would be like picking up a loaded dinner plate and holding it in one hand with thumb and forefinger! The moment the engineers at that construction yard remove that rig suspending it, under Earths gravity the JJ-Enterprise would either fall straight on its nose, or if its got a particularly heavy rump, that saucer will snap off at the yoke probably straight away – This shape is not suited to be manhandled about the surface of the planet!
Now Voyager on the otherhand… The ship’s not all that big (342m long, 15 decks high), it’s centre of gravity is not that far forward and it’s design is a lot more compact with no large bodies extended by flimsy pylons etc. that would snap off the moment it touched down…
While I too would’ve preferred to have seen the new Enterprise being constructed in an orbital drydock like (presumably) it’s prime-universe counterpart, a bigger issue for me was that it wasn’t in San Francisco – just seemed a bit of a leap to place it in Kirk’s hometown. But again, it didn’t detract much from my enjoyment of the movie.
But to address your point, Stu, aren’t anti-gravs common technology in Trek? Probably a bit power-intensive to have running right through construction, but along with (or as part of) the use of tugs and/or thrusters, I’d have thought that technology would’ve helped the launch or transfer to orbit. Plus there’s structural integrity fields to prevent the hull buckling – if they can deal with the monumental accelerations to vast multiples of lightspeed, then surely dealing with earth’s gravity would be a doddle?
There’s a precedent that’s been quoted before for planetside construction, with a Galaxy-class hull visible prior to full assembly at Utopia Planitia:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Utopia_Planitia.jpg
What Stu said!
When you consider the immense stresses the ship’d undergo to accelerate even at impulse power (up to a good fraction of c in a few seconds? We’re talking thousands of G’s), and to maneuver at such speeds (thousands of G’s with multiple simultaneous vectors), then a few G’s to get the thing off the face of the planet is child’s play. Nullifying those forces is what SDF and IDF are for, anyway.
Good points for sure; with anti-grav and structural integrity field technologies it is of course reasonable to assume that building the JJ-Enterprise on Earth wouldn’t be impossible and it does of course take care of my err… concerns! (haha! (it’s just a movie… it’s just a movie!)
At the risk of being just plain difficult though, if I we were to weigh up the challenges of building the ship on Earth vs building the ship in orbit is there anybody who thinks building it on Earth is the easier option? I would think that the project to build the yard that looks after the ship during its construction on Earth would be just as monumental a project to design and construct as designing and constructing the JJ-Enterprise itself! – Of course I appreciate that this technology is science fiction and that it would take a real life exercise to prove this one way or the other and that until this happens for real, we’ll probably never get to the bottom of this one! It’s all fun to ponder though which is something you don’t get with Coronation Street!
LOL!
I’m with you there!
I agree though, orbital drydocks are the way to go. Can’t understand why they’d be using them for the NX-class then revert to planetside docks 100 years later (unless the tech made it more economic?). Like you say though, ir’s a movie, so I guess artistic licence wins out.
Love this ship, especially after seeing the Helix. It looks like they can swarm you and really damage the NX.
Well, this was my impression, and I may very well be reading too much into it: After the devastating attack on the Kelvin, and the sensor data coming back, two things happen. One, the Federation figures out this is Romulan, likely through material analysis and lingual data. That leads to the second- the Federation would approach the Romulans suspecting them of renewed hostilities. Not only are the Romulans out there, but the Federation has no idea whether or not their are a fleet of these ships waiting in the wings. This means an increased defensive posture on the part of the Federation. I doubt ALL ships are built on a planet’s surface, but Enterprise will be special- its the first one to employ the data from the Kelvin’s scans into starship construction. Building it on the ground I would think would make it tougher for foreign powers to get a look at it from afar. As a secret prototype, its security is tougher. As part of honoring the sacrifice of the Kelvin, George Kirk gets a memorial shipyard in his hometown (complete with bar with Kelvin saltshakers)- I believe I hav stated elsewhere here that it would also get some experimental tech away from SF Academy and HQ in case something goes bad… Here’s the real question- is there a similar facility in Cuba honoring Captain Robau, perhaps where the Constitution is being built…
Now, I will also claim my Voyager comparison is based very much on Bernd’s info regarding the 366m Church Enterprise. I realize I may be in denial, but I like it in Denial, the weather is nice.
Mark has some great points though- if you have the physical integrity to break lightspeed and make impulse barrel rolls at .25C windsheer and 1 G of gravity should be cake. Even my beloved TOS Enterprise made breakaway speed to escape the sun’s gravity in “Tomorrow is Yesterday.” That had to be more physical stress on the superstructure than an Earth launch.
Ack! “…whether or not there is a fleet of these ships…” not “…whether or not their are a fleet of these ships…” Must not post before morning coffee.
I’ve just clicked on a link posted by someone over at SFM. One of the replies to his thread was that this was several kinds of cool! (good line!)
I guess this really would have been the proof as to whether or not the Enterprise could have been constructed on Earth (See link, this’ll blow your mind!!)
http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-attractions-artwork.html