Board index › Topical Discussion › Television, Film, and Video

Star Trek

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Which is your Favourite?
The Original Series 16%  16%  [ 12 ]
The Next Generation 41%  41%  [ 30 ]
Deep Space Nine 23%  23%  [ 17 ]
Voyager 12%  12%  [ 9 ]
Enterprise 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 74

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 May 2012, 9:55 am

Star Trek spaceships are phony. All the flight decks are parallel to the thrust rather than perpendicular.



tb86
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,831
Location: South Wales

12 May 2012, 10:30 am

brawnybalboa says

Quote:
Boundaries were pushed again such as homosexuality (Quarks gay kiss and Jadzia's brief love with another woman), racism (Ben Sisko as Benny Russell), Black Ops with Section 31, revolution/terrorism (the rise of the new Cardassian movement), religion (Pah Wraiths & Prophets), war refugees (Skrreeans), womens & workers rights (Ferengi Episodes) and the morality of war (In the Pale Moonlight). For me this made the series a lot more interesting and enjoyable.


I think that's one of the reasons I love DS9, though at times I don't really think about it. It's mostly because of character development, strong stories and at times awesome action and sfx. The whole religion and science thing was kinda interesting, though I'm not really a religious person as I don't belong to any religion or go to church. I guess I'm keeping my options open. Also when did Quark have a gay kiss. Was it in that episode with the female diguised ferengi or the one where he had a sex change operation in order to fill in with his mother. Because technically it's not portraying that kind of stuff.



brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru

12 May 2012, 10:56 am

tb86 wrote:
I think that's one of the reasons I love DS9, though at times I don't really think about it. It's mostly because of character development, strong stories and at times awesome action and sfx. The whole religion and science thing was kinda interesting, though I'm not really a religious person as I don't belong to any religion or go to church. I guess I'm keeping my options open. Also when did Quark have a gay kiss. Was it in that episode with the female diguised ferengi or the one where he had a sex change operation in order to fill in with his mother. Because technically it's not portraying that kind of stuff.


It was the episode where he had a sex change and kissed the owner of the cola company in front of brunt.

androbot2084 wrote:
Star Trek spaceships are phony. All the flight decks are parallel to the thrust rather than perpendicular.


The space shuttles had flight decks parallel to thrust, and they were very phony.....



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

14 May 2012, 8:54 am

The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

14 May 2012, 9:45 am

DS9 was my favourite.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2012, 2:13 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane.


And to think, we wasted decades flying this "high flying plane," when we could have been building real spacecraft, and maybe we would have reached Mars by now.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru

19 May 2012, 11:59 am

androbot2084 wrote:
The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane.


The dictionary definition of spacecraft (encompassing the noun spaceship) is as follows:

a vehicle designed for travel or operation in space beyond the earths atmosphere or in orbit around the earth

Hence saying that the space shuttle is not a 'real' spaceship is an incorrect observation.

Kraichgauer wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane.


And to think, we wasted decades flying this "high flying plane," when we could have been building real spacecraft, and maybe we would have reached Mars by now.


How can you say that NASA wasted its time devoted to the construction and development of the space shuttle programme? How can you say that 'real' spacecraft could have been built in its presence?

The aim of NASA was not to visit the Moon, or Mars using the Space Shuttles, but to design a reusable space vessel that could be used for multiple missions as opposed to single use like the Apollo Missions or the Gemini Programme. At the end of the day it is a greater technological leap which requires a more sophisticated, more visionary design.

Sure the Space Shuttle Programme did not bring us to Mars as people may have wanted. In the same way that the Heinkel He 178 (first Jet Fighter) was not deemed good enough to be an operational figher. However in the same way that the Heinkel opened the door to the idea of Military Jet aircraft, the Space Shuttle can open the door to a move towards space craft which are fully reusable, much like those we see in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who etc



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2012, 12:32 pm

brawnybalboa wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane.


The dictionary definition of spacecraft (encompassing the noun spaceship) is as follows:

a vehicle designed for travel or operation in space beyond the earths atmosphere or in orbit around the earth

Hence saying that the space shuttle is not a 'real' spaceship is an incorrect observation.

Kraichgauer wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane.


And to think, we wasted decades flying this "high flying plane," when we could have been building real spacecraft, and maybe we would have reached Mars by now.


How can you say that NASA wasted its time devoted to the construction and development of the space shuttle programme? How can you say that 'real' spacecraft could have been built in its presence?

The aim of NASA was not to visit the Moon, or Mars using the Space Shuttles, but to design a reusable space vessel that could be used for multiple missions as opposed to single use like the Apollo Missions or the Gemini Programme. At the end of the day it is a greater technological leap which requires a more sophisticated, more visionary design.

Sure the Space Shuttle Programme did not bring us to Mars as people may have wanted. In the same way that the Heinkel He 178 (first Jet Fighter) was not deemed good enough to be an operational figher. However in the same way that the Heinkel opened the door to the idea of Military Jet aircraft, the Space Shuttle can open the door to a move towards space craft which are fully reusable, much like those we see in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who etc


I didn't mean to imply that the whole shuttle program was a waste, but you have to wonder how many years were wasted flying those things around the atmosphere, when we could have been developing something that could take us to other worlds.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru

19 May 2012, 12:51 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that the whole shuttle program was a waste, but you have to wonder how many years were wasted flying those things around the atmosphere, when we could have been developing something that could take us to other worlds.


But then of course, we have to look at the reasons why man travelled to the moon in 1969 on the Apollo Missions. We have to remember that the Cold War was at its peak, and that the well publicised Space Race was as much an expensive piece of propaganda as it was a carrier for the technological development of rocket technology than it ever was for human exploration. The USSR put the first satellite into orbit (Sputnik) and the first man into space (Yuri Gagarin), so Kennedy promised a man on the moon before 1970. Which was achieved (unless you believe the hoax theories out there). In the last 20 years since the fall of communism, there has been no need for flashy Space Programmes to put us back on the moon, hence there has been no effort to return man back.

With that aside, we have also seen the massive development of robotics. Why add the complication and risk of putting a man on the moon when you could put a robot? You would not need oxygen tanks, water, food, toilet facilities, space suits etc etc. Also since the 1969 moon landing we have had well publicised disasters, Apollo 13, the two space shuttle disasters, not to mention numerous failed Russian and Chinese Launches. Hence the aim has been to put unmanned vehicles on the Moon, Mars & Venus which we have managed with increasing frequency for the past 20 years. We also have to look at the fact the USA & Russia invested in putting a full time research station into orbit (MIR then the international Space Station), hence responsible for the majority of the usage of the Space Shuttle's 135 missions. Not to mention the Hubble Space Telescope and the development of ground based telescopes.

There is an underlying obsession within the general public of visiting other worlds, but at the end of the day it is an extremely expensive venture which other than for propaganda reasons has little value of return. The decision for MIR, Hubble, Space Shuttle etc was the next logical step.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2012, 1:06 pm

brawnybalboa wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that the whole shuttle program was a waste, but you have to wonder how many years were wasted flying those things around the atmosphere, when we could have been developing something that could take us to other worlds.


But then of course, we have to look at the reasons why man travelled to the moon in 1969 on the Apollo Missions. We have to remember that the Cold War was at its peak, and that the well publicised Space Race was as much an expensive piece of propaganda as it was a carrier for the technological development of rocket technology than it ever was for human exploration. The USSR put the first satellite into orbit (Sputnik) and the first man into space (Yuri Gagarin), so Kennedy promised a man on the moon before 1970. Which was achieved (unless you believe the hoax theories out there). In the last 20 years since the fall of communism, there has been no need for flashy Space Programmes to put us back on the moon, hence there has been no effort to return man back.

With that aside, we have also seen the massive development of robotics. Why add the complication and risk of putting a man on the moon when you could put a robot? You would not need oxygen tanks, water, food, toilet facilities, space suits etc etc. Also since the 1969 moon landing we have had well publicised disasters, Apollo 13, the two space shuttle disasters, not to mention numerous failed Russian and Chinese Launches. Hence the aim has been to put unmanned vehicles on the Moon, Mars & Venus which we have managed with increasing frequency for the past 20 years. We also have to look at the fact the USA & Russia invested in putting a full time research station into orbit (MIR then the international Space Station), hence responsible for the majority of the usage of the Space Shuttle's 135 missions. Not to mention the Hubble Space Telescope and the development of ground based telescopes.

There is an underlying obsession within the general public of visiting other worlds, but at the end of the day it is an extremely expensive venture which other than for propaganda reasons has little value of return. The decision for MIR, Hubble, Space Shuttle etc was the next logical step.


I tend to think the public's desire to reach other planets is fired by the same spirit that made people settle the American west. On top of that, it's just fun to imagine going into space, and living a sci-fi dream.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru

19 May 2012, 1:24 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I tend to think the public's desire to reach other planets is fired by the same spirit that made people settle the American west. On top of that, it's just fun to imagine going into space, and living a sci-fi dream.


Well the majority of people settling the American West were doing so either to escape tyranny and oppression, to seek religious freedom, to make their fortune in the gold rush or simply to settle to make a living off the land. Also in this case there were already resident humans, the first nation indians in Canada and the American Natives whom territory they were claiming as their own. In much the same way the american dream was not anywhere near the reality these settlers met, many dying poor, or disease, at the hands of each other or natives, space travel will be similar. Travelling all that way to find an in hospitable rock that cannot support life.

But living the sci fi dream. Touche. Maybe one day in the distant future we will venture and colonise other parts of the solar system. I hope we do in the next 100 years, but this is unlikely.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2012, 1:33 pm

brawnybalboa wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I tend to think the public's desire to reach other planets is fired by the same spirit that made people settle the American west. On top of that, it's just fun to imagine going into space, and living a sci-fi dream.


Well the majority of people settling the American West were doing so either to escape tyranny and oppression, to seek religious freedom, to make their fortune in the gold rush or simply to settle to make a living off the land. Also in this case there were already resident humans, the first nation indians in Canada and the American Natives whom territory they were claiming as their own. In much the same way the american dream was not anywhere near the reality these settlers met, many dying poor, or disease, at the hands of each other or natives, space travel will be similar. Travelling all that way to find an in hospitable rock that cannot support life.

But living the sci fi dream. Touche. Maybe one day in the distant future we will venture and colonise other parts of the solar system. I hope we do in the next 100 years, but this is unlikely.


But plenty of people still managed to survive and even thrive in the American west - my people back then, for instance.
I'd love to see human colonization of other planets, too, but I don't know if I'll see it in my life time. Who knows, though. Newt Gingrich could be the president of the astro-colony!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru

19 May 2012, 2:23 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
But plenty of people still managed to survive and even thrive in the American west - my people back then, for instance.
I'd love to see human colonization of other planets, too, but I don't know if I'll see it in my life time. Who knows, though. Newt Gingrich could be the president of the astro-colony!


But then crossing the Nevada Desert, Rockies etc pales in comparison to millions of miles in the vacuum of space, and of course California and Seattle are more hospitable than say the surface of Mars. Not to mention that during Human evolution, early Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals had already migrated to that area, yet not living organism has proven the ability to reach escape velocity and escape the earth. We cannot be expected to colonise another planet without overcoming colonising inhospitable climates on earth, say Antertica or the middle of the Sahara Desert.

I do agree though, human colonisation of other planets will happen eventually and be the inevitable conclusion in a few centuries. Although I believe it equally (if not more) likely we will live on colony ships or stations in the vacuum of space, only visiting planet surfaces for resource gathering. However I cannot see us venturing to other planets until we sort out problems on earth such as hunger, poverty, war, over population and energy requirements.

But I will say although I am offering counter points to you, on principal I agree that human colonisation like on sci fi movies would be for lack of a better phrase 'kick ass'.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2012, 4:57 pm

brawnybalboa wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But plenty of people still managed to survive and even thrive in the American west - my people back then, for instance.
I'd love to see human colonization of other planets, too, but I don't know if I'll see it in my life time. Who knows, though. Newt Gingrich could be the president of the astro-colony!


But then crossing the Nevada Desert, Rockies etc pales in comparison to millions of miles in the vacuum of space, and of course California and Seattle are more hospitable than say the surface of Mars. Not to mention that during Human evolution, early Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals had already migrated to that area, yet not living organism has proven the ability to reach escape velocity and escape the earth. We cannot be expected to colonise another planet without overcoming colonising inhospitable climates on earth, say Antertica or the middle of the Sahara Desert.

I do agree though, human colonisation of other planets will happen eventually and be the inevitable conclusion in a few centuries. Although I believe it equally (if not more) likely we will live on colony ships or stations in the vacuum of space, only visiting planet surfaces for resource gathering. However I cannot see us venturing to other planets until we sort out problems on earth such as hunger, poverty, war, over population and energy requirements.

But I will say although I am offering counter points to you, on principal I agree that human colonisation like on sci fi movies would be for lack of a better phrase 'kick ass'.


Cool. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer