www.ditl.org

You assume that impulse engines are directional; we don't know that they are. Federation Ships have reversed at full impulse before and not required any change in the engine placement. Why shouldn't they be able to move up and down too?

Also since they would be somewhat buoyant, it would be easier than flying through the atmosphere.

From Wrath of Khan : "Z Minus ten thousand metres... stand by photon torpedoes!"

The ship sank slowly down on an even keel... and later rose up the same way. I wouldn't imagine they could do serious acceleration in that way, but then 1 g isn't serious acceleration to a starship.

And as for taking the pressure and environment and such, even the NX-01 could descend into a gas giant and cruise around in a layer of liquid phosphorous without incident. I dare say that if an NX can swim in that, a Connie can swim in water easily enough.

This is a big whup over nothing.

Like them building the NCC-1701 on land. Given a little thought, it's not that big a deal, if any.

GrahamKennedy wrote:From Wrath of Khan : "Z Minus ten thousand metres... stand by photon torpedoes!"

The ship sank slowly down on an even keel... and later rose up the same way. I wouldn't imagine they could do serious acceleration in that way, but then 1 g isn't serious acceleration to a starship.

And as for taking the pressure and environment and such, even the NX-01 could descend into a gas giant and cruise around in a layer of liquid phosphorous without incident. I dare say that if an NX can swim in that, a Connie can swim in water easily enough.

This is a big whup over nothing.

QFT

Also, the trailer makes it clear that the Feds of this timeline at least employ hover cars readily.

So the Enterprise should be able to deploy some kind of anti gravity with ease.

Its not maneuvering wildly so "radial bending of the outer hull" shouldn't be an issue.

Just saw a new trailer with Les Mis (excellent btw, best opera I've ever seen). I'm still not convinced that it has anything to do with Khan.

stitch626 wrote:Just saw a new trailer with Les Mis (excellent btw, best opera I've ever seen). I'm still not convinced that it has anything to do with Khan.

So, Gary Mitchell, someone new?

I sure hope your right.

I don't know, the only new person is in a Starfleet uniform... and does look a little like Mitchell. Though that may be me imagining similarities.

I'm thinking there's actually a chance it could be someone knew. Khan and Gary definitely weren't in Starfleet.

This guy makes some good points for being the villain being Khan tho:

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutob ... s-villain/



Also, there's an article with villain details on the same site if anyone's interested. Wondering whether or not I'd rather be surprised.

Um... yes Gary was in Starfleet.

LaughingCheese wrote:I'm thinking there's actually a chance it could be someone knew. Khan and Gary definitely weren't in Starfleet.

This guy makes some good points for being the villain being Khan tho:

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutob ... s-villain/



Also, there's an article with villain details on the same site if anyone's interested. Wondering whether or not I'd rather be surprised.

You call yourself a Star Trek fan! Leave us now!

LaughingCheese wrote:I'm thinking there's actually a chance it could be someone knew. Khan and Gary definitely weren't in Starfleet.

Gary Mitchell was in Starfleet, but from what I have seen doubt it will be Mitchell, and I hope it's not Khan.

Someone on another site mentioned the possibility of Garth, as he had been in Starfleet and the events that happened to him to make him the way we saw him in TOS would have occurred prior to the Kelvin incident.

I'm going to wait and see... even though speculation is fun.

I stand corrected.

And now that you point it out to me I actually watched Chuck's review of that episode not too long ago.

To be quite honest I'm more of a TNG guy, that's what I grew up with after all so the finer points of TOS elude me.


Also someone's doing a fan film based on Garth's back story (well, inventing it).

That would be, odd, if they end up telling two stories about the same guy.

Like them building the NCC-1701 on land. Given a little thought, it's not that big a deal, if any.

I maintain that given the tech level of Star Trek its entirely possible to build a starship on a planetary surface, it's just really stupid to do it much past the point of separate nacelle's, engineering hulls, and saucer sections.

Anyways Bernd is actually wrong as spaceships and submarines are probably the two most analogous vessels you're going to find. The only real difference between them now is how light weight you need to build spacecraft due to the limitations of our chemical rockets. That said, there's no logical reason why a starship from Trek couldn't go underwater. It's already air tight and as for pressure, the simple act of moving these gangly ships requires that they have some sort of magic force field keeping them from wrenching themselves apart each time they try and move. So 17 atms? We've seen ships take direct hits from photon torpedos and survive no problem. Is it a bit silly... yeah... as standard operating procedure it's sort of like Voyager's landing ability... why? As an "Oh fuck!" kind of crash and rise up, I can buy it.

So far I am looking forward to the movie. We need Abrams and we need some Hollywood to get a head of steam back under Trek. If it means two or three pure popcorn flicks with the Enterprise to breath new life into Trek then crash the Big E into a few more oceans and lets blow up some planets.