Trek Tech FAQ
- Thread starter AlexR
- Start date
I just looked this up for the project I'm working on, and everything, including Jefferie's account, that I found about this dated the four rules to The Motion Picture, well after the Tech Manual was made.
Considering that two of these rules were broken by the Original Series itself (SS Aurora), and then very quickly broken in The Next Generation, I would say that they have little to no bearing on anyone involved - official or not - in the design of starships for the Trek franchise.
Personally I've always believed that were all aspects of trek left up to Gene Roddenberry it would have been awful. Secondly, as harsh as this may seem, I think one of the best things that happened to latter day trek (tng onwards) was the death of Gene Roddenberry. Thirdly, why the hell should starship designs be neutered and hindered by a stupid rule, that was fleetingly made up by afforementioned Gene Roddenberry?
Regarding the above, upon re-reading that It sounds really horrible, I do apologise. What I meant was that I think TNG era trek did very well out of Gene's departure from the creative side, however that departure came about. I didn't mean to offend anybody.
Hi Alex,Posted by AlexR:
^^^ Yup, somethin' like that. Anything that there's a fairly straightforward answer for, that seems to come up over and over and slows down discussions of other topics because we need to keep redefining the terms, etc. etc.
Then we can just say, "Check the FAQ" and move onward.
Best,
Alex
Just a general question. Over time since this thread was created, I've noticed there seems to be a greater volume of general discussion of topics here, as opposed to a growing list of answers to FAQ's as you describe above.
If this were to be used as a thread to truely find a quick answer or definition, you'd have to scroll through a good bit of general discussions, opinions, replies, etc. to find them.
I'm just wondering if maybe those types of posts should be in other threads, reserving this one for true FAQ answers, some of which might arise from discussions in other threads, but not include the back & forth discussions & opinions themselves.
Or maybe not, I just wasn't sure what you originally intended. If it was just supposed to be a FAQ though, then maybe it should be moderated where any general statement/opinion/question itself is put into a new separate thread for further discussion, and then if any "fairly straightforward answer" comes from that discussion it could then be added to the FAQ thread. Like maybe my post right here for example.
Reason I mention it is because I always check here when there's a new post, but have noticed that it's rarely a new FAQ answer. Just wanted to hear your take on it. Thanks!
Actually, all the answers are in the first post.
What I've tended to watch for are questions which both come up frequently and have a very straightforward, relatively simple answer. There really haven't been that many. What we tend to see are recurrences of the same debates, which recur because there isn't actually a defined answer. <shrug>
I've thought about pruning out the cross-discussion here, but since it doesn't actually seem to be affecting anybody's ability to see the answers in the FAQ itself, I've left folks the freedom to comment and have comments read.
Now, of course, if you think I've missed a question and answer that ought to go into the FAQ, by all means suggest away.
Best,
Alex
What I've tended to watch for are questions which both come up frequently and have a very straightforward, relatively simple answer. There really haven't been that many. What we tend to see are recurrences of the same debates, which recur because there isn't actually a defined answer. <shrug>
I've thought about pruning out the cross-discussion here, but since it doesn't actually seem to be affecting anybody's ability to see the answers in the FAQ itself, I've left folks the freedom to comment and have comments read.
Now, of course, if you think I've missed a question and answer that ought to go into the FAQ, by all means suggest away.
Best,
Alex
So you mean any new answers that come up will always be added to the first post at the top, and not as a new post in sequence behind the last post made? If that's the case, then disregard my question.
My assumption was that any new activity (answers) would just fall in together with other posts in sequential order, as in other threads. If that were the case then as the thread grew you'd have to scroll through a lot of posts looking for the answers, and that's why I was concerned. I never thought about the ability to keep updating the very first post.
My goof!
Thanks for setting me straight!
G
Guest
Guest
Just picked up an updated Dixon timeline in here, trek15.zip ----> trek17.zip. Thank you very much. 
Why is the bridge situated atop the ship instead of more safely imbedded within the ship itself?
Probably in case there's a system-failure and they lose sensors etc, there's fewer things to go wrong between space and the bridge: and it's more important to be able to see what you're dealing with, than to be protected from it.
Otherwise, however, I'd have to say for simile to an actual ship, where the brige on top of the ship so they can SEE better what they're headed for.
But either way, if the bridge goes out, they always have aux. engineering-- also like on a real ship.
Otherwise, however, I'd have to say for simile to an actual ship, where the brige on top of the ship so they can SEE better what they're headed for.
But either way, if the bridge goes out, they always have aux. engineering-- also like on a real ship.
wow, that was quite fascinating the Chi thing. I thought i knew a lot about trek and i didn't know that. I had even developed my own alternate explanation which was a lot like that but mine was based on gravity; where
Hyper-subpsace is actually a node to node network of gravitational singularities in the place of stars and planets; my hypothetical explanation thus was that theres a gravitationally determined medium and that thus flying through "empty space" is slower than flying through gravitationally "knitted"
space. This also had some nice explanatory power for naturally occuring wormholes.
So, I guess my question then becomes reading further regarding your "sourcing" of materials; By your definition of treknology i should leave you alone and count myself lucky for being smart enough not to participate.
But before I run off, let me say why. My version of treknology is to take
current applied known physics and science and attempt to extrapolate reasonable futurists geusstimates. This tends to actually often put me at odds with cannon, but thats never bothered me much because I am far more interested in building the enterprise than chatting with muggles.
That said, where and how does a vulcan fit into your process schema?
Hyper-subpsace is actually a node to node network of gravitational singularities in the place of stars and planets; my hypothetical explanation thus was that theres a gravitationally determined medium and that thus flying through "empty space" is slower than flying through gravitationally "knitted"
space. This also had some nice explanatory power for naturally occuring wormholes.
So, I guess my question then becomes reading further regarding your "sourcing" of materials; By your definition of treknology i should leave you alone and count myself lucky for being smart enough not to participate.
But before I run off, let me say why. My version of treknology is to take
current applied known physics and science and attempt to extrapolate reasonable futurists geusstimates. This tends to actually often put me at odds with cannon, but thats never bothered me much because I am far more interested in building the enterprise than chatting with muggles.
That said, where and how does a vulcan fit into your process schema?
I have trawled through the responses, and to be honest, got bored with the diatribe after the second page. It seems there are two questions here: What is 'canon'? What is non-canon and fan created? As I understand it, 'canon', is everything that appears on screen, even if it contradicts itself. 'fan created' is the attempt to rationalise and explain the iinconsistencies inherent in the Trek world Here's a simple way of looking at the problem. If it works in the episode, its 'canon', if it don't work in reality, thats our problem. Star Trek was produced as a fantasy show. Roddenberry and his legacy staff were not, and are not, scientists. although they did use advisors. I know for a fact that there was no real discussion by the creators of ST as to how a starship slows down after dropping out of Warp. Or how the 'Heisenberg Compensator' really works. We take these things on faith. Next week, I will explain the function of Plasma Convertors and why Data can't make contractions.
For this forum, I tend to treat "canon" somewhat loosely. Most of the tech stuff has been done by fans, and is thus not "canon," but some of it is quite decent. I find a lot of that much more interesting than seeing the same few designs used over and over for budget reasons.
For one thing, it's stated in the Voyager Technical Manual, by Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, put together for production use in 1995. You can view it online here, and the length of 344 meters is given on page 11.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-voyager-technical-manual.php
May 2003??
Is this the oldest thread on the board?
If anyone ever does a new FAQ, I'd suggest covering the sizes of the STXI ships and the Quantum Slipstream drive from the recent novels.
Is this the oldest thread on the board?
If anyone ever does a new FAQ, I'd suggest covering the sizes of the STXI ships and the Quantum Slipstream drive from the recent novels.
Similar threads
- Locked
