star trek? is it a realistic model of a futuristic starship

[greyCell]

the question this thread is proposing is:

is enteprise a realistic moedel of a star ship

lets make an example to make what i mean clear

when ensign mayweather is navagiting the ship in impulse all we see is heads up display in front ofg him that resembles the windshield of a car that shows what is in front of the ship and it is to taly up to him to feel the dimensions of the ship to navigate it.

wouldnt you think that a modeled display that shows theetnire ship would make it a hell alot easier to navigate the ship

i understand that navigating a ship shouldnt be nessicerily the easiest thing but it would make sense that a view that shows both the ship and the surrounding would make it alot more effecient.

 

this is only an examply the list of modefications that would have made enterprise a more realistic model for a futuristic starship

[TFMF]

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the realistics of Star Trek or Doctor Who or any other Sci-Fi show for that matter and the answer to these questions is that without these flaws Star Trek would be quite dull. The flaws make up what Star Trek is - if it were realistic then it would be normal and wouldn't be as interesting

[primehellix]

Well, I don't think any helmsman is navigating the ship by LOOKING THROUGH THE MAIN VIEWER!!! And actually I think that the helmsman is not supposed to feel the dimentions outside the ship - that's why he has his CONN! The computer is taking care of observing the invironment and reporting its state to the helmsman, right? So, the only thing the helmsman has to do is WATCHING the computer's readings and data, coming from sensors, etc. If you haven't noticed, the helmsman NEVER looks at the VIEWSCREEN when navigating (during the episodes of all the series it could be seen), but ALWAYS looks at his station.

 

You would agree, it's IRRELEVANT a large vessel to be put in hands of a man, thus risking the lives of all crew members. Would you do that? Let the helmsman FEEL the dimentions, so that we could lost the ship due to a human mistake! Not only irrelevant, it would be stupid!!!

 

So, I consider that detail PERFECTLY WELL DETERMINED by all directors, script writers and so on and so forth.

 

As far as other "non-so-realistic things" in Star Trek, I solemnly agree with TFMF. After all, IT HAPPENED IN THE DISTANT FUTURE. How could you be certain what you consider non-realistic now wouldn't be realistic then? ;) :)

[GorunNova]

Actually, I think the ships would be a lot prettier and roughly round in overall shape... given that shape wouldn't affect travel in space, that leaves a lot of room for innovation and expression ^_^

[Furious]

I just read The Physics of Star Trek wrote by couple of Star Trek fans. They said that Most things in a star ship is really possible but the problem is discovering it. e.g.

 

Where do we get antimatter from?

 

 

[maverick]

I just read The Physics of Star Trek wrote by couple of Star Trek fans. They said that Most things in a star ship is really possible but the problem is discovering it. e.g.

 

Where do we get antimatter from?

 

 

 

the antimatter shop. where else?

[GorunNova]

Hopefully, nowhere on Earth in any form other than individual antiatoms... that stuff is dangerous... -_-'

[primehellix]

Actually' date=' I think the ships would be a lot prettier and roughly round in overall shape... given that shape wouldn't affect travel in space, that leaves a lot of room for innovation and expression ^_^[/quote']

 

Now that you say that, I remembered a Star wars fan once had told me something in that reference... He said (arguing with me on why I MUST NOT LIKE Star trek better than Star wars) that Star wars (which is deffinitely a FANTASY) was more realistic than Star Trek (which is deffinitely a Sci-Fi) because THE STARSHIPS' SHAPE IN STAR TREK WASN'T AERODYNAMIC.

 

lol

 

I sware, I couldn't stop laughing for more than an hour when he said that. I didn't argue ofcourse, what's the point, they never hear you even if you prove your theory in front of them :D

 

But I never did understood how a large space vessel like the Nubian ( I don't know if that is spelled correctly) could actually take off from a planet with Earth like gravity. Consider its size, and then calculate the power needed for such a take off. It was considerably larger than a Indevour type NASA shuttle, which takes off with the help of enormous support rocket and a bunch of extra engines (I'm not sure how many exactly, I'm not an expert of shuttles :) ).

 

So, the point is, that the shape of Star Trek vessels is NOT NEEDED to be AERODYNAMIC because they JUST DO NOT LAND AND THEY ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED WITH CONSIDERATION OF LANDING. It is a separate question weather Star wars ship are realistic enough :)

[macnbc]

You should've shot back at the Star Wars fan with:

 

"Are you seriously trying to tell me that the flying hamburger known as the Milennium Falcon is in any way aerodynamic?"

[anonymity]

Well we don't always have to have windows, we rely on instrument panels, sensors, and other tech. They show us more than what our eyes can apparently tell.

How do you think submarines, watercrafts, aircrafts, and spacecrafts do some precise maneuvers?

[Beawulf]

personally I would be dissapointed if I took the trouble to go into space and didnt have the ability to look out a window :p

 

 

actually scientists have been able to create antimatter for a while [CERN team produces antimatter in bulk, Charles Seife. Science. Washington: Sep 20, 2002. Vol. 297, Iss. 5589; p. 1979]

 

 

I didnt find many of the space fight scenes when they were at war realistic from the point of view that they were very restrained with the use of weapons, phasers inparticular seeing as their power depends on the warp core compared to a limited supply of torpedos. I would think in any battle they would be firing as much as possible, continuously even. If I were captain I would say FIRE AT WILL!!

 

[GorunNova]

actually scientists have been able to create antimatter for a while [CERN team produces antimatter in bulk' date= Charles Seife. Science. Washington: Sep 20, 2002. Vol. 297, Iss. 5589; p. 1979]

 

Oh, I know... I just think it's a horrible, horrible idea to make any real quantity of it on the Earth's surface. Make too much, and it's a disaster waiting to happen -_-'

 

THAT would be what a Moon Base would be great for... antimatter production where a huge explosion would be less likely to kill off a continent.

[greyCell]

woof you guys are really active in this forum

 

maybe i used a bad eample

but im pretty sure that in one of the episodes of enterprise ensign mayweather steered the ship through a narrow space looking only at the main view screen.

 

still what this thread is really about isnt about is the star trek technolongy possible, its more about how this technology is udes

for a better example

is it really beleivable that in the 22nd century the open doors using little keypads on the side

we have doors im malls here in egypt that open on proximity sensors

 

about weather or not the technology is possible

i think mose things are theoritically possible

one example is the transporter

but in practice physicists have only succeded in trasporting single atoms

 

some of the science isnt accurate

for example captain janeway used a tachon beem to make a whole in the event of horzon big enough to fit voyager

im not sure what tachyons have to do with that

and im not sure that it is even theortically correct that we can make a hole in the event of horizon bigger

actually i dont think there is anything known as a whole in the event of horizon after all its not even a real thing its just a geometrical region which represents the point of no return surrounding the singularity "so there cant exist a naked singularity as hawking said"

 

but on the other hand if the writers actually used only real scintific solutions and explained everyhting in details this would be one hell of a boring show

 

one thing that caught my eye in the discussion is

"Are you seriously trying to tell me that the flying hamburger known as the Milennium Falcon is in any way aerodynamic?"

i just like to note that im not a star wars fan

i think its terrible when it comes to trying to repressent how a much more advanced civilization would be like

but after all the falcon is space ship

it doesnt have to aerodynamic

there is no air in space so we dont need it to be aero!!!

[macnbc]

greyCell,

 

If you had read the post I replied to, I said that about the millenium falcon because a Star Wars fan was saying that Star Trek ships aren't "realistic" because they aren't aerodynamic. Obviously ships don't have to be aerodynamic in space, but I was using their own logic against them. The Millenium Falcon is not purely a spaceship though, it flew in the atmosphere as well on several occassions, so some attempt at making it look aerodynamic probably would be more "realistic."

 

Also, on your example of the keypads next to the doors in the 22nd century. Have you considered that they are for security purposes? In Enterprise's time, the whole space exploration thing is pretty new so they probably wanted to make Enterprise a relatively secure ship. The keypads might've been there to prevent certain people from entering certain areas.

[GorunNova]

about weather or not the technology is possible

i think mose things are theoritically possible

one example is the transporter

but in practice physicists have only succeded in trasporting single atoms

One atom transported can lead to many atoms transported, and then whole objects... just a matter of time ^^

 

some of the science isnt accurate

 

*snip*

but on the other hand if the writers actually used only real scintific solutions and explained everyhting in details this would be one hell of a boring show

 

I'll agree with you on that... the scriptwriters are writers, not scientists... and sometimes their science is a bit off. I don't know if it would be boring to use only science to solve problems, though...

 

one thing that caught my eye in the discussion is

"Are you seriously trying to tell me that the flying hamburger known as the Milennium Falcon is in any way aerodynamic?"

i just like to note that im not a star wars fan

i think its terrible when it comes to trying to repressent how a much more advanced civilization would be like

but after all the falcon is space ship

it doesnt have to aerodynamic

there is no air in space so we dont need it to be aero!!!

Ummm... since the Millenium Falcon lands on-world, it -does- have to be aerodynamic... it's a reentry vehicle (heh... pretty blocky for a reentry vehicle it is, though :rolleyes:). The Star Destroyers, on the other hand... they're flying wedges, and good enough like that because they -don't- have to land on the surface of planets.

[VonHelton]

If you polarize the outside of a ship to where it repells a positive charge, it should lift off the ground much easier...........

 

:stare:

 

 

[bbbb]

Yeah its pretty good. Gotta love those warp nacelles and busard collectors like in ST:Insurrection.

[primehellix]

Yeah its pretty good. Gotta love those warp nacelles and busard collectors like in ST:Insurrection.

 

Which reminds me that there is an awfull quantity of occasions, when Picard & Gang use in variety of situations the buzzard collectors, the main deflector dish and DATA'S HEAD to solve a great variety of problems :LOL: These universal OBJECTS are my favourite too :LOL:

 

VonHelton, what if the ship has to repell a negative charge? ;)

[greyCell]

one more thing that actually relly annoyes me in star trek is that although the different movies and different series that ran since the 60's (i think) were very different in some aspects depending on who wrote them and the purpose of the plot there always seems to be one point they all stick to which is that the star trek works are like a pendulium that swings back and forth around its rest position but always seems to return to it which is unrealistic as no one would beleive that the state of the universe would stay the same for ever

let me make it clearer

in some episodes it sarts with a problem then this problem escilates (forgive me spilling mistakes english isnt my native language although im a candian/egyptian) then something terrible happens that would change the state things are in forever like when the xindi destroyed earth

but then a solution presents it self where everything could be returned to normal

now dont get me wrong im not saying nothing changes

im noly implying that if you take any series of star trek you would notice that there is a sort of static background set of state of the universe which tends not to change throughout the series although it seems like it keeps getting really close to risking changing it but then the day is saved at the last moment (or after the last moment if the solution incorporates some kind of temporal tampering)

i hope i made my point clear and i hope nobody thinks im saying that nothing changesw througout the course of a series or a movie

[thesize]

Commander GorunNova,

 

i share all of this forums/topics notions, optimism and having an open mind is all about the game to which science plays,

 

but dude, an antimatter "moon base" "with less chance of blowing away a continent", guy, if ther was an explosion on the moon, EARTH would be F*cked, the moon make s earth pretty much function water , tides , and all,and in check of balance and gravity among other forces working together. so if the moon was to have a BANG never mind the continent being earthquaked with an antimatter explosion,....

 

 

 

 

lol