Galaxy Class 'Venture Refit'

posted on January 16th, 2010, 6:04 pm

actually i think most modern scientists agree hydrogen is the most abundant. the sun is mostly hydrogen.

posted on January 16th, 2010, 6:06 pm

So I guess, the statement about "seperated Galaxy Stardrive is the closest we had to a warship until Defiant's introduction" was just tagged on when Defiant actually made its appearance, right!?

posted on January 16th, 2010, 6:14 pm

Most likely.

posted on January 16th, 2010, 7:25 pm

A rather careless post there Dom  :thumbsup:

We've only analysed a handful of planets, and never left the Sol system, so for all we know, Hydrogen is in fact a rather rare commodity.

The statement is not careless, Hydrogen (and by extension it's isotopes) is the most simple element in existence. As such it will be the most abundant in the universe. Especially as most nebula are just clouds of super heated hydrogen and the like.


If you wish to discuss this further I can do, I'm reading physics at Cardiff university and I have plenty of friends studying astrophysics who can explain the whole thing in more detail. (Basically we started off with Hydrogen and all other elements are just a result of fusion).

posted on January 16th, 2010, 11:23 pm

A rather careless post there Dom  :thumbsup:

We've only analysed a handful of planets, and never left the Sol system, so for all we know, Hydrogen is in fact a rather rare commodity.

To add onto what Anthony said you can actually quite easily determine that it is the most abundant element in the Universe. Simply take your nice expensive radio telescope, point up, and tell me what you see . You'll the spectrographic array for hydrogen make up about 3/4 of what you'll see . However, to contradict Anthony, not all elements besides hydrogen are a result of fusion - helium, lithium, and hydrogen (and some other heavier elements). Those three, plus some others, are a result mainly of the Big Bang

I already wrote down the name of that Dr. of physics I got that quote from in my last post, and since I'm no expert in physics there's nothing wrong mentioning one theory I know about.

It's also possible I'm just getting a little too tired for that topic right now because I didn't sleep that good last night.

I am slightly familiar with the man's work, I just think that your quote or theory is taken out of context, which makes it impossible to know what he was describing. Saying that it would require more energy only is correct if you know how to get into subspace... which requires you to somehow magically determine things outside of our own universe. Consequently, all of that is conjecture, and not theory.

posted on January 17th, 2010, 12:39 am

you dont even need to do that just look up and tell me how many stars you see....

posted on January 17th, 2010, 12:41 am

why don't YOU look up and tell me how many lights you see

posted on January 17th, 2010, 12:44 am

Better idea; lets wait until we have faster-than-light travel and start exploring the Universe from more than 1 perspective before we started dictating the layout of reality.

That sounds best to me.

posted on January 17th, 2010, 12:55 am

You'll probably be waiting until our species is long extinct  . Lets try to reach our moon again - or Mars - with a manned vehicle before we talk about faster than light travel

posted on January 17th, 2010, 5:20 pm

Sorry Dom, you are of course right that some of the more basic elements came about by the big bang. After having told someone off for making sweeping statements I proceeded to make one myself.

This is why physics should never be discussed unless you have a nice bottle of expensive whiskey and a whole night to dedicate to the conversation  just so many theories, postulations and opinions that it is a very diverse subject.


Faster than light will happen. I mean we only went to the moon less than 50 years ago. That is in itself a massive breakthrough! How quickly technology is evolving is also quite stunning.... Whether we will have destroyed ourselves is the main issue.... Humanity seems to harbour homicidal tendencies...

posted on January 17th, 2010, 5:40 pm

I am slightly familiar with the man's work, I just think that your quote or theory is taken out of context, which makes it impossible to know what he was describing.

I'm sorry for that, I was very tired yesterday and barely thought before I wrote this "quote" down, I'd rather say it's a cut out of a quote I should have given in the first place.

posted on January 17th, 2010, 5:45 pm

probably correct  ^-^

Faster than light will happen. I mean we only went to the moon less than 50 years ago. That is in itself a massive breakthrough! How quickly technology is evolving is also quite stunning.... Whether we will have destroyed ourselves is the main issue.... Humanity seems to harbour homicidal tendencies...

This I'm not so confidant on. The US has just retracted its space program again, and we are about to shut down the SSI Space Shuttle program, not to mention planning on decommissioning the ISS. We haven't made any real breakthroughs in close to 40 years for manned flight (other than finally figuring out how to actively recycle oxygen/CO[sub]2[/sub] and some other really nice pieces of technology which have been all sucked up by the civilian sector). Engine development has hit a bit of a standstill (that's where the Orion program gets its stuff... from the Saturns) and funding is continually cut. Now the space program operates at a small percentage of its original operating budget, and people expect more from less. The rest of the world isn't in any better shape - Japan, ESA operate only unmanned projects as well (with the exception of the ISS) and NASA still has a large leg up on them. China... well, mostly scavenges stuff from the Russians and isn't making much new, and India mainly operates NASA instruments on its spaceflights. I'm afraid the world doesn't have much interest in space exploration or really much clue about the benefits of it (despite seeing the evidence every time you boot up your PC).

About the moon... we went there 50 years ago... we haven't gone back since then, and the plans to do so are probably going to be scrapped

No problem RedEyedRaven, just is nice to have the original context, especially when discussing physics

posted on January 18th, 2010, 5:30 am

Yeah i dont see any way that FTL will ever happen.

posted on January 18th, 2010, 5:49 am

couple of things...first off...we shouldn't go into space anymore right now anyways...we can't even make peace on our own planet let alone what happens if we meet an alien race what happens to us? We start a war with them and get our planet annhilated.....buuutt....

I would say the main reason we never saw the Galaxys separate is A: People got used to seeing the Galaxy Class in docked mode and B: People would be bitching about it if the Galaxys were fighting separated....it would be...'WTF?? Wheres the Venture's saucer section?????'  or 'Whats that ugly lookin hammerhead ship that resembles a Galaxy Class??? or...'they should have fought with the saucer section' thats the main reason id say that the Galaxys weren't separated.

posted on January 18th, 2010, 5:59 am

well guys remeber in insurection, the enterprise ejected its core, and it still had lots of power