Star Trek Continuity (Was: What if Rick Berman was not in charge of Star Trek)
Johnny1A
>example of 'playing fast and loose' with Star Trek history, which
>annoys me to no end, is World War III. In ST: First Contact, it's
>revealed that 600,000,000 people were killed (compared to the
>37,000,000 mentioned in TOS episode "Bread and Circuses"), and that
>most major cities were destroyed. That being the case, how is it
>possible that such cities as San Francisco, Paris, and New Orleans
>more or less resemble the cities as they appear now (the Golden Gate
>Bridge, the TransAmerica Building, the Eiffel Tower, the French
>Quarter, etc.)? I'm pretty certain that the rebuilt Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki of OTL look nothing like the cities which existed before
>WWII. Also, in that same movie, Picard says that he once saw
>Cochrane's spacecraft in the Smithsonian, in spite of J.M. Dillard's
>novelization claiming that Washington was "blown off the map" (yes, I
>know novels are non-canonical, but it's a no-brainer that Washington
>*would* be a target in a Third World War, so I accept the novel's
>claim at face value).
>Also, even though there was no way that one could claim the Eugenics
>Wars happened in ST, without being reminded that they *didn't* happen
>in OTL (although a couple of novels by Greg Cox do try to work Khan's
>war into the 20th Century), I think that Deep Space Nine was taking a
>rather extreme position, by placing that conflict in the 22nd
Century.
>I'm not kidding; in the episode, "Dr. Bashir, I Presume," a reference
>to the Eugenics Wars placed them two centuries before the events of
>that series--which is set in the 24th Century.
>In article <28049112.01110...@posting.google.com>,
> rjc...@g2a.net (Robert J. Gill) wrote:
>> Also, even though there was no way that one could claim the
Eugenics
>> Wars happened in ST, without being reminded that they *didn't*
happen
>> in OTL [...]
>"Voyager" tried to address this with a two-part episode whose
premise,
>in essence, was that a time-traveler from the future had altered
history
>and pushed the Eugenics Wars into a later century, by advancing 20th
>century electronics technology at an abnormally fast pace. So the
money
>that would have been poured into biological research was poured into
>electronics research instead, and we got Bill Gates instead of Khan.
>Without pausing to consider which timeline got the better end of
*that*
>bargain, the Voyager ep only succeeded in making an even bigger mess
of
>the Star Trek TL (and continuity) than it already was. "Enterprise"
>promises to muck it up even worse, but at least it's actually doing
>something with its premise -- as opposed to Voyager, which spent
about
>an hour following up the ideas from its original premise, and then
began
>remaking episodes from "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
OK, folks, Star Trek's continuity is a mess. I challenge anyone who
disagrees with me to watch a selection of episodes from the various
series before they try to prove me wrong. An interesting challenge:
if _you_ were put in charge of the franchise, with dictatorial powers
over casting, script, and all the trimmings, how would you set about
fixing it? Or is it FUBAR?
To add a few points to the posting quoted above:
1. Way back in Trek Classic, it was mentioned several times that
Kirk's time was about '200 years' ahead of our own. ISTR that in
"Tommorrow is Yesterday", a security officer at SAC tells a
time-travelling Kirk that he's prepared to have him locked up and he
won't get out for two hundred years, to which Kirk replies a bit
tiredly, "...that ought to be just about right."
2. However, also in Trek Classic, the term 300 years was used. IIRC,
the 200 was used more often, though.
3. In "Space Seed" Spock gives the _exact years_ of Khan's rule in
the 20th (not the 21st) century. I don't recall them exactly, but
they were in the 1990's, not the 2000s.
4. In the movie, in the aftermath of World War III, supposedly 600
million people (up from 37 million, as the poster noted) are dead, and
civilization lies half wrecked. OTOH, _some_ social structure must
remain, since money retains its value, as Cochrane noted.
(One of my favorite moments in that movie was when Cochrane tells
Riker that he invented warp drive for the money. That was refreshing
for a Trek situation!)
Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
conditions, and how did he handle it?
5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek,
is the warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that
the warp scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective
velocity, i.e. Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times
light-speed, etc. They changed that for STTNG, but for some odd
reason they didn't change it back for the newest prequel series.
Well, that's a few high points. Anyone feel up to fixing it?
Shermanlee
WWW.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml
>OK, folks, Star Trek's continuity is a mess. I challenge anyone who
>disagrees with me to watch a selection of episodes from the various series
>before they try to prove me wrong. An interesting challenge: if _you_ were
>put in charge of the franchise, with dictatorial powers over casting,
>script, and all the trimmings, how would you set about fixing it? Or is it
>FUBAR?
>
>To add a few points to the posting quoted above:
>
>1. Way back in Trek Classic, it was mentioned several times that Kirk's
>time was about '200 years' ahead of our own. ISTR that in "Tommorrow is
>Yesterday", a security officer at SAC tells a time-travelling Kirk that
>he's prepared to have him locked up and he won't get out for two hundred
>years, to which Kirk replies a bit tiredly, "...that ought to be just about
>right."
Also states he was born on Alpha Centauri. But all the leads
afterwards including Kirk are born on Earth, if France can be considered
part of Earth.
>2. However, also in Trek Classic, the term 300 years was used. IIRC, the
>200 was used more often, though.
>3. In "Space Seed" Spock gives the _exact years_ of Khan's rule in the
>20th (not the 21st) century. I don't recall them exactly, but they were in
>the 1990's, not the 2000s.
Yes, 1990s.
>4. In the movie, in the aftermath of World War III, supposedly 600 million
>people (up from 37 million, as the poster noted) are dead, and civilization
>lies half wrecked. OTOH, _some_ social structure must remain, since money
>retains its value, as Cochrane noted.
>(One of my favorite moments in that movie was when Cochrane tells Riker
>that he invented warp drive for the money. That was refreshing for a Trek
>situation!)
>Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
>conditions, and how did he handle it?
And since in the original Cochrane is found on another planet by
Kirk but in the current version has died on earth before the first warp
drive ...
>5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek, is the
>warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that the warp
>scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective velocity, i.e.
>Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times light-speed, etc.
>They changed that for STTNG, but for some odd reason they didn't change it
>back for the newest prequel series.
Trek cannot be fixed.
When Roddenberry lost control all pretension at SF vanished, not
saying it was much better with him.
--
Billie Jeff feels our pain. And if we are women
much more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 164
David Johnston
> >conditions, and how did he handle it?
There is no reason to think his ship had an antimatter power supply.
>
> And since in the original Cochrane is found on another planet by
> Kirk but in the current version has died on earth before the first warp
> drive ...
No he didn't. He died before the first warp 5 drive. But he had personally
invented an FTL drive.
>
> >5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek, is the
> >warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that the warp
> >scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective velocity, i.e.
> >Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times light-speed,
Nothing of the kind was ever clearly established.
Margaret Young
"WWW.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml" <ma...@giwersworld.org>
wrote:
>On 13 Nov 2001, Johnny1A wrote:
>
>>OK, folks, Star Trek's continuity is a mess. I challenge anyone who
>>disagrees with me to watch a selection of episodes from the various series
>>before they try to prove me wrong. An interesting challenge: if _you_ were
>>put in charge of the franchise, with dictatorial powers over casting,
>>script, and all the trimmings, how would you set about fixing it? Or is it
>>FUBAR?
>>
>>To add a few points to the posting quoted above:
>>
>>1. Way back in Trek Classic, it was mentioned several times that Kirk's
>>time was about '200 years' ahead of our own. ISTR that in "Tommorrow is
>>Yesterday", a security officer at SAC tells a time-travelling Kirk that
>>he's prepared to have him locked up and he won't get out for two hundred
>>years, to which Kirk replies a bit tiredly, "...that ought to be just about
>>right."
>
> Also states he was born on Alpha Centauri. But all the leads
>afterwards including Kirk are born on Earth, if France can be considered
>part of Earth.
Wrong Starship Captain. Jean-Luc Picard (sp) was born in France - Kirk
was born in the one of the western states of the United States.
Margaret
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the
faint smell of cat pee.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Mike Miller
>
> Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
> conditions, and how did he handle it?
I think anti-matter is just a dense power source for powering
the warp engines. You could use hamsters in wheels, though you'd
need a somewhat larger engine room than an anti-matter power plant.
Cochrane did mention something about plasma when he was going
through a check list prior to lighting up the warp drive (just like
the plasma conduits of later warp engines), but you don't need
antimatter to generate plasma. You can generate plasma with coal
dust and pure oxygen - this was the basis for MHD power plant
experiments in the 60s, IIRC. Uranium or plutonium can heat
themselves to a plasma in a controlled fashion - such is proposed
for "gas core" fission rockets. Even hamsters in wheels could
generate plasma - use them to power electrical generators that
in turn drive electrical arcs. The electrical arcs will generate
any plasma you need, unless you're the Red Cross.
> Well, that's a few high points. Anyone feel up to fixing it?
Not really. I consider Star Trek amusingly broken.
ObWI: Star Trek writers kept good continuity?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
AW
It's beyond fixing. That's why I posted the WI in regards to Berman.
He and his crew have gone beyond insulting the Trekker community by
playing fast and loose with the ST timeline and facts. What they
should is try and hire some fact checkers. Have these people go over
future scripts to make sure that the events correspond to the
timeline.
A lot of these scriptwriters, IMHO, are not fans. They're just doing
a job and earning a paycheck. They don't really care about the
timeline or the fans.
But then that's the way Redstone, Berman, et. al. have always
operated.
AW
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:01:19 GMT,
>"WWW.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml" <ma...@giwersworld.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Also states he was born on Alpha Centauri. But all the leads
>>afterwards including Kirk are born on Earth, if France can be considered
>>part of Earth.
>
>Wrong Starship Captain. Jean-Luc Picard (sp) was born in France - Kirk
>was born in the one of the western states of the United States.
Iowa. Not that far west.
Anyway, he said "all the leads," as in Kirk (Iowa), Picard (France),
Sisko (Louisiana), Janeway (?), and Archer (?).
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 5/28/01
My next novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, coming soon from Tor.
Brian McGuinness
I believe that this comes from the book The Making of Star Trek by
Whitfield & Roddenberry. There is a list showing what speeds
correspond to what warp factors, and in all but one case, which
might be an error, the speed in terms of the speed of light is the
cube of the warp factor. I do not know if this information was
actually provided to the writers.
During the early part of the second series I heard that the warp
factor system had been revised so that the actual speed was the
speed of light times the fifth power of the warp factor, but
apparently Gene Roddenberry wanted to make warp 10 the absolute
physical limit to speed, so somebody or other just defined this to
be infinite speed. The STTNG Technical Manual shows the speeds
corresponding to each warp factor; I don't know if this fits any
simple curve.
--- Brian
Ted Nolan
Brian McGuinness <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<3BF21B...@telusplanet.net>...
>> > >Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
>> > >conditions, and how did he handle it?
>>
>> There is no reason to think his ship had an antimatter power supply.
>>
>> >
>> > And since in the original Cochrane is found on another planet by
>> > Kirk but in the current version has died on earth before the first warp
>> > drive ...
>>
>> No he didn't. He died before the first warp 5 drive. But he had personally
>> invented an FTL drive.
>>
Lost track of attributions here, but did the first episode of Enterprise
establish that Cochrane was dead? I remember something like "Dr. Cochrane
would be proud" which established he was not present, but not that anyone
knew what had happened to him.
As I recall, in the movie they set up the Classic Trek episode by
an offhand comment by Cochrane that he just wants to go live on an
deserted island somewhere with a beautiful woman -- which is
essentially what finally happened to him...
Continuity carping can be fun in a Baker Street kind of way, but in the
end it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of a story..
Ted
David Johnston
> It's beyond fixing. That's why I posted the WI in regards to Berman.
Why are you blaming Berman when his respect for continuity is higher than
Roddenberry's?
Keith Morrison
> >> > And since in the original Cochrane is found on another planet by
> >> > Kirk but in the current version has died on earth before the first warp
> >> > drive ...
> >>
> >> No he didn't. He died before the first warp 5 drive. But he had personally
> >> invented an FTL drive.
> >>
>
> Lost track of attributions here, but did the first episode of Enterprise
> establish that Cochrane was dead? I remember something like "Dr. Cochrane
> would be proud" which established he was not present, but not that anyone
> knew what had happened to him.
At that point, Cochrane would have been well into his second century.
It's not unreasonable to assume that everyone thinks he pulled a John
Sheridan and took a ship out for a drive in order to die.
The only problem between the original series, the film and now
"Enterprise" is the reference to him being from Alpha Centauri
in the old series. Even if it's just a reference to him having
moved there, there still wouldn't be a heck of a lot of time for
people to associate him with the system before he disappeared.
--
Keith
Lee DeRaud
McGuinness) wrote:
>David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<3BF21B...@telusplanet.net>...
>> > >warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that the warp
>> > >scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective velocity, i.e.
>> > >Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times light-speed,
>>
>> Nothing of the kind was ever clearly established.
>
>I believe that this comes from the book The Making of Star Trek by
>Whitfield & Roddenberry. There is a list showing what speeds
>correspond to what warp factors, and in all but one case, which
>might be an error, the speed in terms of the speed of light is the
>cube of the warp factor. I do not know if this information was
>actually provided to the writers.
Or if anyone actually ran the numbers for the typical distances
involved and the timelines assumed in the shows. Hint: warp 3 to
anywhere useful takes a couple of *months*. "Warp 1" may have some
interesting side effects, but is pretty much useless for getting from
point A to point B, in an interstellar sense. Better yet: those views
out the front showing stars flowing by like highway signs on both
sides...what warp factor is required to make that "work" at typical
"near space" star densities?
All things considered, the whole concept would be a lot more useful if
the "warp factor" was an *exponent* on some decent-sized base.
(They screwed it up both ways actually: the 'using warp drive as a
time machine' bit requires warp 8 or 9, but in one case they spend
tens of seconds at that speed getting from Earth to (near) the Sun.
Oops.)
Don't get me started on the instantaneous interstellar communications.
Lee
Keith Morrison
> Or if anyone actually ran the numbers for the typical distances
> involved and the timelines assumed in the shows. Hint: warp 3 to
> anywhere useful takes a couple of *months*. "Warp 1" may have some
> interesting side effects, but is pretty much useless for getting from
> point A to point B, in an interstellar sense. Better yet: those views
> out the front showing stars flowing by like highway signs on both
> sides...what warp factor is required to make that "work" at typical
> "near space" star densities?
The general consensus among the people who fool around with the
ideas is that those streaks aren't actually stars but some kind
of particle effect close to the ship. They base it on not just
that the ships can't be moving fast enough for the streaky effect
to work but that the special effects often show the streaks
not turning into point sources when the ship stops but just
vanishing.
There's also been a few times when there's been two ships chasing
one another at close range and there are still streaks between them.
--
Keith
Terry Austin
"Brian McGuinness" <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3fd57b8c.01111...@posting.google.com...
>but
> apparently Gene Roddenberry wanted to make warp 10 the absolute
> physical limit to speed,
Except they exceeded that several times in TOS.
Terry Austin
Lee DeRaud
<kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>Lee DeRaud wrote:
>
>> Or if anyone actually ran the numbers for the typical distances
>> involved and the timelines assumed in the shows. Hint: warp 3 to
>> anywhere useful takes a couple of *months*. "Warp 1" may have some
>> interesting side effects, but is pretty much useless for getting from
>> point A to point B, in an interstellar sense. Better yet: those views
>> out the front showing stars flowing by like highway signs on both
>> sides...what warp factor is required to make that "work" at typical
>> "near space" star densities?
>
>The general consensus among the people who fool around with the
>ideas is that those streaks aren't actually stars but some kind
>of particle effect close to the ship. They base it on not just
>that the ships can't be moving fast enough for the streaky effect
>to work but that the special effects often show the streaks
>not turning into point sources when the ship stops but just
>vanishing.
Oh. Right. Vortices in the ether. What *was* I thinking? :-)
Lee
Fabian
"Brian McGuinness" <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote in message
> I believe that this comes from the book The Making of Star Trek by
> Whitfield & Roddenberry. There is a list showing what speeds
> correspond to what warp factors, and in all but one case, which
> might be an error, the speed in terms of the speed of light is the
> cube of the warp factor. I do not know if this information was
> actually provided to the writers.
>
> During the early part of the second series I heard that the warp
> factor system had been revised so that the actual speed was the
> speed of light times the fifth power of the warp factor, but
> apparently Gene Roddenberry wanted to make warp 10 the absolute
> physical limit to speed, so somebody or other just defined this to
> be infinite speed. The STTNG Technical Manual shows the speeds
> corresponding to each warp factor; I don't know if this fits any
> simple curve.
It does.
WF (warp factor) = LM ^ 0.3 (light mach)
Or conversely...
LM = WF ^ (10/3)
That's the ST:TNG version anyway.
--
--
Fabian
To find out what makes paranoiacs tic, follow them around and watch them
for a while.
Keith Morrison
You asked for it.
--
Keith
David Johnston
That's why Roddenberry was so much better than Berman. His great
respect for continuity.
Margaret Young
<lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:23:56 -0500, Margaret Young <mmy...@umich.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:01:19 GMT,
>>"WWW.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml" <ma...@giwersworld.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Also states he was born on Alpha Centauri. But all the leads
>>>afterwards including Kirk are born on Earth, if France can be considered
>>>part of Earth.
>>
>>Wrong Starship Captain. Jean-Luc Picard (sp) was born in France - Kirk
>>was born in the one of the western states of the United States.
>
>Iowa. Not that far west.
>
>Anyway, he said "all the leads," as in Kirk (Iowa), Picard (France),
>Sisko (Louisiana), Janeway (?), and Archer (?).
My bad.
I read that post about 4 times, then you responded and _click_ I
realized that I was reading it wrong.
Thanks
Terry Austin
is not noted for continuity checking. Never was. Never was intended
to be.
Terry Austin
David B.
That's because between the time of TOS and TNG the warp scale was
recalibrated. IIRC, warp speeds over 10 on TOS are about a 9.something
on the TNG scale.
Johnny1A
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<3BF21B...@telusplanet.net>...
> > > >Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
> > > >conditions, and how did he handle it?
> >
> > There is no reason to think his ship had an antimatter power supply.
> >
> > >
> > > And since in the original Cochrane is found on another planet by
> > > Kirk but in the current version has died on earth before the first warp
> > > drive ...
> >
> > No he didn't. He died before the first warp 5 drive. But he had personally
> > invented an FTL drive.
> >
> > >
> > > >5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek, is the
> > > >warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that the warp
> > > >scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective velocity, i.e.
> > > >Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times light-speed,
> >
> > Nothing of the kind was ever clearly established.
>
> I believe that this comes from the book The Making of Star Trek by
> Whitfield & Roddenberry. There is a list showing what speeds
> correspond to what warp factors, and in all but one case, which
> might be an error, the speed in terms of the speed of light is the
> cube of the warp factor. I do not know if this information was
> actually provided to the writers.
Well, it was well known to all the fans, including some casual ones.
>
> During the early part of the second series I heard that the warp
> factor system had been revised so that the actual speed was the
> speed of light times the fifth power of the warp factor, but
> apparently Gene Roddenberry wanted to make warp 10 the absolute
> physical limit to speed, so somebody or other just defined this to
> be infinite speed. The STTNG Technical Manual shows the speeds
> corresponding to each warp factor; I don't know if this fits any
> simple curve.
The fifth-power numbers come from the role-playing game of the STTNG
show, in which they posited that the Enterprise-D had access to
something called an 'ultrawarp' drive, which was a quantum improvement
on the former third-power drive. This would actually have made better
sense, in light of the original series, than did the one they ended up
using in STTNG the Series. Furthermore, it would have been simpler,
enabling easy tracking of how fast the ship was going at any given
warp factor. Maybe that's why they changed it?
(Caveat: In fairness, the fifth-power drive might arguably have been
_too_ fast for writer convenience. A fifth-power warp drive, at Warp
10, would be able to cross the disk of the Milky Way from rim to rim
in about a year.)
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
True enough, but realistically, even the crude drive (or maybe
especially the crude drive) the Cochrane bashed together for the
_Phoenix_ would require a lot of power. The advantage of antimatter
is that it is a very compact and light source of energy.
I don't think chemical energy would have sufficed. So we're left
with, at a minimum, fission power or fusion power. The fuel for
fusion might be easier to get, but that leaves Cochrane with the
problem that he would have to wait thirty-five years for the drive to
be ready. (Kolker's Constant). :-)
Shermanlee
David Johnston
wrote:
>brian.b.m...@lmco.com (Brian McGuinness) wrote in message news:<3fd57b8c.01111...@posting.google.com>...
>> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<3BF21B...@telusplanet.net>...
>> > > >Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
>> > > >conditions, and how did he handle it?
>> >
>> > There is no reason to think his ship had an antimatter power supply.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > And since in the original Cochrane is found on another planet by
>> > > Kirk but in the current version has died on earth before the first warp
>> > > drive ...
>> >
>> > No he didn't. He died before the first warp 5 drive. But he had personally
>> > invented an FTL drive.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek, is the
>> > > >warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that the warp
>> > > >scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective velocity, i.e.
>> > > >Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times light-speed,
>> >
>> > Nothing of the kind was ever clearly established.
>>
>> I believe that this comes from the book The Making of Star Trek by
>> Whitfield & Roddenberry. There is a list showing what speeds
>> correspond to what warp factors, and in all but one case, which
>> might be an error, the speed in terms of the speed of light is the
>> cube of the warp factor. I do not know if this information was
>> actually provided to the writers.
>
>Well, it was well known to all the fans, including some casual ones.
Unless of course they actually bothered to figure out the travel times
used in the series which clearly shows that the cube of the warp
factor is way too slow.
Alan Barclay
Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(Caveat: In fairness, the fifth-power drive might arguably have been
>_too_ fast for writer convenience. A fifth-power warp drive, at Warp
>10, would be able to cross the disk of the Milky Way from rim to rim
>in about a year.)
Except in STV: The Shatner Abomination, they go to the centre of the
galaxy in a short period of time.
Phil Fraering,,,
>> Well, that's a few high points. Anyone feel up to fixing it?
>Not really. I consider Star Trek amusingly broken.
I think my "time fracture" idea would have fixed it, or at
least broken it in a more amusing fashion.
Phil
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Phil Fraering,,,
>Wrong Starship Captain. Jean-Luc Picard (sp) was born in France - Kirk
>was born in the one of the western states of the United States.
"I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space."
So excluding Janeway, we have one captain from Iowa, one from
France, one from Louisiana, and one from San Francisco.
kietz
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lawr...@clark.net> wrote in message
news:ClxI7.11902$ym4.5...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
snip
>
> Iowa. Not that far west.
>
Specifically- Riverside, Iowa. The town is "officially" known as the
future birthplace of James T. Kirk. Every year they have a parade and a
little carnival/fair/convention type deal (called Trekfest IIRC).
--
remove nospam to e-mail
MikeF
news:b3030854.01111...@posting.google.com...
> I don't think chemical energy would have sufficed. So we're left
> with, at a minimum, fission power or fusion power. The fuel for
> fusion might be easier to get, but that leaves Cochrane with the
> problem that he would have to wait thirty-five years for the drive to
> be ready. (Kolker's Constant). :-)
Now I can't comment on any of the series, as I haven't watched them in
years, but I did see the film in question, and if I recall, wasn't
Cochrane's ship originally a nuclear missile, and someone near it earlier in
the film comes down with radiation poisoning? Rather indicates he'd used the
fissile material in the old warhead as his power source.
Robert J. Gill
just wants to go live on an deserted island somewhere with a beautiful
woman -- which is essentially what finally happened to him...
Also, I'm not particularly bothered by the lack of physical
resemblance between the actors portraying Cochrane in TOS and ST:
First Contact; the James Cromwell version from the movie looks none
too young, true, but one must remember that the only other time we saw
him, it was *after* the Companion reversed his aging, and eliminated
any health defects. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the Cochrane of TOS
knew Spock was a Vulcan, which would be consistent with the movie's
events.
Mike Miller
> True enough, but realistically, even the crude drive (or maybe
> especially the crude drive) the Cochrane bashed together for the
> _Phoenix_ would require a lot of power.
As I understand it (from the non-canon Star Trek Technical
manuals), the barrier to faster flight is power. Cochrane's
slow test bed vehicle might've been happy with a little
nuke pile. Rather like the first steam boats, it just had
a few horsepower (not literally) compared to the later
ocean liners.
> The advantage of antimatter
> is that it is a very compact and light source of energy.
Disadvantages are that it's hard to find in a post-war,
semi-broke down society (you hope it's hard to find in
that situation.)
>
> I don't think chemical energy would have sufficed. So we're left
> with, at a minimum, fission power or fusion power. The fuel for
> fusion might be easier to get, but that leaves Cochrane with the
> problem that he would have to wait thirty-five years for the drive to
> be ready. (Kolker's Constant). :-)
Cochrane's launch vehicle WAS spewing some radiation that made
whatshername ill and required her evac to Enterprise.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
David
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
I would be interested in examples, if you know of any...
are you referring to warp factors, or other discontinuities attributed to
Roddenberry?
David Z
Houston TX
David
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan) wrote:
> In article <3fd57b8c.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> Brian McGuinness <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:<3BF21B...@telusplanet.net>...
> >> > >Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
> >> > >conditions, and how did he handle it?
> >>
> >> There is no reason to think his ship had an antimatter power supply.
Actually, World War III could be fought primarily with antimatter warheads
delivered by intercontinental missile. I don't remember it being
specifically said that Cochrane's missile originally contained a fissile
warhead. Have we been told when antimatter technology was initially used?
First Contact is circa 2063... we have plenty of time, theoretically, to
develop antimatter weapons, as were seen on a few episodes of Voyager, I
believe.
David Z
Houston TX
Keith Morrison
> > Why are you blaming Berman when his respect for continuity is higher than
> > Roddenberry's?
>
> I would be interested in examples, if you know of any...
> are you referring to warp factors, or other discontinuities attributed to
> Roddenberry?
Among other things, Roddenberry never nailed down when his original
series was supposed to have taken place. Various comments by the
characters would work out to dates between 200 years and 600 years
in the future.
--
Keith
Rob Fabian
"MikeF" <M...@nospamformikef.com> wrote in message
news:9t04vr$3rm$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
It was an old Titan ICBM and it's silo. I had an NCO working for me at the
time (I was an ICBM maintenance officer then) that said that he recognized
the interior silo shots from his days working Titan. The Titan has been out
of our ICBM inventory for a long time. How on earth Cochrane would find one
that still worked along with a working silo (as opposed to being either
destroyed or converted into a launch vehicle and long since used up), much
less one armed with fissile material, defies comprehension.
I got quite a laugh out of the interior silo shots because I've been in our
current silos (both Peacekeeper and Minuteman), there's not enough room to
turn around much less beam in a team unseen!
Rob Fabian
Terry Austin
"David B." <both...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BF31C77...@hotmail.com...
Depends on which of the many conflicting canon sources you consult.
It could also be just under warp 4.
Terry Austin
David Johnston
> Also, I'm not particularly bothered by the lack of physical
> resemblance between the actors portraying Cochrane in TOS and ST:
> First Contact; the James Cromwell version from the movie looks none
> too young, true, but one must remember that the only other time we saw
> him, it was *after* the Companion reversed his aging, and eliminated
> any health defects.
Including giving him a nose job.
Mark Atwood
>
> I got quite a laugh out of the interior silo shots because I've been in our
> current silos (both Peacekeeper and Minuteman), there's not enough room to
> turn around much less beam in a team unseen!
My experience is different than yours.
I've worked in the MM-II/III test silos at VAFB. Yeah, they're too
small to "beam in a team unseen", but the work area around the central
tube is wide enough for two people to walk abreast of each other.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <NmyI7.6217$Lo5.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan) wrote:
>
>> In article <3fd57b8c.01111...@posting.google.com>,
>> Brian McGuinness <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote:
>> >David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:<3BF21B...@telusplanet.net>...
>> >> > >Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
>> >> > >conditions, and how did he handle it?
>> >>
>> >> There is no reason to think his ship had an antimatter power supply.
>
>
>Actually, World War III could be fought primarily with antimatter warheads
>delivered by intercontinental missile.
Could have been. No reason to think it was.
Mark Atwood
> >
> >Actually, World War III could be fought primarily with antimatter warheads
> >delivered by intercontinental missile.
>
> Could have been. No reason to think it was.
If they had antimatter breeders, even if they only generated
milligrams per breeder per day, and at only one percent efficiency,
then running the breeders driven by fission or fusion, and building
the warheads from those, whole eliminate whole rafts of technology,
financial, (dont laugh) environmental impact, political, and
military/logistics problems associated with Pu fission bombs.
The only drawback would be making them so they failed safe and with
affirmative control. Existing fission triggered nukes turn into
useless lumps when you beat on them with a hammer. An antimatter
triggered one will go *BOOM* if you cut the power to it.
Jordan S. Bassior
cluster laser head. In this case the point of using antimatter would be to
reduce the mass neeeded for the warhead, allowing you to have a _lot_ of
lasers.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Jordan S. Bassior
>Actually, World War III could be fought primarily with antimatter warheads
>delivered by intercontinental missile.
This particularly makes sense if the prevalence of energy beam based ABM
systems makes it advantageous to use really _big_ warheads so that a detonation
even at some range can do significant damage to the target.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
David B. <both...@hotmail.com> spake:
> Terry Austin wrote:
>> "Brian McGuinness" <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote in message
>> news:3fd57b8c.01111...@posting.google.com...
>> >but
>> > apparently Gene Roddenberry wanted to make warp 10 the absolute
>> > physical limit to speed,
>> Except they exceeded that several times in TOS.
> recalibrated. IIRC, warp speeds over 10 on TOS are about a 9.something
> on the TNG scale.
More precisely, all the post-Roddenberry stuff is "whatever random
number the committee of soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether
regions."
Trying to make sense of this stuff is like Christians trying to make
sense of the different accounts of the New Testament.
IMO, the only true sequel to the original series is _GalaxyQuest_.
"No, I won't do it! This episode was *badly written*!"
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"No one is safe. We will print no letters to the editor. We will give no
space to opposing points of view. They are wrong. The Underground Grammarian
is at war and will give the enemy nothing but battle." -TUG, v1n1
David Johnston
>
> Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:37:59 -0800 in <3BF31C77...@hotmail.com>,
> David B. <both...@hotmail.com> spake:
> > Terry Austin wrote:
> >> "Brian McGuinness" <brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3fd57b8c.01111...@posting.google.com..
> >> > apparently Gene Roddenberry wanted to make warp 10 the absolute
> >> > physical limit to speed,
> >> Except they exceeded that several times in TOS.
> > That's because between the time of TOS and TNG the warp scale was
> > recalibrated. IIRC, warp speeds over 10 on TOS are about a 9.something
> > on the TNG scale.
>
> More precisely, all the post-Roddenberry stuff is "whatever random
> number the committee of soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether
> regions."
As opposed to the Roddenberry stuff, which was "whatever random number
the individual soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether regions".
Johnny1A
>
> OK, folks, Star Trek's continuity is a mess. I challenge anyone who
> disagrees with me to watch a selection of episodes from the various
> series before they try to prove me wrong. An interesting challenge:
> if _you_ were put in charge of the franchise, with dictatorial powers
> over casting, script, and all the trimmings, how would you set about
> fixing it? Or is it FUBAR?
>
> To add a few points to the posting quoted above:
>
> 1. Way back in Trek Classic, it was mentioned several times that
> Kirk's time was about '200 years' ahead of our own. ISTR that in
> "Tommorrow is Yesterday", a security officer at SAC tells a
> time-travelling Kirk that he's prepared to have him locked up and he
> won't get out for two hundred years, to which Kirk replies a bit
> tiredly, "...that ought to be just about right."
>
> 2. However, also in Trek Classic, the term 300 years was used. IIRC,
> the 200 was used more often, though.
>
> 3. In "Space Seed" Spock gives the _exact years_ of Khan's rule in
> the 20th (not the 21st) century. I don't recall them exactly, but
> they were in the 1990's, not the 2000s.
>
> 4. In the movie, in the aftermath of World War III, supposedly 600
> million people (up from 37 million, as the poster noted) are dead, and
> civilization lies half wrecked. OTOH, _some_ social structure must
> remain, since money retains its value, as Cochrane noted.
>
> (One of my favorite moments in that movie was when Cochrane tells
> Riker that he invented warp drive for the money. That was refreshing
> for a Trek situation!)
>
> Also, where did Z. Cochrane get a supply of antimatter under such
> conditions, and how did he handle it?
>
> 5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek,
> is the warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that
> the warp scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective
> velocity, i.e. Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times
> light-speed, etc. They changed that for STTNG, but for some odd
> reason they didn't change it back for the newest prequel series.
>
> Well, that's a few high points. Anyone feel up to fixing it?
>
> Shermanlee
Let's try this for a more reasonable time line, something closer to
what they _should_ have used. Assuming that the ST time-line diverges
from OTL in the sixties (thus avoiding real-world disturbances),
something like:
1965-1970: Secret Eugenics Experiments carried out, by
governments/private groups/other unknown. Khan born.
1970-1990: Cold War continues. Experiments in space, expanding from
successful Apollo Lunar project, lead to the development of crude but
practical interplanetary engines. First manned expedition to Mars.
Voyager 6 vanishes mysteriously.
1990-2001: Eugenics Wars occur. Meteoric rise and equally rapid fall
of Khan and his fellow supermen. Space travel actually accelerated by
conflict, first true interplanetary spaceships built as side-effect of
war efforts. (Don't ask me why, I have to explain _Space Seed_
somehow.) Khan and his last inner circle of 'supermen' escape
alliance forces into space aboard an interplanetary vessel in
suspended animation. The original plan to sleep it out while the hunt
dies down, then return to Earth later. Ship is placed in solar orbit,
intended to keep it well clear of Earth for 10-20 years. Ship
vanishes mysteriously. Cold War essentially ended by Eugenics Wars.
2001-2025: Space exploration resumes, international situation on
Earth highly tense. Aftermath of Eugenics Wars marked by shortages of
food and raw materials in many regions, constant low-grade warfare in
much of the world. First manned expedition to Saturn, commanded by
Sean Christopher, son of UFO abductee.
Jackson Roykirk launches Nomad One, a deep-space probe with a newtype
of advanced-generation computer control system. N-1 vanishes
mysteriously. A young scientist named Zephram Cochrane begins work at
MIT on a controversial theory which would revise General/Special
Relativity to permit both FTL travel and communications under certain
circumstances.
2025-2040: The constant rumble of low-grade war reaches dangerous
levels. Internal stability breaks down in several Western societies,
culminating in internal and external nuclear war (World War III).
Death toll estimates never entirely certain afterward, depending on
whether one includes the initial direct deaths from the weaponry or
adds in starvation, disease, and privation afterward, the tolls range
from 37 million to 600 million.
2041-2075: The long recovery. Zephram Cochrane successfully tests
his first warp drive starship, the Phoenix, under mysterious
circumstances early in this period. First Contact with the Vulcans
occurs at this time, and with aid from Vulcan, the recovery
accelerates steadily.
2075-2100: The starship _Enterprise_ under Captain Archer is
launched. Propelled by a crude second-generation warp drive, it is
nevertheless an early success. Toward the end of this period, Terran
ships encounter the Romulans, leading to the first true interstellar
war.
2101-2115: The Romulan War. The starship _Valiant_ discovers a
wormhole route that enables it to reach the outskirts of the Galactic
Rim during an exploratory survey.
2116-2120: The formation of the Federation. Local national and
planetary military forces are merged into the new Starfleet.
2121-2130: First contact with the Klingon Empire. James T. Kirk
born.
2135-2150: First war with Klingon Empire.
2151-2155: USS _Enterprise_ NCC 1701 constructed and launched under
command of Robert April, then Christopher Pike.
2159: Battle of Axenar.
2165: James T. Kirk assumes command of _Enterprise_ NCC 1701.
2171: Completion of 5-year mission. During this period, Nomad One
and Khan's ship reappear, both having apparently passed through an
intermittent wormhole near Sol.
2175: V'ger Incident.
2175-2195: Intermittent field action by Admiral/Captain Kirk. Khan
returns. Genesis Incident. Whalesong Incident. Peace Treaty with
Klingons signed.
2200-2250: Long period of expansion. Mostly peaceful, Federation
very successful domestically and internationally. A certain
complacency sets in.
2251-2270: Cardassian War in this period. Near the end of this
period, Jean-Luc Picard takes command of Enterprise-D.
2270-2280: STTNG takes place, mostly. DS9/Voyager allegedly occur.
2281-2290: That's about as far as things go.
I bashed this together on the spot, to try to produce a more plausible
time line than the one presented by the various series. It's very
skeletal. Anyone who can do better I welcome their attempts. I
deliberately ignored most of the time clues they gave in the shows.
Note that by this line, the end of the latest Trek movies would be not
quite 300 years from now.
Comments?
Shermanlee
Rob Fabian
"Mark Atwood" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m3pu6jf...@khem.blackfedora.com...
> "Rob Fabian" <robf...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> > I got quite a laugh out of the interior silo shots because I've been in
our
> > current silos (both Peacekeeper and Minuteman), there's not enough room
to
> > turn around much less beam in a team unseen!
>
> My experience is different than yours.
>
> I've worked in the MM-II/III test silos at VAFB. Yeah, they're too
> small to "beam in a team unseen", but the work area around the central
> tube is wide enough for two people to walk abreast of each other.
>
Well, YMMV. ;-)
That said, I was probably a _bit_ overdramatic in saying 'not enough room to
turn around.' There was, and we did, but it was a small confined area.
Rob Fabian
David
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
Well, World War II was ended with nuclear weapons developed after 1939;
given that, I don't have too much trouble imagining new destructive
weapons coming online sometime in the next 60 years.
David Z
Houston TX
Robert J. Kolker
David wrote:
>
> Well, World War II was ended with nuclear weapons developed after 1939;
> given that, I don't have too much trouble imagining new destructive
> weapons coming online sometime in the next 60 years.
Bin Laden's exploding skull?
Seriously, aside from some anti-matter application I cannot think
of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
Perhaps some kind of a beam weapon. But megawatt lasers in
airplanes have been tried and they simply are not practical weapons.
So no Buck Rogers raygun for us.
The only super weapon I can think of is a biological to which we
cannot develope any immunity, but that would be very, very
highly impractical as it would eventually kill every one, including
the people who deployed it.
Maybe a mutation of the human species that is an unconquerable
fighter, but conveniently drops dead after two years from its
incept date (think Blade Runner here). We are nowhere near
that one either.
Bob Kolker
Eric S Johnson
Only flaw I can find here. Move your centralization of Earth forward a bit
to around here. Enterprise is launched around 50-75 years from 1st contact,
which seems to make more sense.
>
> 2075-2100: The starship _Enterprise_ under Captain Archer is
> launched. Propelled by a crude second-generation warp drive, it is
> nevertheless an early success. Toward the end of this period, Terran
> ships encounter the Romulans, leading to the first true interstellar
> war.
Which would mean this should be around 2125...
> 2101-2115: The Romulan War. The starship _Valiant_ discovers a
> wormhole route that enables it to reach the outskirts of the Galactic
> Rim during an exploratory survey.
Formation of Federation time is fine, Starfleet clearly exists at time of
Enterprise launch though.
Not too bad though.
Eric
Mark Reichert
> born.
Except this is contradicted by the pilot episode of the new series.
Keith Morrison
> Let's try this for a more reasonable time line, something closer to
> what they _should_ have used. Assuming that the ST time-line diverges
> from OTL in the sixties (thus avoiding real-world disturbances),
> something like:
snip
> I bashed this together on the spot, to try to produce a more plausible
> time line than the one presented by the various series. It's very
> skeletal. Anyone who can do better I welcome their attempts. I
> deliberately ignored most of the time clues they gave in the shows.
> Note that by this line, the end of the latest Trek movies would be not
> quite 300 years from now.
Well, you not only ignored time clues but explicit date references.
The founding of the Federation was explicitely stated as 2161 in "The
Next Generation" and the current year (the first season of TNG) was
2364.
--
Keith
Gordon Smith
wrote:
>The only problem between the original series, the film and
>now "Enterprise" is the reference to him being from Alpha
>Centauri in the old series. Even if it's just a reference
>to him having moved there, there still wouldn't be a heck
>of a lot of time for people to associate him with the
>system before he disappeared.
He could have been away from Earth for most of the time between First
Contact and the Broken Bow speech.
I've heard that the reference in The Companion is to him being
"of Centauri" rather than "from Alpha Centauri". We could always say
that refers to "Centauri-YoyoDyne Propulsion Systems, Inc" or
something.
--
Gordon Smith
Mike Miller
>
> Seriously, aside from some anti-matter application I cannot think
> of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
A supernova?
Or did you mean practical battlefield weapons? ;)
> Perhaps some kind of a beam weapon. But megawatt lasers in
> airplanes have been tried and they simply are not practical weapons.
> So no Buck Rogers raygun for us.
What do you mean? Was the ABL project canceled recently?
The chemical oxygen-iodine laser for it is very practical,
albeit fuel limited.
http://www.airbornelaser.com/special/abl/news/
It still seems to be moving forward, including conducting tests
this year.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Robert J. Kolker
Mike Miller wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BF4E1F0...@mediaone.net>...
> >
> > Seriously, aside from some anti-matter application I cannot think
> > of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
>
> A supernova?
As a weapon? That we can control?
>
>
> Or did you mean practical battlefield weapons? ;)
That is what I mean. I should have been clearer.
I seriously doubt than any beam weapon will match
good old slug and shell throwing in the near or even
medium future.
Bob Kolker
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> spake:
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>> More precisely, all the post-Roddenberry stuff is "whatever random
>> number the committee of soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether
>> regions."
> As opposed to the Roddenberry stuff, which was "whatever random number
> the individual soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether regions".
More or less. But an individual writer may be intelligent (and some
of them were), and even follow consistent rules (the writer's bible, for
instance). At worst, you'll have a bad episode, and hopefully learn
never to use that writer again.
A committee, though, is *incapable* of producing anything of quality;
they can only produce pablum because that's all that's acceptable to
everyone, and it will be incorrectly-formulated pablum because they'll
"compromise" on all the decisions, rather than determining which one is
actually correct.
For real-world proof, I offer you the W3C's XML Schema specification.
mike
> of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
I recall reading that Teller(Coldest of all ColdWarriors)
remarked that its possible to build 1000 megaton HBombs, but
no need to, as much anything past 50 just blows most of the energy
out thru the athmosphere into deep space. dropping a bunch
of MIRV'ed 50-100kt bombs would do more than a single megaton
sized citykiller.
Monster bombs are for ÜberBunkers like at Cheyenne Mountain or
the various smaller Soviet command bunkers. kind of waste for
lesser targets
> Perhaps some kind of a beam weapon. But megawatt lasers in
> airplanes have been tried and they simply are not practical weapons.
> So no Buck Rogers raygun for us.
Best 'Bad Sci-Fi' weapon I like is the Meson Gun from the RPG
Traveller, where a stream of the charged particles are generated,
focused, then pass thru any amount of matter till they get to the desired
range, where they then decay into other particles, which then
have an nuclear effect.
Now emplace these cannons at the bottom of _very_ deep shafts
and cap them off.. Thes guns are able to fire 360° in all axis-
thru the planets core to hit any possible target, while immune from
counterbattery fire: unless you crack the planet to get at them,
or destroy all ground based sensors for them.
**
mike
**
machf
Plus, Archer's Enterprise was launched in 2161 and Cochrane was born in 2030...
(not sure if the latter was given as a specific date...)
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|( http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/2645
remove the "no_me_j." in front of the address when replying
David Johnston
>
> Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:27:52 GMT in <3BF488...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> spake:
> > Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> >> More precisely, all the post-Roddenberry stuff is "whatever random
> >> number the committee of soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether
> >> regions."
> > As opposed to the Roddenberry stuff, which was "whatever random number
> > the individual soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether regions".
>
> More or less. But an individual writer may be intelligent (and some
> of them were), and even follow consistent rules
Which they didn't, in this regard.
David Johnston
>
> Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:27:52 GMT in <3BF488...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> spake:
> > Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> >> More precisely, all the post-Roddenberry stuff is "whatever random
> >> number the committee of soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether
> >> regions."
> > As opposed to the Roddenberry stuff, which was "whatever random number
> > the individual soi-disant writers have pulled from their nether regions".
>
> More or less. But an individual writer may be intelligent (and some
> of them were), and even follow consistent rules (the writer's bible, for
> instance).
Which they didn't.
At worst, you'll have a bad episode, and hopefully learn
> never to use that writer again.
>
> A committee, though, is *incapable* of producing anything of quality;
> they can only produce pablum because that's all that's acceptable to
> everyone, and it will be incorrectly-formulated pablum because they'll
> "compromise" on all the decisions, rather than determining which one is
> actually correct.
One notes that the best Star Trek was produced by compromises between Roddenberry
and the suits, and then by the committee of writers running things after him.
When Roddenberry was fully in charge and given a free hand the result was pretty
much garbage.
Johnny1A
Near future, I agree. Medium future I'm less sure about. It depends
as much on the technology of energy storage as it does the beam weapon
itself.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
Yes, I _said_ I was ignoring the times given, this was supposed to be
a timeling that would have been _better_ than the ones officially
given in the various shows. That's the whole point.
Shermanlee
Damien Raphael Sullivan
>> >5. Another oddity to be accounted for, if we're trying to fix Trek, is the
>> >warp scale. In Trek Classic, it was clearly established that the warp
>> >scale used a cube of the number for the actual effective velocity, i.e.
>> >Warp 6 was 216 times light speed, Warp 3 was 27 times light-speed,
>
>Nothing of the kind was ever clearly established.
Then there's the Enterprise premiere, which gave enough times and distances to
calculate that it was going at about 100c, which is close enough to 4.5 cubed.
It is, however, a bit too slow to get anywhere in 4 days, which I think was
their time to the Klingon homeworld. At 100c you can make a bit over a light
year in 4 days; Alpha Centauri is still a week off. I don't think the Klingon
homeworld is in the Oort cloud...
-xx- Damien X-)
Mike Ralls
Here's the real truth behind Star Trek:
The Federation is actually a totalitarian dictatorship and the show that
WE watch is there propoganda show. Think of it, there is no money, and
it's all supposed to be Utopian like, and the Federation is shown to be
perfect except for some flawed invidviduals. Think of it as if someone
from the 19th century Russia was watching a Soviet Union TV drama. They
would only see the good things, and none of the bad. The few bad things
that would happen would be blamed on the "mad" Starfleet Admirals, who
of course would be shown as an excuse to blaim mistakes and justfiy the
purges.
The timeline problems are a result of an Orwellian effort to re-write
history to better suit the climate as major changes happen. As our
storylines (IE, the Klingons are are enemies in Trek, friends in Next
Gen, because of a change in alliances that the regime had to justify.
Ditto with the Vulcans becoming vaguely menacing in Enterprise).
--
Mike Ralls
Lyn David Thomas
<mike...@hachigamenet.ne.jp> wrote:
>Here's the real truth behind Star Trek:
>
>The Federation is actually a totalitarian dictatorship and the show that
>WE watch is there propoganda show. Think of it, there is no money, and
>it's all supposed to be Utopian like, and the Federation is shown to be
>perfect except for some flawed invidviduals. Think of it as if someone
>from the 19th century Russia was watching a Soviet Union TV drama. They
>would only see the good things, and none of the bad. The few bad things
>that would happen would be blamed on the "mad" Starfleet Admirals, who
>of course would be shown as an excuse to blaim mistakes and justfiy the
> purges.
As I said Blake's 7 and Star Trek are in the same universe at the same
time, just propaganda from different sides.
--
\/ Lyn David Thomas
Webpages start at:
http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny1A wrote:
> Near future, I agree. Medium future I'm less sure about. It depends
> as much on the technology of energy storage as it does the beam weapon
> itself.
I am not so sure about that. Have you seen what an A-10 (Warthog)
throwing spent uranium slugs can do to a tank? Even Gort from
- The Day the Earth Stood Still - would have a time matching that.
Perhaps there is some expert here who could compute how many
Joules of energy a Wart Hog can unleash on a tank using good old
kinetic energy. BTW, the human race has been using kinetic energy
kill weapons since we were monkies who got down from the trees.
These K.E.W-s have served us very well. They are hard to improve
upon.
Bob Kolker
Mike Ralls
> As I said Blake's 7 and Star Trek are in the same universe at the same
> time, just propaganda from different sides.
I've never watched Blake 7. What's it about?
--
Mike Ralls
Fabian
"mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Best 'Bad Sci-Fi' weapon I like is the Meson Gun from the RPG
> Traveller, where a stream of the charged particles are generated,
> focused, then pass thru any amount of matter till they get to the
desired
> range, where they then decay into other particles, which then
> have an nuclear effect.
>
> Now emplace these cannons at the bottom of _very_ deep shafts
> and cap them off.. Thes guns are able to fire 360° in all axis-
> thru the planets core to hit any possible target, while immune from
> counterbattery fire: unless you crack the planet to get at them,
> or destroy all ground based sensors for them.
That's nothing. Underground bunkers for meson vannon are passe on the
traveller mailing list. We figured that a smart admiral could triangulate
the meson fire after 2-3 ships were lost, and then use *his* mesons
against the undergrond bunker.
No, we found something even more nightmarish - submarine-mounted meson
cannon! Shoot through anything, space combat range, big as you like
almost, and immune to threats from triangulation!
We banned meson guns in my game - they were a bit unbalanced.
--
--
Fabian
To find out what makes paranoiacs tic, follow them around and watch them
for a while.
Robert J. Kolker
Mike Ralls wrote:
A bunch of ad hoc Rebels going against the Evil
Federation. In the end they lose. Evil triumphs,
because of better technology and numbers.
Bob Kolker
Mike Miller
> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BF4E1F0...@mediaone.net>...
> > >
> > > Seriously, aside from some anti-matter application I cannot think
> > > of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
> >
> > A supernova?
>
> As a weapon? That we can control?
Muahahahahahaha! I, Dr. Miller, demand the UN hand over $60
billion dollars immediately and acknowledge me as sole ruler
of the world or I will cause the sun to Supernova!!!!
Sure it'd be controllable, in the sense an A-bomb is a
controlled application of supercritical fission reactions.
Now, we just need one mad scientist to invent it and hold
the world hostage....
> I seriously doubt than any beam weapon will match
> good old slug and shell throwing in the near or even
> medium future.
In the narrow case of ballistic missile defense, I
disagree. The ABL seems to be progressing nicely.
Otherwise I expect to see the US military using M-16
derivatives for several more decades.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Jerry Brown
>One type of continuity flaw is when they come up with a super weapon - say a
>fluid to make people move real fast. They even use it relatively
>frivolously at the end. And then it is forgotten.
The telekenisis serum that McCoy whips up from the local (IIRC) fruit
in 'Plato's Stepchildren' springs to mind. That would be really handy
in any future 'Leave you weapons behind, humans!' situtations.
>When Wild Wild West did this, at least it was made out of expensive diamonds
>from a secret recipe.
Wish they'd show this again; it's not been on in the UK since the late
seventies, and I guess that the film has killed off any chance of it
appearing again soon.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Robert J. Kolker
Mike Miller wrote:
> > > A supernova?
> >
> > As a weapon? That we can control?
>
> Muahahahahahaha! I, Dr. Miller, demand the UN hand over $60
> billion dollars immediately and acknowledge me as sole ruler
> of the world or I will cause the sun to Supernova!!!!
To which we reply. Go ahead. Dr. Mad will not be able to
enjoy his money if the Sun goes poof.
Bob Kolker
Bill Snyder
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BF55CBA...@mediaone.net>...
>> Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BF4E1F0...@mediaone.net>...
>> > >
>> > > Seriously, aside from some anti-matter application I cannot think
>> > > of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
>> >
>> > A supernova?
>>
>> As a weapon? That we can control?
>
>Muahahahahahaha! I, Dr. Miller, demand the UN hand over $60
>billion dollars immediately and acknowledge me as sole ruler
>of the world or I will cause the sun to Supernova!!!!
Yeah, right -- now prove to me that you've got it and it actually
works, without eliminating in the process my ability to pay up &
kowtow, and yours to enjoy wealth and power.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Dave Conrad
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BF55CBA...@mediaone.net>...
>
>>Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BF4E1F0...@mediaone.net>...
>>>
>>>>Seriously, aside from some anti-matter application I cannot think
>>>>of anything more energetic and some high mega-tonnage H-bomb.
>>>>
>>>A supernova?
>>>
>>As a weapon? That we can control?
>>
>
> Muahahahahahaha! I, Dr. Miller, demand the UN hand over $60
> billion dollars immediately and acknowledge me as sole ruler
> of the world or I will cause the sun to Supernova!!!!
>
>
I used to play Champions in the mid '80s, and you could build some pretty
powerful dudes, if you didn't mind some disadvantages. I had a
character that had rapid regeneration with the disad 'usable only when
dead', which made things . . . interesting. The GM developed a villain
'Nova Boy', who had the ability to make the sun go nova, disad 'usable
only once'. Of course, I don't know how he intended to demonstrate the
ability, but when no one caved in to his demands, he carried through on
the threat. The PCs had to figure out how to undo it before the sun
actually novaed. That was different.
--
Dave C. (Plug & Play)
iN*T*x
"To break the rules is to break the spell" - C. Lasch
Member, Team AWWAJALOOM (http://www.theferrett.com/theteam.htm)
Mark Jason Dominus
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:05:04 GMT, how...@brazee.net wrote:
>
>>One type of continuity flaw is when they come up with a super weapon - say a
>>fluid to make people move real fast. They even use it relatively
>>frivolously at the end. And then it is forgotten.
>
>The telekenisis serum that McCoy whips up from the local (IIRC) fruit
>in 'Plato's Stepchildren' springs to mind. That would be really handy
>in any future 'Leave you weapons behind, humans!' situtations.
Heck, the transporter itself is an example. There's more than one
episode in which something goes wrong with the main characters'
bodies, and they get the transporter to restore them to the way they
were. If they can do that, why have sickbay at all?
Maybe that's why nobody cared how many interchangeable redshirts were
expended: They really were interchangeable, and the transporter
department could always grind out a few more copies from the master
pattern. (Hello, Redsh-R-TT-5! Your previous instatiation met its
death at the petals of a poisonous plant on Procyon IV. The
federation is your friend!)
--
@P=split//,".URRUU\c8R";@d=split//,"\nrekcah xinU / lreP rehtona tsuJ";sub p{
@p{"r$p","u$p"}=(P,P);pipe"r$p","u$p";++$p;($q*=2)+=$f=!fork;map{$P=$P[$f^ord
($p{$_})&6];$p{$_}=/ ^$P/ix?$P:close$_}keys%p}p;p;p;p;p;map{$p{$_}=~/^[P.]/&&
close$_}%p;wait until$?;map{/^r/&&<$_>}%p;$_=$d[$q];sleep rand(2)if/\S/;print
Uri Bruck
>I bashed this together on the spot, to try to produce a more plausible
>time line than the one presented by the various series. It's very
>skeletal. Anyone who can do better I welcome their attempts. I
>deliberately ignored most of the time clues they gave in the shows.
Clues? TWOK begins with a caption "The 23rd Century"
That's slightly more than a clue.
Since then, calendar references are pretty consistent. Including a
date for the founding of the Federation 2161
>Note that by this line, the end of the latest Trek movies would be not
>quite 300 years from now.
>
>Comments?
>
> Shermanlee
Cernunnos
Wow, thats a little more realistic than sci fi usually gets.
Margaret Young
wrote:
>Mike Ralls <mike...@hachigamenet.ne.jp> wrote in
><3BF66BBC...@hachigamenet.ne.jp>:
>Clever. Now go write the fanfic. :) Really, I know someone else who says
>ST is fascist but uses the phrase "make it so" for proof.
>
>Omixochitl
Me too, would love to read it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Young
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Speech Communication
Albion College
mmy...@umich.edu or myo...@albion.edu
(517)629-0329
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
David Johnston
> >The timeline problems are a result of an Orwellian effort to re-write
> >history to better suit the climate as major changes happen. As our
> >storylines (IE, the Klingons are are enemies in Trek, friends in Next
> >Gen, because of a change in alliances that the regime had to justify.
> >Ditto with the Vulcans becoming vaguely menacing in Enterprise).
>
> Clever. Now go write the fanfic. :) Really, I know someone else who says
> ST is fascist but uses the phrase "make it so" for proof.
A better piece of evidence is the position of Counsellor. Consider that TNG
Enterprise class cruisers have an officer on board whose only role is to monitor
the crew for thought deviance and correct such problems. Essentially, she's
a political officer.
Margaret Young
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
I think you have something going there.
Remember in the "Hollow Pursuits" when we first met Reginald Barcley -
part of Riker's complaint about Barcley was that he "didn't fit in"
that he had never been properly part of the group that he was
inappropriately a loner.
I remember even at the time I first saw the episode this gave me a
creeping flesh feeling at the back of my neck. Yeah, this is the
utopian future and apparently we are all supposed to "fit the mold"
and be the same.
And remember it was the Counsellor to whom his long-term
"re-education" was assigned.
Margaret
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the
faint smell of cat pee.
Joe Slater
>>
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=35e851f8.170918166%40news.onaustralia.com.au&hl=en
jds
--
Joe Slater was but a low-grade paranoiac, whose fantastic notions must
have come from the crude hereditary folk-tales which circulated in even
the most decadent of communities.
_Beyond the Wall of Sleep_ by H P Lovecraft
Robert Sneddon
<bobk...@mediaone.net> writes
>
>I am not so sure about that. Have you seen what an A-10 (Warthog)
>throwing spent uranium slugs can do to a tank?
A 1980's Soviet-surplus tank, yes. A modern Western MBT, not a lot.
Chobham armour is *good*.
> Even Gort from
>- The Day the Earth Stood Still - would have a time matching that.
>Perhaps there is some expert here who could compute how many
>Joules of energy a Wart Hog can unleash on a tank using good old
>kinetic energy.
Fifty rounds of small (30mm) DU penetrators spread over armour that can
resist a 120mm DU penetrator round weighing ten or twelve times what
each 30mm round weighs? No contest. The tank wins every time.
> BTW, the human race has been using kinetic energy
>kill weapons since we were monkies who got down from the trees.
>These K.E.W-s have served us very well. They are hard to improve
>upon.
Modern thinking is for a Really Big penetrator, maybe a couple of feet
long, with rocket-acceleration assistance just before impact.
Unfortunately, it can't be fired from either tank guns or artillery. An
MLRS might work.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Robert Sneddon
<m...@plover.com> writes
>Maybe that's why nobody cared how many interchangeable redshirts were
>expended: They really were interchangeable, and the transporter
>department could always grind out a few more copies from the master
>pattern. (Hello, Redsh-R-TT-5! Your previous instatiation met its
>death at the petals of a poisonous plant on Procyon IV. The
>federation is your friend!)
Kirk, McCoy and Spock step onto the transporter. Scotty energises the
controls (what the photon does that *mean*?) On arrival on the planet's
surface they are surrounded by six redshirted security personnel.
Martin Soederstroem
wrote:
>On 17 Nov 2001 22:05:56 GMT, Omixochitl <omixo...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Clever. Now go write the fanfic. :) Really, I know someone else who says
>>ST is fascist but uses the phrase "make it so" for proof.
While waiting for someone to write it, you might read _Dark Mirror_ by
Diane Duane. Although it apparently also features a dolphin.
--
Martin
This is not a sig.
James Bodi
---Yes, and note how happy she was in just such a role on a Romulan vessel:
allowed to bare her teeth for once. Also, ever notice all those agricultural
colonies the Federation had? Everyone happily toiling away outside the SoCal
style pueblo even though a single replicator could have fed and housed the
lot of them? Gulags.
I won't even mention the pathetic attempt to represent TWO separate species
as an enemy race designated "Klingons'. Or the equally absurd propaganda
that Vulcan resistance fighters were a separate species called 'Romulans'.
>
>
Jordan S. Bassior
> Fifty rounds of small (30mm) DU penetrators spread over armour that can
>resist a 120mm DU penetrator round weighing ten or twelve times what
>each 30mm round weighs? No contest. The tank wins every time.
Depends -- the reason the Warthog can kill the tank is because it's not limited
to strafing the (thick) frontal armor, it can also strafe the (thinner) side,
rear, or top armor.
(this is also why AT mines can kill tanks -- belly plates are rarely all that
thick).
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Johnny1A
Depends on what you mean by 'improve upon'. Beam weapons, when they
do finally arrive, won't _replace_ kinetics, they'll be one more tool
in a nasty toolkit.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> In article <7tncvtomcipenn717...@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:05:04 GMT, how...@brazee.net wrote:
> >
> >>One type of continuity flaw is when they come up with a super weapon - say a
> >>fluid to make people move real fast. They even use it relatively
> >>frivolously at the end. And then it is forgotten.
> >
> >The telekenisis serum that McCoy whips up from the local (IIRC) fruit
> >in 'Plato's Stepchildren' springs to mind. That would be really handy
> >in any future 'Leave you weapons behind, humans!' situtations.
>
> Heck, the transporter itself is an example. There's more than one
> episode in which something goes wrong with the main characters'
> bodies, and they get the transporter to restore them to the way they
> were. If they can do that, why have sickbay at all?
>
> Maybe that's why nobody cared how many interchangeable redshirts were
> expended: They really were interchangeable, and the transporter
> department could always grind out a few more copies from the master
> pattern. (Hello, Redsh-R-TT-5! Your previous instatiation met its
> death at the petals of a poisonous plant on Procyon IV. The
> federation is your friend!)
As I have pointed out before, the transporter is time's enemy. If
I've got a ST transporter, what I'm going to do is record my pattern
now, in my early thirties, copy it about fifty billion ways on
different media, and then, when I feel age catching up with me, I scan
my mind _then_, superimpose it on the older pattern, and bamf!
Practical immortality.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>
>
> >I bashed this together on the spot, to try to produce a more plausible
> >time line than the one presented by the various series. It's very
> >skeletal. Anyone who can do better I welcome their attempts. I
> >deliberately ignored most of the time clues they gave in the shows.
>
> Clues? TWOK begins with a caption "The 23rd Century"
> That's slightly more than a clue.
> Since then, calendar references are pretty consistent. Including a
> date for the founding of the Federation 2161
The dates are _not_ consistent, that's part of what got this thread
going in the first place. Many specific dates and date-ranges are
given over the course of 5 TV shows (six if we count the animated
series) and several movies. They are inconsistent with each other and
with physical possibility.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
Depends. Most stories tend to focus on the winners, but the
assumption is usually that lots of other people have fought the bad
guy(s) and bad gal(s) and failed. Blake's Seven is unusual in
focusing primarily on a band of heroes who fail.
Shermanlee
Joe Slater
>Most stories tend to focus on the winners, but the
>assumption is usually that lots of other people have fought the bad
>guy(s) and bad gal(s) and failed. Blake's Seven is unusual in
>focusing primarily on a band of heroes who fail.
Heroes? You've got the crook, the idiot, the traitor ...
John Schilling
>Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>> As I said Blake's 7 and Star Trek are in the same universe at the same
>> time, just propaganda from different sides.
>I've never watched Blake's 7. What's it about?
A group of people, not numbering seven, led by a man not named Blake :-)
OK, straight answer. Blake is a medium high ranking bureaucrat in an
allegedly totalitarian futuristic regime known as "The Federation".
I say allegedly because we never see it save through the eyes of its
enemies, though it admittedly seems quite unconcerned with due process
of law in pursuit of same.
In the first episode, Blake is recruited by a resistance group with a
strange tale about his past, really sucks at the whole resistance thing,
and winds up a political prisoner on a one-way trip to a prison planet.
If not before he is certainly now quite self-righeously committed to the
rebel cause, though IMHO never terribly good at it. Other prisoners on
the same ship are rather less political; in particular, an extremely
ruthless Moriarty type named Avon and an extremely cowardly but skillful
thief named Villa.
The prison transport runs across a derelict alien spacecraft, at which
point any veteran SF fan knows two things are inevitable: The derelict
will turn out to be an extremely powerful star cruiser, and our band
of heroic misfits (well, antiheroic misfits some) will wind up in control
of it. They rename it the "Liberator" and set out to overthrow the corrupt
and evil Federation.
OK, so Avon and Villa in particular would be just as eager to overthrow
an honorable and decent Federation out of pure self-interest; the Feds
want them to die in prison, a new regime might be more open-minded where
Heroes of the Revolution are concerned. Everyone understands that Blake's
sincerity and charisma make him the obvious front man, some of them at
least partially share his views, so they are off.
Since there are six of them, the ship has a sentient AI, and Blake is the
acknowledged front man, we get "Blake's 7". But this isn't the sort of
show where only meaningless red-shirts die and nothing ever changes, so
the number is rarely seven and Blake is only the leader for two of the
four seasons.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Johnny1A
> fOn Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:24:29 GMT, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Omixochitl wrote:
> >
> >> >The timeline problems are a result of an Orwellian effort to re-write
> >> >history to better suit the climate as major changes happen. As our
> >> >storylines (IE, the Klingons are are enemies in Trek, friends in Next
> >> >Gen, because of a change in alliances that the regime had to justify.
> >> >Ditto with the Vulcans becoming vaguely menacing in Enterprise).
> >>
> >> Clever. Now go write the fanfic. :) Really, I know someone else who says
> >> ST is fascist but uses the phrase "make it so" for proof.
> >
> >A better piece of evidence is the position of Counsellor. Consider that TNG
> >Enterprise class cruisers have an officer on board whose only role is to monitor
> >the crew for thought deviance and correct such problems. Essentially, she's
> >a political officer.
> >
>
> I think you have something going there.
>
> Remember in the "Hollow Pursuits" when we first met Reginald Barcley -
> part of Riker's complaint about Barcley was that he "didn't fit in"
> that he had never been properly part of the group that he was
> inappropriately a loner.
>
> I remember even at the time I first saw the episode this gave me a
> creeping flesh feeling at the back of my neck. Yeah, this is the
> utopian future and apparently we are all supposed to "fit the mold"
> and be the same.
Every fictional utopia I've ever seen or heard of suffered from this
problem.
The real-world attempts at creating them (USSR, Cambodia, N. Vietnam
and later S. Vietnam, Jonestown, etc) then to be worse. You always
seem to start with a Vision and end up with 're-education programs'
and a body count.
>
> And remember it was the Counsellor to whom his long-term
> "re-education" was assigned.
Barclay was always one of my favorite STTNG characters! He's so
_human_, in the general sense. He's smart, but shy, nervous with
women, and a little scared of the disaster potential inherent in the
machines they use.
There is an episode of STTNG worth watching purely for seeing
Barclay's reaction to the computer's summary of a medical syndrome
called 'transporter psychosis'.
BTY, McCoy was right. (Unfortuantely, the end of that episode
contained a technical howler so bad as to be laughage even by ST
standards, but it's still worth watching).
Shermanlee
Uri Bruck
But I wasn't refering to date references over 5 shows. I was refering
very explicitly to date references since STII:TWOK
How can they be inconsistent with physical possibility?
What does that mean, anyway?
>
> Shermanlee
Blaine Manyluk
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:05:04 GMT, how...@brazee.net wrote:
> >One type of continuity flaw is when they come up with a super weapon - say a
> >fluid to make people move real fast. They even use it relatively
> >frivolously at the end. And then it is forgotten.
>
> The telekenisis serum that McCoy whips up from the local (IIRC) fruit
> in 'Plato's Stepchildren' springs to mind. That would be really handy
> in any future 'Leave you weapons behind, humans!' situtations.
Combine them into a drug that gives one super-speed and telekinesis!
And if that was not enough, the Galactic Energy Barrier can, for some
individuals, permanently boost psionic abilities to god-like levels.
=====================================================================
BLAINE MANYLUK - Posting from beautiful south-side Edmonton, AB, CA
www.gordent.com - www.gordent.com/warpwar
=====================================================================
"If the _Monsters Inc._ civilization is advanced enough for an
interdimensional wormhole technology, how come it hasn't come up
with a paperless office?"
=====================================================================
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>Since there are six of them, the ship has a sentient AI, and Blake is the
>acknowledged front man, we get "Blake's 7". But this isn't the sort of
>show where only meaningless red-shirts die and nothing ever changes, so
>the number is rarely seven and Blake is only the leader for two of the
>four seasons.
It combined the usual interesting story lines and low budget that we
have come to expect from BBC SF productions. It did produce one of
the more memorable villans - Servalan (first as Supreme Commander of
the military of the Terran Federation and later as Madam President and
Supreme Commander of the Terran Federation).
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/SciFi/Blakes7/
For more details.
--
\/ Lyn David Thomas
Webpages start at:
http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk
Nicholas Smid
Robert Sneddon wrote in message ...
>In article <3BF62E1D...@mediaone.net>, Robert J. Kolker
><bobk...@mediaone.net> writes
>>
>>I am not so sure about that. Have you seen what an A-10 (Warthog)
>>throwing spent uranium slugs can do to a tank?
>
> A 1980's Soviet-surplus tank, yes. A modern Western MBT, not a lot.
>Chobham armour is *good*.
>
the vertical armour, it goes through the decking, ripes up suspentions
and exsternal fule tanks. An M1a2's deck armour is not usefuly
thicker than that of a T-55, sorry the big boy gets hurt bad, though its
crew probably have a better chance of living to bore their grandkids
with the story.
>> Even Gort from
>>- The Day the Earth Stood Still - would have a time matching that.
>>Perhaps there is some expert here who could compute how many
>>Joules of energy a Wart Hog can unleash on a tank using good old
>>kinetic energy.
>
> Fifty rounds of small (30mm) DU penetrators spread over armour that can
>resist a 120mm DU penetrator round weighing ten or twelve times what
>each 30mm round weighs? No contest. The tank wins every time.
>
through the thickest part of the armour, hit him on the roof and it gets
lots easier.
>> BTW, the human race has been using kinetic energy
>>kill weapons since we were monkies who got down from the trees.
>>These K.E.W-s have served us very well. They are hard to improve
>>upon.
>
> Modern thinking is for a Really Big penetrator, maybe a couple of feet
>long, with rocket-acceleration assistance just before impact.
>Unfortunately, it can't be fired from either tank guns or artillery. An
>MLRS might work.
>
intergel rocket/ramjet or scramjet, mach 5 or so on delivery. That should
be enough to get about any practical mobile armours attention. This
was from a 1978 design project, Spark.
Ofcourse if you want a serious KE wepon you could always work
the bugs out of Thore.
Chemicel propelents are a suprisingly effective way of storing
energy, the launch systems are relitivly simple and highly
rodust, with a long history of being resonably soldure proof.
Lyn David Thomas
A little simplistic but essentially that is it, on the way they do
have some success but ultimately they lose. The last season was
spectacularly depressing.
Lyn David Thomas
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>>Most stories tend to focus on the winners, but the
>>assumption is usually that lots of other people have fought the bad
>>guy(s) and bad gal(s) and failed. Blake's Seven is unusual in
>>focusing primarily on a band of heroes who fail.
>
>Heroes? You've got the crook, the idiot, the traitor ...
>
Yet they are heros, and no one is an idiot in it... Villa is a coward
but no fool. Avon is a self agrandising bastard but with a mission,
Blake is a huge ego etc.
Jerry Brown
wrote:
Even Banks' Culture?
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Jerry Brown
wrote:
>fOn Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:24:29 GMT, David Johnston
><rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>>Omixochitl wrote:
>>
>>> >The timeline problems are a result of an Orwellian effort to re-write
>>> >history to better suit the climate as major changes happen. As our
>>> >storylines (IE, the Klingons are are enemies in Trek, friends in Next
>>> >Gen, because of a change in alliances that the regime had to justify.
>>> >Ditto with the Vulcans becoming vaguely menacing in Enterprise).
>>>
>>> Clever. Now go write the fanfic. :) Really, I know someone else who says
>>> ST is fascist but uses the phrase "make it so" for proof.
>>
>>A better piece of evidence is the position of Counsellor. Consider that TNG
>>Enterprise class cruisers have an officer on board whose only role is to monitor
>>the crew for thought deviance and correct such problems. Essentially, she's
>>a political officer.
>>
>
>I think you have something going there.
>
>Remember in the "Hollow Pursuits" when we first met Reginald Barcley -
>part of Riker's complaint about Barcley was that he "didn't fit in"
>that he had never been properly part of the group that he was
>inappropriately a loner.
>
>I remember even at the time I first saw the episode this gave me a
>creeping flesh feeling at the back of my neck. Yeah, this is the
>utopian future and apparently we are all supposed to "fit the mold"
>and be the same.
However, Barclay was (for whatever reason I've never been able to
fathom) a Starfleet officer and presumably expected to meet some
social standards. I don't get the impression that the average
Federation citizen can be hauled off for reeducation just for not
fitting in; remember Sisko's anger at the introduction of compulsory
blood checks on civilians to see if they were disguised Founders.
>And remember it was the Counsellor to whom his long-term
>"re-education" was assigned.
IIRC, Riker's first choice for the Barclay problem was to transfer him
to a less high profile ship and mission, and Barclay appeared to have
the option of resignation, so all-in-all the 're-education' came
across as the most humane solution given that he _wanted_ to stay on
as an officer of the Enterprise. Personally I think he would have done
a far better job as a civilian research scientist (these days, as it
were, he a scientist, but still within Starfleet).
BTW, I was far more wound up by the Voyager episode with the 3
crewmembers who were happy just to ride out their normal duties until
they got home, and whom The Reverend Mother insisted should go off on
an away mission with her for the sake of their career/lifestyle
development. Brought back ghastly memories of when my employer tried
to send me on an Outward Bounds course a decade ago (I only wake up
screaming a couple of times a year now).