More options Star Base

[Anonymous]

posted on January 6th, 2010, 2:00 am

Last edited by Anonymous on January 6th, 2010, 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's canon, not cannon.  There are no cannons in star trek.  And that's when Tyler says...(Drumroll please)....

Oh, and and there was never a B5 book where they moved B5 away from a planet.  It has station keeping thrusters just like every starbase.  They were used in the pilot when an explosion put them off axis.  The other examples I'll leave to someone else.

posted on January 6th, 2010, 2:09 am

well I'd hate to get all techy on people her but 

pappy, the problem is how the diffrent ships are constructed. Star Trek ships are held together by the SIF. acording to Memory alpha

"The structural integrity field (abbreviated SIF) is a technology developed by spacefaring cultures to supplement the natural structural integrity of the material their starship hulls or other constructions are composed of. Engineers use a structural integrity force field to supplement the supports and bulkheads that give a piece of architecture its shape"

Simply put, the ship needs the SIF to hold together under standard operation conditions (SOC). frankly, starbases planed SOC do not include Moving so it generaly ends in distruction!

next up, the death star is a [shadow=red,left][glow=red,2,300]masive weapons platform[/glow][/shadow]!!!! it is built with the full intention of flying to planets and blowing them up!!!! so moving is well within it's planed SOC

posted on January 6th, 2010, 2:45 am

next up, the death star is a [shadow=red,left][glow=red,2,300]masive weapons platform[/glow][/shadow]!!!! it is built with the full intention of flying to planets and blowing them up!!!! so moving is well within it's planed SOC

  Not to mention that Star Wars generally tends to ignore even the simplest laws of Physics. 

• Jedi's dive through the sky to land on a flying car moving at extreme speeds.
• The Death Star must have a Light Speed Drive of some kind (yeah right) or it would never get ANYWHERE.
• In the first freaking movie Solo says he made the Kessel Run in less than "12 parsecs".  A parsec is a unit of distance, not time.
• If the Death Star CAN move quickly enough to get around the Galaxy - WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE PLANET IT WANTED TO DESTROY?!?!??!
• .....

  Anyway ... quoting Star Wars when it comes to Star Trek is generally a bad comparison

posted on January 6th, 2010, 3:09 am

Anyone besides me feel that the Noxter are basically the Zerg?

According to secret sources, the Noxter should play like you are controlling a gigantic ant swarm  . T'won't be like der Zerg . I think Mal's argument about Galaxy's Child is quite credible as even the fact that the Noxter are living in an asteroid belt has parallels... (hilarious episode too... mmm, a giant space creature suckling... on the Enterprise  )

As for Star Wars... there are several arguments that can be made or have been made

-Jedi's dive (as ridiculous as it was) is possibly because the Jedi can "push" the ground or other structures to lessen their fall (much as they can use the force to hold up collapsing pillars, X-wings, etc)

-12 parsecs could simply be a contraction of "par-something" and "seconds" ... or maybe the writer having fun, or Han Solo having some fun ( ) : do "bosons" or "charm-quarks" make sense to you?

-and of course ... suspension of disbelief, just like in a lot of Star Trek films and/or shows 

posted on January 6th, 2010, 3:12 am

Actually, they ended up explaining that parsecs thing.

The Kessel Run is a smugglers path through a corridor of black holes that nobody wants to go near.  Due to the effects of the black holes massive gravity distortions on space-time, and Han being a bloody lunatic, he was able to actually reduce distance travelled (at absurd risk) by skirting far too close to most of the black holes on the run, and using some of them for slingshot manuvers.

posted on January 6th, 2010, 3:15 am

Ah, meaning that he did not have to travel around, but rather made a risky move and went through... shaving off distance. I think I remember reading that in one of the novels (again suspension of disbelief in the movie of course)

posted on January 6th, 2010, 3:38 am

Remember this was back in the day when you could spew out any scifi term, and it was always correct, so long as your show had enough explosions and witty dialogue to entertain the audience.  Now people want you to be correct, and have lots of explosions.

posted on January 6th, 2010, 4:32 am

UHHHHH, have you seen the new Star Trek movie 

they screwed up somthing every 5 minutes at least!

for exapmple, they broke the therrory of relitivity every time they created one of their 'magic' black holes. and their 'magic' black holes alow time travel the first time by being sucked into it (not slingshot around it) and then the second and third times everything is destroyed that gets anywhere near it (of course compleatly ignoring relitivity!)

but there was lots of things going boom!

posted on January 6th, 2010, 4:54 am

Remember this was back in the day when you could spew out any scifi term, and it was always correct, so long as your show had enough explosions and witty dialogue to entertain the audience.  Now people want you to be correct, and have lots of explosions.

Hurray for not skimming Mal's post!

posted on January 6th, 2010, 5:31 am

Remember this was back in the day when you could spew out any scifi term, and it was always correct, so long as your show had enough explosions and witty dialogue to entertain the audience.  Now people want you to be correct, and have lots of explosions.

  Oh I agree .

  I'm just saying ... that quoting physics stuff from Star Wars is a bad idea because it so often is ... impractical.  The Death Star cannot seem to move fast enough to actually get anywhere blah blah blah.


  And YES ... I did see the new Star Trek movie and I HATED it.  Not because I feel that it dishonored the old movies, but because it was an action movie that was a BAD action movie.  RAWRAWRAWRAWRRA!!!!!