No power, no SIF, and yet the ship didn't collapse under the force of gravity or the pressure of the ice.
The original question was about the E-D collapsing apon entering a gravity field. Star Trek ships use a SIF to prevent the ship from falling to pieces or collapsing every time they go FTL, therefore I needed to present a cannon situation in which a star craft was in a planetary gravity field without the SIF active.
Yes I know there are differences but this was the best I could find in short notice.
Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man … woman inherits the earth.
Jurassic Park
Grow up, dickshit. How is Voyager relevant to the Galaxy when it's far smaller, much more sensibly designed, and INTENDED TO LAND? They're different in EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT WAY. Just because ONE ship that's INTENDED to land can do a thing does NOT mean a totally different ship that's far larger, has a ridiculous layout and ISN'T designed to land can do that thing. I hear Tonka trucks can survive falls off cliffs, but real trucks can't. OH MY!
EDIT - thanks for ignoring my whole post, idiot. The ship has almost nothing in common with Galaxy, so in what sense is it relevant to the Galaxy's ability to land? The statement that it collapses is even only present in the TM to my knowledge, so you're arguing BADLY against something that isn't even established! I hear evidence of a ship designed to land on the surface not collapsing on the surface is somehow relevant to another ship that isn't designed to land maybe collapsing... in fairy land. In any case, the original point about SF ships not entering atmo isn't even relevant to the original argument, given the smaller size (even the TM quote points out that this is a new thing at the Ambassador/Galaxy scale and previous ships could do so just fine) so there's no real reason the reboot E-nil can't be built on the surface - however daft it might be.
Since when was a tonka truck designed to fall off a cliff?
The point I am trying to make is about the material science of Star Trek. The example of Voyager shows that even without a magical Structural Integrity Field a Federation star ship's saucer section can withstand the pressure of both gravity and ice formation.
I know Voyager and Enterprise are different ships, I know they are designed differently. However the materials used in their construction are probably the same, meaning they can withstand similar loadweights. That is where they are relevant.
Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man … woman inherits the earth.
Jurassic Park
You mean the saucer that's way smaller, designed to different standards and attached more firmly to the rest of the ship - so firmly it's a saucer in name only? Amazing! We already know ships of that size can operate in an atmo and be built on the surface, so that's pretty irrelevant to whether the reboot Enterprise can or can't, and the logic that VOY can do something = GCS can do something is so fucking stupid I don't know where to start.
Did you never notice Voyager doesn't have a flimsy neck joining the ship together? How about the GCS saucer massing more than the entirety of VOY? Turns out, the two ships are totally different in design requirements and probably internal structure and layout, and thus not really comparable.
thanks for ignoring my whole post, idiot. The ship has almost nothing in common with Galaxy, so in what sense is it relevant to the Galaxy's ability to land? The statement that it collapses is even only present in the TM to my knowledge, so you're arguing BADLY against something that isn't even established! I hear evidence of a ship designed to land on the surface not collapsing on the surface is somehow relevant to another ship that isn't designed to land maybe collapsing... in fairy land. In any case, the original point about SF ships not entering atmo isn't even relevant to the original argument, given the smaller size (even the TM quote points out that this is a new thing at the Ambassador/Galaxy scale and previous ships could do so just fine) so there's no real reason the reboot E-nil can't be built on the surface - however daft it might be.
Maybe it shows that a ship can survive in a gravity well WITHOUT a magical forcefield. Maybe it shows that Trek material science is stronger than commenly thought. Maybe it shows that object A (Voyager) is able to survive a brutal crashlanding, earth strength gravity and snowloading without a forcefield so maybe object B (enterprise) built by the same people, with the same material could do the same. The only reason I haven't been using screen shots from Generations is becasue I wanted to show what the strength of the space frame was without a magical forcefield.
BTW Could you please stop swearing? It's not helping.
BTW anybody know how fast max impulse is?
Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man … woman inherits the earth.
Jurassic Park
I'm going to try and make this as clear as I can.
Batman asked:
This may be a stupid question but was the fact that the E-D would collapse in a gravity well ever mentioned OUTSIDE the TNG TM? It's obviously not DESIGNED to enter atmosphere and the general layout makes it prone to structural failures but outside the out of universe comment in the TM I don't recall them mentioning this in the series (mind you, I might be wrong as I'm working from memory here).
The durability (or lack thereof, mostly) of Starfleet building materials certainly hints at it rather strongly in cases but I don't recall anybody ever explicitly SAYING so.
I was trying to point out an incidnet where a unpowered ship was subjected to both gravity and ice loading in an effort to prove the strength of Star Trek material science. I know the E-D's design was different, I know it wasn't designed to enter atmosphere. However the case of voyager points to Star Trek having structural strengths. They could have designed voyager out of tinfoil and relied on the SIF to keep it together planetside. They did design the saucer section of the Enterprise E strong enough to survive an emergency re-entry and crashlanding. I was pointing out that not all of the strength of the ship came from the SIF.
Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man … woman inherits the earth.
Jurassic Park
You mean, it shows some things about a totally different, far smaller ship with different design specifications? How useful! I mean, this shows that in the same crash, the saucer of a GCS wouldn't twist off the neck as the rear section tumbles, right? OH WAIT IT DOESN'T. Turns out the ships are totally different. While it shows that VOY doesn't crumple (in the same way it's never damaged externally except for that one episode lol) this in no way relates to a totally different ship's ability to survive the same crash (I thought this would be obvious since the GCS saucer was a complete writeoff in Generations). Since nobody said VOY collapses without it's forcefield reinforcement, showing that it doesn't is totally fucking useless and a red herring. Indeed, since we already know ships of the 300m size can be built on the surface and enter atmo, the ENTIRE EXAMPLE is fucking useless to the original discussion AND the discussion of GCS SIF-or-not (which is only supported by the TM apparently ANYWAY).
PS can you fuck off and die, you're annoying.
EDIT - hilarious! Batman asked if there was any support outside the TM about the statements it makes about the GCS (which specifically mention that the issue is scale and that GCS so stresses Fed materials tech that SIF is critical). People have already conceeded that there is no apparent support for this outside the TM. You apparently think an example of a later, far different and smaller ship expressly designed to do something the TM claims the Galaxy would die doing somehow refutes what the TM said about the GCS being at the very edge of Fed materials technology.
PROTIP - it doesn't. The TM statement is apparently unsupported, but what you're saying is totally irrelevant. Even the TM statement singles out scale as the issue, so even if it was true/canon Voyager could STILL be capable of all this shit because it's way fucking smaller and differently designed to a different role with different technology and arranged in a different way.
It should be pointed out that while Voyager survived that crashlanding, nothing tells us it was structurally sound after that anyway since that timeline was erased with the magic reset button.
Oh and everybody inside died on impact.
If I had something interesting, profound or incredibly stupid to say, it would go here.
Darth Onasi wrote:It should be pointed out that while Voyager survived that crashlanding, nothing tells us it was structurally sound after that anyway since that timeline was erased with the magic reset button.
Oh and everybody inside died on impact.
I haven't seen that Voyager episode, and I was going to ask a question along those lines. Was the ship working after crashing and being encased in ice? The Enterprise-D's saucer landed on a planet too. It didn't "collapse" or anything, but it was still all fucked up.
Palantas wrote:I haven't seen that Voyager episode, and I was going to ask a question along those lines. Was the ship working after crashing and being encased in ice? The Enterprise-D's saucer landed on a planet too. It didn't "collapse" or anything, but it was still all fucked up.
It certainly wasn't in working order as a ship, but a few systems remained operational even after 15 years - Chakotay and his girlfriend were able to operate some of the controls once power had been restored, and the EMH's programme and the equipment required to transfer him to the mobile emitter were also working.
As for "everyone being killed by the impact", I'm not sure whether they were - I seem to recall it mentioned that a significant number of the crew had survived the crash, but had died of hypothermia.
Palantas wrote:I haven't seen that Voyager episode, and I was going to ask a question along those lines. Was the ship working after crashing and being encased in ice? The Enterprise-D's saucer landed on a planet too. It didn't "collapse" or anything, but it was still all fucked up.
It certainly wasn't in working order as a ship, but a few systems remained operational even after 15 years - Chakotay and his girlfriend were able to operate some of the controls once power had been restored, and the EMH's programme and the equipment required to transfer him to the mobile emitter were also working.
True, but then that doesn't say much about the structure of the ship.
As for "everyone being killed by the impact", I'm not sure whether they were - I seem to recall it mentioned that a significant number of the crew had survived the crash, but had died of hypothermia.
I don't recall that, as it seemed all the bodies we see died at their posts, but the fact that the entire interior of the ship was exposed to the elements outside surely doesn't bode well for the state of it's hull.
If I had something interesting, profound or incredibly stupid to say, it would go here.
Darth Onasi wrote:True, but then that doesn't say much about the structure of the ship.
You asked whether it was still "working" - my response simply stated that at least some systems were. As for physical damage, the forward casing of the port nacelle was ripped off, and the lower decks had collapsed. Whether the latter was due to the crash or the weight of the ice over a decade and a half is unclear.
I don't recall that, as it seemed all the bodies we see died at their posts, but the fact that the entire interior of the ship was exposed to the elements outside surely doesn't bode well for the state of it's hull.
Again, it's unclear whether the cold conditions inside the ship were due to hull breaches or systems damage/power loss. If it's the latter it suggests that the hull of a Fed starship is a pretty poor insulator
Captain Seafort wrote:
You asked whether it was still "working" - my response simply stated that at least some systems were. As for physical damage, the forward casing of the port nacelle was ripped off, and the lower decks had collapsed. Whether the latter was due to the crash or the weight of the ice over a decade and a half is unclear.
I should have been more specific. Was the ship's spaceframe still viable? Could the ship still fly, assuming you got it out of the ice? If the answer to these questions is a "No," then Voyager seems to be in somewhat the same situation as the Enterprise-D: It landed on a planet without completely collapsing/disintegrating, but it still sustained massive damage in the crash. I suppose someone could make the argument that most of the damage on Voyager was caused by the environment over more than a decade, but that seems a little hokey to me.
I have this feeling that I'm going to have to watch the episode if I want to participate in this discussion... Fuck, I really don't want to watch any Voyager.
From what I recall of the episode Voyager's damage was quite a bit less than the E-D. The bridge, for example, was still recognisable, unlike the E-D's in Generations, and some systems were operational (or at least easilly repairable), again, unlike the E-D. Whether the ship could have been repaired and recomissioned is a tricky question. The fact that she wasn't suggests that either too many of the crew were killed to make repairs themselves, or that external support would have been required.
As for watching the episode, Timeless is definately one of the better ones.
Technically we don't KNOW wether or not any systems on the E-D saucer were easily repairable because nobody ever tried what with the thing being a writeoff anyway. For all we know internal systems were in even BETTER condition than VOY's but since the saucer section wasn't ever going to fly again anyway it wasn't worth the effort to restore them. Besides, it's not like we're shown much of what did or didn't go on on the E-D saucer after the crash.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Memory Alpha quotes Harry Kim as saying the inertia dampeners were offline just before impact. It is assumed that with out the dampeners the crew died on impact.
EDIT: Sorry that should read Paris saying the inertial dampers are offline, Kim was in the shuttle.
Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man … woman inherits the earth.
Jurassic Park
15 days, dont know if this is necro or not but, here goes.
As for "everyone being killed by the impact", I'm not sure whether they were - I seem to recall it mentioned that a significant number of the crew had survived the crash, but had died of hypothermia.
Not a significant number, just seven. The doctor said seven appeared to have survived the crach, but died of hypothermia. He never made any mntion of the other crew.
While its possible some more survived, i would say sevens implants would have given her a better chance. That, and she has natural airbags.
I've got a question, why didn't the Starfleet reclaim the ship? Or at least beam off the bodies so they could have a proper burial\cremation\flung into stars? Is there a reason why the Feds just left Voyager there when they were close enough to be able to rescue\reclaim?
ASVS('97)/SDN('03)
"Whilst human alchemists refer to the combustion triangle, some of their orcish counterparts see it as more of a hexagon: heat, fuel, air, laughter, screaming, fun." Dawn of the Dragons
Enigma wrote:I've got a question, why didn't the Starfleet reclaim the ship? Or at least beam off the bodies so they could have a proper burial\cremation\flung into stars? Is there a reason why the Feds just left Voyager there when they were close enough to be able to rescue\reclaim?
They never found the ship. It was mentioned in the episode that the search was called off after several years, and it wasn't until the intro to the episode, 15 years after the crash, that Kim and Chakotay found the ship.
I feel like its worth mentioning; as it has been brought up several times that the voyager was "designed" to land, that the E-nil was also "Designed" to land to the same extent as Voyager was. originally Rodenberry wanted it to land every week but that would have broken the effects budget, but they snagged the idea for a voyager episode, and pulled the exact same trick Rodenberry intended to use: skinny little landing legs. i definitely saw a piccture of a concept sketch during one off the TV specials, I can't find it on google but now I'm obsessed with itt so any day now I'm sure...
I realize this is a real life issue and not an in universe but if you LOOK at either the voyager the E-d or the Enil, you can tell right away they aren't "Really" designed to do anything in the atmosphere. The weight is completely unbalanced and disproportionately applied, and except possibly for the voyager there isn't even a CASUAL attempt to make them aerodynamic.
The only way they could be made "Landable" is with the handwavving seen in the show, Structural integrity fields, magic impulse engines that seem to be omni directional, and of course, material sciences which are never described, but must be inferred if a rational explanation for some of what we see is to be believed. If they WERE going to make the E-d (Every time I see that posted here I think of Enzyte) capable of atmospheric re-entry, they could almost pull it off by having the saucer intentionally detach, and land while the stardrive section stays in orbit.
Getting back to the original question about Enil being built on the ground, I was under the impression taht the original San Francisco shipyards were in orbit above earth. it would be pretty cool iff they merged that concept with what we saw in the teaser, and had the ships components built on the ground and then sent up a space elevator to be assembled in the second part off the yards above. I am pretty sure that wasn't the case in the original series however, as none of the shots of sanfrancisco included a massive cable to the sky in the background.
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
That iteration of the Trek XI Big E looks a HELL of a lot better than the shots we've seen of it in previous threads so if it IS accurate those shots did the design a disservice.
It still loses to the original leave alone Refit/E-A design but it is no longer ugly.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Batman wrote:That iteration of the Trek XI Big E looks a HELL of a lot better than the shots we've seen of it in previous threads so if it IS accurate those shots did the design a disservice.
It still loses to the original leave alone Refit/E-A design but it is no longer ugly.
it just looks like they changed stuff to change it, rather than for any particular reason. Fan mods and kitbashes look more elegant
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
Themightytom wrote:it just looks like they changed stuff to change it, rather than for any particular reason.
What other reason is there to change the design of a fictional ship? The drawing above shows that the model designer only really changed the engineering hull in a substantial way. The saucer, torpedo tubes, and color scheme are all borrowings from the refit Enterprise and the neck's position relative to the deflector dish and the nacelles are reminiscent of original.
The design goes against the trend in stretching and squashing ships characteristic of the TNG era. Look at the "hero ship" style from Excelsior to Enterprise D to Voyager to Enterprise E. Each iteration pulls the dish and engineering sections apart and shortens the neck.
Can anyone point out the shuttle bay's position on the new Enterprise?
"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me...God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov
"Hal grabs life by the balls and doesn't let you do that [to] hal."
"I hereby declare myself master of the known world."
Batman wrote:That iteration of the Trek XI Big E looks a HELL of a lot better than the shots we've seen of it in previous threads so if it IS accurate those shots did the design a disservice.
It still loses to the original leave alone Refit/E-A design but it is no longer ugly.
It's not accurate. They simply assumed the saucer was the same size and sclaed the other parts from there, but there's no indication that the saucer is identical.
