Big flaw in Star Trek Generations

[bdewoody]

I just watched this movie on BBC America and was reminded by seeing it of what I consider a major goof. When Soren wanted to destroy a star to alter the trajectory of the cosmic string containing the Nexus the missle containing the trilithium warhead was supposed to be able to travel from the planet to the star in 11 seconds. Now I know it's science fiction and the situation I just described is full of things that don't really exist but they were usually better at sticking to plausible physics. That little rocket was only the size of a sounding rocket currently used to explore the upper atmosphere and appeared to be just a chemical rocket (the explosion at the end) so unless the star was very close how would it get there in 11 seconds. Most everyone attending a Star Trek movie knows it takes approximately 8 minutes for light to get to the earth from the sun and thats travelling at the speed of light.

BTW BBC America is going to run the Next Generation series starting later this month. I wonder if they are going to run them in order as I have seen done by other networks?

 

[yevaud]

The only plausible answer I can think of is that they do possess very tiny warp engines - witness the "Bod-Pod" used in the newest movie. So we are supposed to understand that the tiny rocket is warp-powered.

Of course, that then raises the issue that all warp-powered ships use anti-matter as their power source. I kinda think there would have been more than a small explosion at the end. More like a "this 100 mile radius area is now a radioactive, glowing lake."

 

[bdewoody]

That really made me chuckle. Another repetitive Star Trek booboo is the command "all Stop" My answer to the captain as helmsman would be "Relative to what, Sir?"

 

[ZenGalacticore]

The goof was in making the film at all.

 

[crazyeddie]

The best part of this film was Data saying "Oh, ****! as the Enterprise saucer section was about to crash.

 

[drwayne]

That really made me chuckle. Another repetitive Star Trek booboo is the command "all Stop" My answer to the captain as helmsman would be "Relative to what, Sir?"

I interpret that as "turn off the engines", which does not inherently bother me, though I know what
you are saying.

On the other hand, the notion that when you turn off the engines, the ship sort-of coasts to a "halt"
shows up in a number of the episodes - referring to having to use the engines to "maintain this speed"
etc. is troublesome.

Of course, not being able to keep galaxies and solar systems straight, and having no concept at all of
distance and time as "Lost In Space"...

 

[HRacct]

That really made me chuckle. Another repetitive Star Trek booboo is the command "all Stop" My answer to the captain as helmsman would be "Relative to what, Sir?"[/quote]

It's answers like that that keep getting me in trouble. But for those who know me, they come to expect it. But that also was a good observation of bdewoody's part. I could envision the scene as I was reading it, and never even thot about that dose of reality.

In speaking of such small rockets, how would you like to travel in one like was mentioned in a nextgen show, where Worf's old(?) girlfriend travelled in one to contact the Enterprise. That was the show where old world Klingons were going to be waking up in the new world, and not know that they were now friends with the federation.

I do not know if I would even care to think about travel in something that small. I need my WIDE O-P-E-N space.

 

[StarRider1701]

That really made me chuckle. Another repetitive Star Trek booboo is the command "all Stop" My answer to the captain as helmsman would be "Relative to what, Sir?"

Oh come now, let's not suddenly get so nit pickey. When watching the episode, the "relative to what" answer is usually obvious and on the forward veiwscreen. The helmsman doesn't ask because the answer is directly ahead of the ship.
"Relative to that thing we're about to hit if we don't stop now!" Would be Kirks all too obvious answer, one that shouldn't and didn't need to be said. Even in the open and empty space between solar systems a vehicle can cease all forward motion, or "All stop," without necessarily refering to any other object.
Moving from one solar system towards another - " Without changing direction, let us not get any farther away from the system behind us and also not get any closer to the system ahead of us." Cumbersome, to say the least. "All stop" is just so much simpler and easier to say, not to mention being understood by any reasonable helmsman.

 

[bdewoody]

With all respect I don't think so. Everything in space is in motion some things faster than others. Granted you can stop relative to another object like the shuttle approaching the ISS but you are still moving around the earth at 17,500 mph plus or minus. And to stop requires just as much energy as to move. I'll stand by my statement that the command all stop will never be used in space travel.

Maybe the Captain will say syncronise our motion

 

[yevaud]

One would think that if the command "All Stop" were given, it would be understood that what was being shut down were the engines, e.g. all acceleration ceases. However, these guys are all spacers and full well know that they still retain their velocity. So this command could likely be given here and there, as long as it wasn't for the purpose of placing themselves relative to another object.

On the other hand, this command probably wouldn't be given when in reference to another object either; a far more appropriate "match velocities" would suffice.

 

[drwayne]

With all respect I don't think so. Everything in space is in motion some things faster than others. Granted you can stop relative to another object like the shuttle approaching the ISS but you are still moving around the earth at 17,500 mph plus or minus. And to stop requires just as much energy as to move. I'll stand by my statement that the command all stop will never be used in space travel.

Maybe the Captain will say syncronise our motion

I stand by my point as well. "All stop" is not a velocity or speed based command, it is an engine command.
It basically means in the current context to stop the engines, not stop the spacecraft.

Now, clearly the folks writing this stuff had no comprehension of the magnitude of the numbers they were
dealing with. In a number of episodes in which a pursuit was going on, and the object being pursued
slows dramatically, there is time for the pursuing ship to "notice" the slowdown, think about what to do,
and then order their own slowdown. At the sort of delta-V's involved, you ran over the other guy 20
seconds ago.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

In a number of episodes in which a pursuit was going on, and the object being pursued
slows dramatically, there is time for the pursuing ship to "notice" the slowdown, think about what to do,
and then order their own slowdown. At the sort of delta-V's involved, you ran over the other guy 20
seconds ago.

I've always wondered how they "saw" the other guy at FTL speeds. There they are at warp 8.8 and they "see" the other guy slow down and drop out of warp. What FTL sensing was going on to convey that info back to the good ship Enterprise ?

 

[drwayne]

I *think* the babble explanation for that was something like the sensors relied on collecting information
via "sub-space" - which appeared to allow them to "see" things via sensors (and the viewing screen)
long before the actual photons from the event reached the ship.

 

[jryle1234]

:?: come on--- You people are Nit picking what was a try at a good SF show, Trying to improve on the original. The prior was done with much less knowledge of what was real. :lol:

 

[StarRider1701]

:?: come on--- You people are Nit picking what was a try at a good SF show, Trying to improve on the original. The prior was done with much less knowledge of what was real. :lol:

What he said!

Have you forgotten that Star Trek was 1966-69? Not that we didn't know a few things then, but the show got cancelled a few months before Man first walked on the Moon!

Sorry bdewoody, but I wouldn't call this a "Big Flaw" just a minor misspeak at best. Why are so many folk suddenly expecting the "Science" in Science Fiction to be perfect? It makes no sense to me. Writers are people making up a story. How have we managed to forget that simple fact? How can you enjoy a good story if you expect every little detail and/or every word to be absolutely perfectly flawless?

 

[drwayne]

I never said the things to which I refer fit into the "make me not watch it" category. I am very good controlling
my "suspension of disbelief" chip.

 

[crazyeddie]

Why are so many folk suddenly expecting the "Science" in Science Fiction to be perfect? It makes no sense to me. Writers are people making up a story. How have we managed to forget that simple fact? How can you enjoy a good story if you expect every little detail and/or every word to be absolutely perfectly flawless?

Good science fiction need only be scientifically plausible, not 100% accurate. What reader (or viewer) wants to get bogged down with complicated explanations of the science of the story, when it's the way the science or technology influences human beings that makes it entertaining? As long as the science is not so farfetched or badly presented that it becomes a distraction, it doesn't have to be "perfect".....in fact, it doesn't have to be explained at all. Do we really need to know how a warp drive works in order to enjoy contemplating the possibilities of easy and fast interstellar travel? We do not!

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Yes. Science-fiction fans can be waaaaaay too critical about the science part. It is imaginative, plausible science of the future, nothing more, nothing less. (The science part, I mean.)

One of the greatest things about the real Star Trek was not just all the technology that was based on the energy output of matter-antimatter power generation, ie, the ship's engines, phazers, the transporter, etc. It was the reactions of the characters to phenomena as well as the interaction with the plot devices that is the technology.

(And of course, the dynamic action and great stories.)

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Well if we are going to get technical the biggest flaw in TNG or any star trek is the amount of energy they get from their matter anti matter engines.

They power warp drive engines, they power transporters, they power replicators, and they power holo suites. Come on now even matter/anti-matter can not generate this much power.

The transporters alone are converting matter to energy and transporting it ungodly distances, and the replicators are literary converting energy to any kind of matter you want (maybe easy to say tea Earl Grey, but how much energy did you just use to make a cup of tea from atomic scratch when all you have to do is mix 8 ounces of hot water with some tea leafs).

The whole thing is a major flaw. But hey I love to watch it anyway.

 

[bdewoody]

Why are so many folk suddenly expecting the "Science" in Science Fiction to be perfect? It makes no sense to me. Writers are people making up a story. How have we managed to forget that simple fact? How can you enjoy a good story if you expect every little detail and/or every word to be absolutely perfectly flawless?

Good science fiction need only be scientifically plausible, not 100% accurate. What reader (or viewer) wants to get bogged down with complicated explanations of the science of the story, when it's the way the science or technology influences human beings that makes it entertaining? As long as the science is not so farfetched or badly presented that it becomes a distraction, it doesn't have to be "perfect".....in fact, it doesn't have to be explained at all. Do we really need to know how a warp drive works in order to enjoy contemplating the possibilities of easy and fast interstellar travel? We do not!

So, do you believe it's plausible for a 20 ft. (or so) long chemical rocket to travel from the surface of a planet to its star in 15 seconds when it takes 8 minute for light to get from the star to the planet? That's assuming the star was about the same distance from the planet as our sun is to earth since the planet appeared to be in the star's habitable zone and it was the same class star as the sun.

 

[StarRider1701]

So, do you believe it's plausible for a 20 ft. (or so) long chemical rocket to travel from the surface of a planet to its star in 15 seconds when it takes 8 minute for light to get from the star to the planet? That's assuming the star was about the same distance from the planet as our sun is to earth since the planet appeared to be in the star's habitable zone and it was the same class star as the sun.

As one other poster pointed out, it likely had a small warp engine inside that would have been activated when the rocket was high enough. And no, that would not necessarily create a matter/antimatter explosion. Today a plane carrying a nuke weapon can crash or be shot down without detonating the nuke. If we can do that now, I think its safe to assume that future folk can safely harness a matter/antimatter engine to keep a disaster from being a total catastrophe!

And yes, Gravity Ray, the matter/antimatter reaction is the total conversion of matter to energy. And they clearly had the capability to harness most if not all of the energy released in that reaction. Plenty of power for engines, transporters, weapons, etc. I beleive the transporter range in the Original Star Trek was something like 40 or 50 thousand kilometers. In reality GR, they were not usually using all systems at full power simultaneously. They couldn't transport through the shields, so they were unlikely to need transporters during battle, for example. In fact, during battle especially they almost always called for diverting power from unnecessary systems for use by shields or weapons or somethimes engines. So you are correct, there was certianly a limit even to the matter/antimatter power.