Inevitable doesn't mean it happens by the year this movie took place. You know what will happen in Star Trek that MIT isn't taking into consideration right now? Space colonization. You know what it will take to colonize space? Lots of resources and amounts of energy we cannot even really conceive of right now.
Inevitable as in it already taking place in the real world, and at the rate automation is being incorporated, it will be less than 10 years until the global economic collapse occurs.
As for Star Trek and space colonization - in Trek, that didn't take place until about mid to late 21st century, and the writers didn't account for many other aspects - which is why they set everything so far into the future.
Even we can manage extremely large amounts of energy for space colonization as well as resources - tapping into just 1% of Earth's Geothermal supply would provide Humanity with enough power for the next 4000 years (that's about 2000 zettajoules that's readily accessible with the technology we have today - still think its not enough power?).
That doesn't include space-based solar power.
The resources exist on the landfills - mining the Earth is a stupidly outdated exercise that's only used because of the present system.
We had the capacity of creating synthetic materials with far superior properties in sustainable abundance since the late 19th century - and if we made technology/tools/goods/etc. from such materials, without planned obsolescence, implemented latest science and state of the art methods of production, nothing would ever break, would require little to no maintenance, and efficiency (not to mention overall capabilities) of the technology would be in the 99% and far more advanced compared to anything we currently produce with current artificial constraints.
Trek SF doesn't concern itself with money - or at least it shouldn't - it would focus on what's best possible achievable in a scientific and technological capacity with maximum efficiency and top quality standards.
There's enough raw materials on the landfills to produce 10x more with 3x less with what we have today - even though, space colonization will be conducted by automation and robotics (while using resources from space itself) - having Humans do any such labor would be idiotic, wasteful and dangerous (which is why automation is the only way to go).
There's no reason to think that in Trek (especially from what were told about things changing 50 years post FC), they wouldn't do things like that - and that's what they missed on showing.
Starships have an abundance. They use enough power to warp space as part of their cruising mode. Your apartment in the bay? Uh, no. You don't need anti-matter reactors to run the air conditioner. We don't know how they'd plan a city because we don't know the risks of using something like anti-matter reactors. With the level of power you're talking about, we're talking about accidents that would crack the planet's crust. They could easily decide: "Nah, we don't need that much power here. We'll keep it in space where it's safe."
Regardless, energy abundance can and does exist on Earth. Its about how one goes about harnessing this power. We can do it already, so there's no reason to think Trek Humans cannot.
While anti-matter reactors might not be used on Earth (something which we do not know) in Trek, there's no reason to think they cannot manage absurd levels of abundance from renewables or other forms of energy sources.
We can already manage absurd energy abundance if we used our technology properly - Trek would probably do no less - they would require such abundance anyway.
I think you're assuming everybody would behave like Starfleet officers and not civvies living in San Fransisco. Bear in mind, we live in a society where people get their cars destroyed at train intersections.
This is the 23rd century, and one would hope civilians in Trek would be exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving (and its a different society that thinks differently) - unlike majority of the general population today.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out you have to move away from the transporter pad in an emergency - its simple enough for a child to understand that.
Cars getting destroyed at train intersections in real life is a poor comparison, because I CRINGE when people transpose current day behavior and situation onto a culture hundreds of years into the future - this is one of the reasons I cannot stomach scifi anymore, because it assumes way too much with keeping too many things from 'today' - and that is fundamentally unrealistic.
You're talking about a stupidly large, heavily damaged starship raining debris that started well in orbit with enough power aboard to evaporate the city if the core ruptured. No, the whole city would have to be evac'd.
Your point being? The ship was next to the moon, FAR AWAY from Earth, which would give SF, more than enough time to act.
But no one apparently even noticed the two ships coming out of warp (which would set off the sensors anyway), weapons fire near the moon, subsequent anti-matter explosions from torpedoes, etc (which can usually be detected from light-years away)
The Binars episode where they had minutes to evac the ship and barely got it done. People running to transporters, ppl walking through the umbilical, etc... Despite it being a starbase like the one we've seen in orbit of Earth, it was not *Eep!* *Beep* *Zap* "Oh we're all out, send the ship away!" It turns out even huge starbases don't have enough power or transporter capacity to zap a thousand people out during the threat of a warp core explosion.
The starbase did not use its transporters to transport people on mass from the Enterprise.
The perceived threat from a core breach was still some time away, and people were actively being sent to the docking hatches in a calm manner while also using those who were not closer to the hatches into transporter rooms.
The Enterprise-D also had 20 transporter rooms per that same episode. And if only 6 people can fit onto 1 pad (although we know more can fit as well), that would mean 120 people per each transport cycle - meaning that between 8 to 9 transporter cycles would be required to transport everyone off the ship. The starbase is much larger and would probably have enough capacity to evac the whole D in a single transport cycle - but it simply wasn't necessary.
Voyager btw was able to beam 200 Klingons from their ship - its not something they 'like' to do, but in a 'pinch' it was explained they have the capability of expanding the buffer capacity.
Granted, the movie is 100 years before such a time frame, so I'm not talking about a single transporter system handling everyone - we are talking usage of most of the transporter systems on Earth (or in general vicinity -in other cities) in an emergency situation, as well as Starbase transporters and possible transporters on star-ships.
The amount of sheer capacity we are talking about would have to be more than enough to handle an entire city.
Nobody on Earth knew he was going to ram the ship into San Fran.
I'm sorry... 2 heavily damaged starships dropping towards Earth uncontrollably from very near the moon cannot possibly be invisible to subspace sensors to the point where no ship could be dispatched to redirect them with tractor beams, or the starbase taking some kind of action the moment they dropped out Warp (a visible subspace event) and started shooting at each other (weapons fire leaves a very detectable trace)
A) This story is only six months after the last film, where the Nerada destroyed a lot of earth's defences and ships, they might not have had everything up and running.
Khan blew up both the section 31 tracking station in london, and most of the ship captains and first officers of the fleet, not to mention that Marcus could well have turned off earths detection system so as not to give away his actions with the vengence.
Nano, am I allowed to say 'fanboi' again? I think it's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt now
Deks, seriously, you're really stretching this issue. In late series TNG they struggled to get a few dozen people off the surface of a planet, this film is set pre TOS. Transporters are CLEARLY more primitive, and highly dangerous in this era... So just in case they might get harmed in the collateral damage of a crash which may or may not happen you transport a few million people and 5% of them die in a hideous transporter accident. YAY. Also in the FILM transporters rely ENTIRELY on a highly skilled operator: this is the established on the visual evidence of the screen. There is zero automation of this. So extracting a million + people would require n6 operators on a moments notice to start beaming out a million people. As has ben pointed out you'd need a MASSIVE spike of energy to do this too. Starships have warp cores, which affords them a crap load of energy, stations and installations do not. There's also the sheer organisational operation of not all trying to beam up the same person at the same time, the number of beaming pads, pattern buffers etc, and of course, unless the whole planet was ringed with dozens of these stations, the chances of it being overhead at just the right time are improbable. You're projecting a bunch of hypotheticals which CLEARLY don't exist in the movie universe, nor exist in late TNG/DS9 era when the technology is more advanced and mature... Was everyone beamed out of San Fransisco when the Breen destroyed San Fransisco? Nope, millions dead. Argument invalid. Move on, and find another nitpick.
The starbase did not use its transporters to transport people on mass from the Enterprise.
The perceived threat from a core breach was still some time away, and people were actively being sent to the docking hatches in a calm manner while also using those who were not closer to the hatches into transporter rooms.
The Enterprise-D also had 20 transporter rooms per that same episode. And if only 6 people can fit onto 1 pad (although we know more can fit as well), that would mean 120 people per each transport cycle - meaning that between 8 to 9 transporter cycles would be required to transport everyone off the ship. The starbase is much larger and would probably have enough capacity to evac the whole D in a single transport cycle - but it simply wasn't necessary.
Using the Starbase would have been much faster but the scene was conducted as though the only accesible resource was the Enterprise. This is just Hero ship considerations. How many times has Spacedock been neutralized or never even considered in Earth Defense?
POSSIBILITIES
a. The Transporters on Space Dock are not all slaved to that sort of singular purpose
b. TNG's use of site to site transport may have been new and not widely used
Granted, the movie is 100 years before such a time frame, so I'm not talking about a single transporter system handling everyone - we are talking usage of most of the transporter systems on Earth (or in general vicinity -in other cities) in an emergency situation, as well as Starbase transporters and possible transporters on star-ships.
The amount of sheer capacity we are talking about would have to be more than enough to handle an entire city.
Transporters require line of sight. This means the sensor tech would have the ability to track millions of targets at once or there were dozens of satellites in orbits. It also means that those or that satellite would be capable of handling the matter stream of all those transports asw ell as the buffer for such a task and it seems such a satellite would need to be as big as a starship to do it. (power source, cooling, computer buffers) it would literally be a dedicated construction.)
Inevitable as in it already taking place in the real world, and at the rate automation is being incorporated, it will be less than 10 years until the global economic collapse occurs.
Bear in mind that predictions about the time we live in now were humorously off the mark. It turns out that atomic power automating... everything... wasn't supported by reality. No matter which way you slice it, it's no more than theoretical.
- tapping into just 1% of Earth's Geothermal supply would provide Humanity with enough power for the next 4000 years (that's about 2000 zettajoules that's readily accessible with the technology we have today - still think its not enough power?).
For twenty billion people with who-knows-what demands things like transporters, replicators, export to other colonies, and the like? I don't know. What I do know is power STORAGE is still an issue which drags us back into the 'Not in my backyard!' debate.
We can do it already, so there's no reason to think Trek Humans cannot.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, we're phasing out our most promising form of providing abundant electrical power because of ONE ACCIDENT. It's not just about what we're capable of doing, it's whether or not we'll do it.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out you have to move away from the transporter pad in an emergency - its simple enough for a child to understand that.
Yet... here in the real world... *sigh*. I think you've seen so many Trek people in starfleet uniforms that it hasn't occured to you that the masses don't actually change that much over time.
The starbase did not use its transporters to transport people on mass from the Enterprise.
The perceived threat from a core breach was still some time away, and people were actively being sent to the docking hatches in a calm manner while also using those who were not closer to the hatches into transporter rooms.
So you're saying that a state-of-the-art starship sitting inside of a space dock spontaneously grew a warp core threat that they couldn't explain, so they decided to have people leisurely disembark so they could send it on it's way and blow up safely outside the solar system? No. Starfleet is wayyy smarter than that. They didn't transport them because they couldn't do it.
The amount of sheer capacity we are talking about would have to be more than enough to handle an entire city.
There is no basis for that statement. None. Zero. We don't know the transporter capability of a starbase, or the local offices in San Fran, or what. It's not established anywhere. It's not established what they're using for power and whether or not it could accomodate a huge beamout like that. It's not established that it would happen automatically. There's just plain a whole lot of: "Nah, they never covered this." Meanwhile, millions still have to end up SOMEWHERE.
I'm sorry... 2 heavily damaged starships dropping towards Earth uncontrollably from very near the moon cannot possibly be invisible to subspace sensors...
One starship didn't end up at all where anyone thought, the other was intentionally being rammed by a very intelligent man who pulled one over on Section 31. No, nobody on Earth knew that was going to happen.
Since when do transporters require line of sight? People have been beaming in and out of ships, buildings, and caves since season 1 TOS.
"Line of Sight"
This means an electromagnetic transmission is not blocked by the horizon of the planet.
Into Darkness had the same problem because they were underwater instead of in orbit.
Has nothing to do with the signal traveling through buildings
(that's only a concern for your Direct TV or Dishnetwork provider.)
I'm sorry... 2 heavily damaged starships dropping towards Earth uncontrollably from very near the moon cannot possibly be invisible to subspace sensors to the point where no ship could be dispatched to redirect them with tractor beams, or the starbase taking some kind of action the moment they dropped out Warp (a visible subspace event) and started shooting at each other (weapons fire leaves a very detectable trace)
While I've been following the argument (and share many people here's dislike of the film), I have to comment here. It's a common trope that starships in most Sci-Fi universes (and even some SyFy ones) can detect weapons fire at long ranges. Why? Think about it, we're talking about several possible weapons types here:
1) Mass weapons (mass drivers, guns, grapeshot, those missile/cannon hybrids of New BSG) - unless their driver coils are ENORMOUS, the energies used in throwing even a few tons of metal at high velocity should be damped out by any local planetary magnetic field. At long ranges, the solar magnetic field (heliosphere, I think it's called) should blanket it. This should also be the case with gravity-driven weapons (after all, the local star has a LOT more gravity than a mere gun--if it doesn't, what the HECK are they using as a power source??!?).
2) Beam Weapons (lasers, phasers, grasers, particle beams) should be far too focused to be detected except by the target. Heck, if you're the target of a laser and it misses, you shouldn't even know it. After all, there's too little particle density in space to cause much dispersion and if the laser has that weak a focus that a bit of the beam can graze you and do no damage, than just stand in the path and enjoy the sunburn.
3) Plasma Weapons (incl. "fusion beams," star lances, etc.) - now THESE maybe, since they're throwing coherent packets of solar-temperature matter around. Of course, how they keep the plasma coherent over any distance is another issue. For that matter, like the mass weapons above the local space environment should drown out the visibility of the gun.
4) Torpedoes, Missiles, etc - again, the engines necessary to drive the weapon are going to be drowned out by local conditions.
Now, sure, those involved IN the combat will detect some of the above. Those nearby might, depending on if the battle is taking place near a planet or not. And, of course, the IMPACTS from those weapons will be detectable ... but hardly at light-year distances. Think about it, even if some of the science-types are right and a Star Destroyer gun-blast is rated in the gigaton range (they did disintegrate small asteroids with single shots in TESB) that's a microscopic drop in a biiiiiiig bucket when it comes to solar output, even when it comes to the solar radiation a planet absorbs.
Of course, little of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, so I'll sit back and watch the fireworks continue.
Sticking to what we know from the films, both the two new ones, and the six old ones (no next gen), there is nothing to suggest that transporters are widely used on earth, not just by civilians, but by anyone.
Most of the time we see the crew go to the enterprise they go via shuttle, the few times we do see someone beam to the ship, its the enterprises own transporters that do the job, and the one time we do see a transporter platform on earth, it is so unused that the officer in charge thinks of it as a dead end job, fine for someone whose career is winding down.
Just because a technology exists does not make it commonplace, as far as we know, the transporter could be a restricted device, only used by starfleet, and not for public use.
I know this is the 23rd century, and they don't have wars or crime on earth, but I guess being able to beam into a bank, or someone elses house, might not be the sort of thing they want to tempt their crime free population with.
But then again, they do still beat the **** out of each other in bars (trouble with tribbles proves JJ didn't invent this), so maybe they aren't so crime free after all.
New technology doesn't always replace the old either, they have had electric shavers for more than 50 years now, but people still use razorblades.
This means an electromagnetic transmission is not blocked by the horizon of the planet.
Into Darkness had the same problem because they were underwater instead of in orbit.
have no idea why any rational STARSHIP commander would treat his vessel as a SUBMARINE, being up in orbit would be even better hidden against the native civilisation.
I have a question: How do any of you know how Star Trek technology works or is powered? You can't. So all these arguments on how how the tech really work are invalid. No one here is an expert on the tech.
Starships can't operate under water as it has been proven in the entire series (don't count the Animated series or Enterprise because in those cases those were shuttles); transwarp beaming is an invention of JJ's verse and never seen in the canon prime timeline; both ships should of been detected because it was never stated how much of the detection/defense grid the Narada destroyed 6 months prior or if it even destroyed the grid(it may have been simply deactivated to save time); and lastly most of STID was unnecessary and just added to appeal to audiences and because lack of imagination (including Enterprise underwater).
The Spock yelling 'Kahn' scene was completely unjustified, because they only knew each other for 6 months and not at least a decade like in the original series. Killing off Pike like they did was defiantly different, and the time between his death and Kirk's resurrection he would of been dead too long for the Kahn blood to work. I would of preferred they used a different augment and not Kahn, as it would of allowed a different, maybe more dangerous adversary for the crew. The Klingons should of kept their helmets on. I actually though the Spock/Uhara argument scene was actually kinda funny because it makes you wonder how a Vulcan would handle an angry girlfriend. The inclusion of Carol Marcus (with an accent) was just dumb (why was she even there? for an underwear scene?). The Vengeance I liked and I understand all the hate it gets (the Enterprise-D and Defiant were different and they too had haters at first). The falling to Earth scene should of never happened unless they were a hell of a lot closer.
Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
have no idea why any rational STARSHIP commander would treat his vessel as a SUBMARINE, being up in orbit would be even better hidden against the native civilisation.
The nacelles aren't sealed.
Even on the Abramsprise it has moving components and strange inlets on the front of the nacelles.
Seawater is corrosive to just about everything so they essentially flooded the warp engines.
(there is a reason why Janeway vented the nacelles of plasma before landing on a planet. The plasma from 1:1 antimatter collisions is extremely hot. The Ionization could degrade ozone.
I have a question: How do any of you know how Star Trek technology works or is powered? You can't. So all these arguments on how how the tech really work are invalid. No one here is an expert on the tech.
Starships can't operate under water as it has been proven in the entire series.
Having seen the entire series, I don't seem to recall the one that said starships cant work under water.
Maybe you could point out specific examples, because at the moment, that's like saying the A team couldn't go into space, because we never saw an episode where they went into space.
I mean if you are just assuming something because you don't like the idea of it, you are just breaching the idea behind your first quote.
Seawater is corrosive to just about everything so they essentially flooded the warp engines.
Again, you never stop with the bad science do you?
Glass, plastic, gold, carbon fibre, not to mention 300 years worth of new exotic materials we don't even know about yet, or are you suggesting the enterprise is made of iron?
Besides all that, it was in the sea for a day! Hell they parked a pick up truck on the beach and let the tide come in over it on top gear, that wasnt some future space vehicle, it was a toyata, and the next day when the tide went out, they cleaned the engine out, started it up, and drove it away.
Being in the sea for a day was a mild inconvenience at best.
Leave it down there for ten years it might be a different story.
Again, you never stop with the bad science do you?
Glass, plastic, gold, carbon fibre, not to mention 300 years worth of new exotic materials we don't even know about yet, or are you suggesting the enterprise is made of iron?
Besides all that, it was in the sea for a day! Hell they parked a pick up truck on the beach and let the tide come in over it on top gear, that wasnt some future space vehicle, it was a toyata, and the next day when the tide went out, they cleaned the engine out, started it up, and drove it away.
Being in the sea for a day was a mild inconvenience at best.
Leave it down there for ten years it might be a different story.
lol
Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
Having seen the entire series, I don't seem to recall the one that said starships cant work under water.
Maybe you could point out specific examples, because at the moment, that's like saying the A team couldn't go into space, because we never saw an episode where they went into space.
I mean if you are just assuming something because you don't like the idea of it, you are just breaching the idea behind your first quote.
Actually I do recall the Voyager could be modded to go underwater, but it's something they wouldn't recommend. I know they do have ships that would go underwater, but they would very small and likely have a crew of a few, as using ships the size of Voyager and up would be impractical. I semi-count Fludic Space because we don't know how dense it is compared to water or even how Fludic Space works.
As for the A-Team, don't use them as an example. They can go wherever the hell they want.
Also to add to the transporters topic, I find it highly unlikely that Scotty forgot his transwarp beaming equation. He probably would of built a duplicate device to use on the Enterprise and would of solved the volcano situation with ease. But however it was stated in the film direct line of site was needed for that instance because of the strong magnetic field that was interfering with the transporters.
Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
Yeah, that was quoted right at the start of the thread, but as I said then, he is a 21st century scientist, he can no more tell us about the fictional properties of a ship two hundred years in the future than Jack the Ripper could explain plasma tvs.
He was also basing his assumptions on one shot from the trailer, without even seeing the film, and on top of all that, if he is to be believed then the enterprise is weaker than a WWII submarine.
That article didn't explain anything though. The guy basically said the Enterprise can't go underwater because it can't go underwater.
In the film the ship had no good reason to be underwater that we were told about, but I can't see why there would be any technical reason why it couldn't... It can withstand warp speed and take hits by weapons with the power of dozens of nuclear bombs... I don't think being underwater would be anywhere near as stressful as all that.
From what I can piece together from the film itself, the enterprise went into the sea at night, and Kirk and McCoy swam out and arrived on the beach, so if any of the villagers had seen them arrive, they would have thought they came from another land across the sea, if things had gone well they would have calmly left by the same route, but since things did not go well the villagers would just assume the two strangers had died falling off the cliff.
Simply beaming up would have been a violation of the prime directive, the very thing they were trying to avoid, and if Spock's mission hadn't required him to be rescued, then Kirk wouldn't have had to violate it at all.
If they had been in orbit they would have been clearly visible in the pollution free sky, especially if the enterprise was in a geostationary orbit, that alone could have been mistake for a sign from their god.
I still don't understand why people believe that an FTL capable starship that can handle atmospheric flight and explore dense nebulas isn't water resistant.
I'm under no illusions about the fact that the entire reason for putting the ship underwtaer in the film was for the excuse to have a spectacular effects shot and so that the natives could see the ship so that Kirk could be disciplined for breaking the rules. This is an example of horse-before-the-cart plotting where events conform to the needs of the plot rather than seeming like a natural result of the plot.
However it was just one hell of a cool sequence, and you can explain it away using speculation if you want, so I don't mind.
Like I said somewhere else, JJ gets in trouble for giving us stuff we have seen before, and for giving us stuff we havent seen before, the man just can't win.
Meanwhile I've always had a big problem with the concept of the Prime Directive. They mean us to believe that a benevolent organisation like the Federation would not save a species from extinction from a natural disaster simply because they hadn't reached some arbitrary point in their technological development? That strikes me as terribly callous and self-serving. Also, they also mean us to believe that once a species has reached an arbitrary point in their development boom, next day they become Federation members with full access to all the technology?
I understand the Prime Directive as a story device, to make writers come up with creative ways to circumvent it, and that is great. But the Prime Directive itself is unrealistically rigid and absolutist. So it was basically violated every second episode of any Trek series you could care to mention.
Then of course we have the problem with Trek fanboys and their belief that all things Trek are real life lessons and a religion of sorts, so they lose their minds when the Prime Directive is violated as part of the plot of a Trek movie. Most of them however don't bat an eyelid when it is violated but it is not specifically pointed out in the script. Which happened every other week.
Problem with Abrams Trek from a Trekkie perspective is that it will tend to be placed under very tight scrutiny because it is a clear point of comparison. So lots of viewers feel compelled to watch these films with a clipboard and check-list so that judgement can be passed on every little change, error or perceived flaw as compared to the original. Honestly, would't it be easier to just catch re-runs of the original series?
Good thing for Paramount most viewers simply want Trek to mean a good time at the movies....
Besides, I recon in the 60s the only reason for the prime directive was so that they could visit planets that looked like standing sets that already exhisted at paramount, and they could use clothes and props that already existed there too.
That said, Kirk and Spock dressed as gangsters was one of my favourite moments of the show.
Meanwhile I've always had a big problem with the concept of the Prime Directive. They mean us to believe that a benevolent organisation like the Federation would not save a species from extinction from a natural disaster simply because they hadn't reached some arbitrary point in their technological development? That strikes me as terribly callous and self-serving. Also, they also mean us to believe that once a species has reached an arbitrary point in their development boom, next day they become Federation members with full access to all the technology?
For every rule there is an exception.
But I personally believe the Prime Directive is an extremely good policy. I'm not political science major by far but it seems the US could a directive like this and fast. Much of America's problems stem from nosing into the world issues whether directly involved or not. They're fight against communism in the 20th century was a complete disaster. On the other hand the foreign aid policy helped to rebuild Europe after World War II. But on the third hand it was self severing because they reinvested that money back in America.
While it seems callous to leave a non warp civilization out in the lurch that is exactly has happened to humanity. That's the "evolutionary" process, as it were. Non-interference seems to be the best policy because we tend to do more harm than good. How are we to judge what is good for the civilization we encounter that are bellow us?
That's one of the reasons why Ii didn't like ENT. Roddenberry's idea was to have the Vulcans partner with the Humans due to the war not hand hold us through a tech upgrade. The results were rather stupid and aggravating. They should have shown Vulcans with a longer life span as far far more patient in there space endeavors and dealing with other life forms and humans rather impatient pushing forward and creating tech far soon and advancing each other mutually. Dumb producers just wanted angst.
Posts
Inevitable as in it already taking place in the real world, and at the rate automation is being incorporated, it will be less than 10 years until the global economic collapse occurs.
As for Star Trek and space colonization - in Trek, that didn't take place until about mid to late 21st century, and the writers didn't account for many other aspects - which is why they set everything so far into the future.
Even we can manage extremely large amounts of energy for space colonization as well as resources - tapping into just 1% of Earth's Geothermal supply would provide Humanity with enough power for the next 4000 years (that's about 2000 zettajoules that's readily accessible with the technology we have today - still think its not enough power?).
That doesn't include space-based solar power.
The resources exist on the landfills - mining the Earth is a stupidly outdated exercise that's only used because of the present system.
We had the capacity of creating synthetic materials with far superior properties in sustainable abundance since the late 19th century - and if we made technology/tools/goods/etc. from such materials, without planned obsolescence, implemented latest science and state of the art methods of production, nothing would ever break, would require little to no maintenance, and efficiency (not to mention overall capabilities) of the technology would be in the 99% and far more advanced compared to anything we currently produce with current artificial constraints.
Trek SF doesn't concern itself with money - or at least it shouldn't - it would focus on what's best possible achievable in a scientific and technological capacity with maximum efficiency and top quality standards.
There's enough raw materials on the landfills to produce 10x more with 3x less with what we have today - even though, space colonization will be conducted by automation and robotics (while using resources from space itself) - having Humans do any such labor would be idiotic, wasteful and dangerous (which is why automation is the only way to go).
There's no reason to think that in Trek (especially from what were told about things changing 50 years post FC), they wouldn't do things like that - and that's what they missed on showing.
Regardless, energy abundance can and does exist on Earth. Its about how one goes about harnessing this power. We can do it already, so there's no reason to think Trek Humans cannot.
While anti-matter reactors might not be used on Earth (something which we do not know) in Trek, there's no reason to think they cannot manage absurd levels of abundance from renewables or other forms of energy sources.
We can already manage absurd energy abundance if we used our technology properly - Trek would probably do no less - they would require such abundance anyway.
This is the 23rd century, and one would hope civilians in Trek would be exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving (and its a different society that thinks differently) - unlike majority of the general population today.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out you have to move away from the transporter pad in an emergency - its simple enough for a child to understand that.
Cars getting destroyed at train intersections in real life is a poor comparison, because I CRINGE when people transpose current day behavior and situation onto a culture hundreds of years into the future - this is one of the reasons I cannot stomach scifi anymore, because it assumes way too much with keeping too many things from 'today' - and that is fundamentally unrealistic.
Your point being? The ship was next to the moon, FAR AWAY from Earth, which would give SF, more than enough time to act.
But no one apparently even noticed the two ships coming out of warp (which would set off the sensors anyway), weapons fire near the moon, subsequent anti-matter explosions from torpedoes, etc (which can usually be detected from light-years away)
The starbase did not use its transporters to transport people on mass from the Enterprise.
The perceived threat from a core breach was still some time away, and people were actively being sent to the docking hatches in a calm manner while also using those who were not closer to the hatches into transporter rooms.
The Enterprise-D also had 20 transporter rooms per that same episode. And if only 6 people can fit onto 1 pad (although we know more can fit as well), that would mean 120 people per each transport cycle - meaning that between 8 to 9 transporter cycles would be required to transport everyone off the ship. The starbase is much larger and would probably have enough capacity to evac the whole D in a single transport cycle - but it simply wasn't necessary.
Voyager btw was able to beam 200 Klingons from their ship - its not something they 'like' to do, but in a 'pinch' it was explained they have the capability of expanding the buffer capacity.
Granted, the movie is 100 years before such a time frame, so I'm not talking about a single transporter system handling everyone - we are talking usage of most of the transporter systems on Earth (or in general vicinity -in other cities) in an emergency situation, as well as Starbase transporters and possible transporters on star-ships.
The amount of sheer capacity we are talking about would have to be more than enough to handle an entire city.
I'm sorry... 2 heavily damaged starships dropping towards Earth uncontrollably from very near the moon cannot possibly be invisible to subspace sensors to the point where no ship could be dispatched to redirect them with tractor beams, or the starbase taking some kind of action the moment they dropped out Warp (a visible subspace event) and started shooting at each other (weapons fire leaves a very detectable trace)
A) This story is only six months after the last film, where the Nerada destroyed a lot of earth's defences and ships, they might not have had everything up and running.
Deks, seriously, you're really stretching this issue. In late series TNG they struggled to get a few dozen people off the surface of a planet, this film is set pre TOS. Transporters are CLEARLY more primitive, and highly dangerous in this era... So just in case they might get harmed in the collateral damage of a crash which may or may not happen you transport a few million people and 5% of them die in a hideous transporter accident. YAY. Also in the FILM transporters rely ENTIRELY on a highly skilled operator: this is the established on the visual evidence of the screen. There is zero automation of this. So extracting a million + people would require n6 operators on a moments notice to start beaming out a million people. As has ben pointed out you'd need a MASSIVE spike of energy to do this too. Starships have warp cores, which affords them a crap load of energy, stations and installations do not. There's also the sheer organisational operation of not all trying to beam up the same person at the same time, the number of beaming pads, pattern buffers etc, and of course, unless the whole planet was ringed with dozens of these stations, the chances of it being overhead at just the right time are improbable. You're projecting a bunch of hypotheticals which CLEARLY don't exist in the movie universe, nor exist in late TNG/DS9 era when the technology is more advanced and mature... Was everyone beamed out of San Fransisco when the Breen destroyed San Fransisco? Nope, millions dead. Argument invalid. Move on, and find another nitpick.
Using the Starbase would have been much faster but the scene was conducted as though the only accesible resource was the Enterprise. This is just Hero ship considerations. How many times has Spacedock been neutralized or never even considered in Earth Defense?
POSSIBILITIES
a. The Transporters on Space Dock are not all slaved to that sort of singular purpose
b. TNG's use of site to site transport may have been new and not widely used
Transporters require line of sight. This means the sensor tech would have the ability to track millions of targets at once or there were dozens of satellites in orbits. It also means that those or that satellite would be capable of handling the matter stream of all those transports asw ell as the buffer for such a task and it seems such a satellite would need to be as big as a starship to do it. (power source, cooling, computer buffers) it would literally be a dedicated construction.)
I love Trek in general, but I'm not defending the movie. It's the rationale.
Bear in mind that predictions about the time we live in now were humorously off the mark. It turns out that atomic power automating... everything... wasn't supported by reality. No matter which way you slice it, it's no more than theoretical.
For twenty billion people with who-knows-what demands things like transporters, replicators, export to other colonies, and the like? I don't know. What I do know is power STORAGE is still an issue which drags us back into the 'Not in my backyard!' debate.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, we're phasing out our most promising form of providing abundant electrical power because of ONE ACCIDENT. It's not just about what we're capable of doing, it's whether or not we'll do it.
Yet... here in the real world... *sigh*. I think you've seen so many Trek people in starfleet uniforms that it hasn't occured to you that the masses don't actually change that much over time.
So you're saying that a state-of-the-art starship sitting inside of a space dock spontaneously grew a warp core threat that they couldn't explain, so they decided to have people leisurely disembark so they could send it on it's way and blow up safely outside the solar system? No. Starfleet is wayyy smarter than that. They didn't transport them because they couldn't do it.
There is no basis for that statement. None. Zero. We don't know the transporter capability of a starbase, or the local offices in San Fran, or what. It's not established anywhere. It's not established what they're using for power and whether or not it could accomodate a huge beamout like that. It's not established that it would happen automatically. There's just plain a whole lot of: "Nah, they never covered this." Meanwhile, millions still have to end up SOMEWHERE.
One starship didn't end up at all where anyone thought, the other was intentionally being rammed by a very intelligent man who pulled one over on Section 31. No, nobody on Earth knew that was going to happen.
"Line of Sight"
This means an electromagnetic transmission is not blocked by the horizon of the planet.
Into Darkness had the same problem because they were underwater instead of in orbit.
Has nothing to do with the signal traveling through buildings
(that's only a concern for your Direct TV or Dishnetwork provider.)
While I've been following the argument (and share many people here's dislike of the film), I have to comment here. It's a common trope that starships in most Sci-Fi universes (and even some SyFy ones) can detect weapons fire at long ranges. Why? Think about it, we're talking about several possible weapons types here:
1) Mass weapons (mass drivers, guns, grapeshot, those missile/cannon hybrids of New BSG) - unless their driver coils are ENORMOUS, the energies used in throwing even a few tons of metal at high velocity should be damped out by any local planetary magnetic field. At long ranges, the solar magnetic field (heliosphere, I think it's called) should blanket it. This should also be the case with gravity-driven weapons (after all, the local star has a LOT more gravity than a mere gun--if it doesn't, what the HECK are they using as a power source??!?).
2) Beam Weapons (lasers, phasers, grasers, particle beams) should be far too focused to be detected except by the target. Heck, if you're the target of a laser and it misses, you shouldn't even know it. After all, there's too little particle density in space to cause much dispersion and if the laser has that weak a focus that a bit of the beam can graze you and do no damage, than just stand in the path and enjoy the sunburn.
3) Plasma Weapons (incl. "fusion beams," star lances, etc.) - now THESE maybe, since they're throwing coherent packets of solar-temperature matter around. Of course, how they keep the plasma coherent over any distance is another issue. For that matter, like the mass weapons above the local space environment should drown out the visibility of the gun.
4) Torpedoes, Missiles, etc - again, the engines necessary to drive the weapon are going to be drowned out by local conditions.
Now, sure, those involved IN the combat will detect some of the above. Those nearby might, depending on if the battle is taking place near a planet or not. And, of course, the IMPACTS from those weapons will be detectable ... but hardly at light-year distances. Think about it, even if some of the science-types are right and a Star Destroyer gun-blast is rated in the gigaton range (they did disintegrate small asteroids with single shots in TESB) that's a microscopic drop in a biiiiiiig bucket when it comes to solar output, even when it comes to the solar radiation a planet absorbs.
Of course, little of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, so I'll sit back and watch the fireworks continue.
Most of the time we see the crew go to the enterprise they go via shuttle, the few times we do see someone beam to the ship, its the enterprises own transporters that do the job, and the one time we do see a transporter platform on earth, it is so unused that the officer in charge thinks of it as a dead end job, fine for someone whose career is winding down.
Just because a technology exists does not make it commonplace, as far as we know, the transporter could be a restricted device, only used by starfleet, and not for public use.
I know this is the 23rd century, and they don't have wars or crime on earth, but I guess being able to beam into a bank, or someone elses house, might not be the sort of thing they want to tempt their crime free population with.
But then again, they do still beat the **** out of each other in bars (trouble with tribbles proves JJ didn't invent this), so maybe they aren't so crime free after all.
New technology doesn't always replace the old either, they have had electric shavers for more than 50 years now, but people still use razorblades.
have no idea why any rational STARSHIP commander would treat his vessel as a SUBMARINE, being up in orbit would be even better hidden against the native civilisation.
Starships can't operate under water as it has been proven in the entire series (don't count the Animated series or Enterprise because in those cases those were shuttles); transwarp beaming is an invention of JJ's verse and never seen in the canon prime timeline; both ships should of been detected because it was never stated how much of the detection/defense grid the Narada destroyed 6 months prior or if it even destroyed the grid(it may have been simply deactivated to save time); and lastly most of STID was unnecessary and just added to appeal to audiences and because lack of imagination (including Enterprise underwater).
The Spock yelling 'Kahn' scene was completely unjustified, because they only knew each other for 6 months and not at least a decade like in the original series. Killing off Pike like they did was defiantly different, and the time between his death and Kirk's resurrection he would of been dead too long for the Kahn blood to work. I would of preferred they used a different augment and not Kahn, as it would of allowed a different, maybe more dangerous adversary for the crew. The Klingons should of kept their helmets on. I actually though the Spock/Uhara argument scene was actually kinda funny because it makes you wonder how a Vulcan would handle an angry girlfriend. The inclusion of Carol Marcus (with an accent) was just dumb (why was she even there? for an underwear scene?). The Vengeance I liked and I understand all the hate it gets (the Enterprise-D and Defiant were different and they too had haters at first). The falling to Earth scene should of never happened unless they were a hell of a lot closer.
Well ... yes.
The nacelles aren't sealed.
Even on the Abramsprise it has moving components and strange inlets on the front of the nacelles.
Seawater is corrosive to just about everything so they essentially flooded the warp engines.
(there is a reason why Janeway vented the nacelles of plasma before landing on a planet. The plasma from 1:1 antimatter collisions is extremely hot. The Ionization could degrade ozone.
Good point.
Having seen the entire series, I don't seem to recall the one that said starships cant work under water.
Maybe you could point out specific examples, because at the moment, that's like saying the A team couldn't go into space, because we never saw an episode where they went into space.
I mean if you are just assuming something because you don't like the idea of it, you are just breaching the idea behind your first quote.
Again, you never stop with the bad science do you?
Glass, plastic, gold, carbon fibre, not to mention 300 years worth of new exotic materials we don't even know about yet, or are you suggesting the enterprise is made of iron?
Besides all that, it was in the sea for a day! Hell they parked a pick up truck on the beach and let the tide come in over it on top gear, that wasnt some future space vehicle, it was a toyata, and the next day when the tide went out, they cleaned the engine out, started it up, and drove it away.
Being in the sea for a day was a mild inconvenience at best.
Leave it down there for ten years it might be a different story.
lol
Actually I do recall the Voyager could be modded to go underwater, but it's something they wouldn't recommend. I know they do have ships that would go underwater, but they would very small and likely have a crew of a few, as using ships the size of Voyager and up would be impractical. I semi-count Fludic Space because we don't know how dense it is compared to water or even how Fludic Space works.
As for the A-Team, don't use them as an example. They can go wherever the hell they want.
For the Enterprise scene in STID, read this:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/11/a-scientist-explains-why-the-enterprise-cant-go-underwater/
Yeah, that was quoted right at the start of the thread, but as I said then, he is a 21st century scientist, he can no more tell us about the fictional properties of a ship two hundred years in the future than Jack the Ripper could explain plasma tvs.
He was also basing his assumptions on one shot from the trailer, without even seeing the film, and on top of all that, if he is to be believed then the enterprise is weaker than a WWII submarine.
In the film the ship had no good reason to be underwater that we were told about, but I can't see why there would be any technical reason why it couldn't... It can withstand warp speed and take hits by weapons with the power of dozens of nuclear bombs... I don't think being underwater would be anywhere near as stressful as all that.
Simply beaming up would have been a violation of the prime directive, the very thing they were trying to avoid, and if Spock's mission hadn't required him to be rescued, then Kirk wouldn't have had to violate it at all.
If they had been in orbit they would have been clearly visible in the pollution free sky, especially if the enterprise was in a geostationary orbit, that alone could have been mistake for a sign from their god.
However it was just one hell of a cool sequence, and you can explain it away using speculation if you want, so I don't mind.
I understand the Prime Directive as a story device, to make writers come up with creative ways to circumvent it, and that is great. But the Prime Directive itself is unrealistically rigid and absolutist. So it was basically violated every second episode of any Trek series you could care to mention.
Then of course we have the problem with Trek fanboys and their belief that all things Trek are real life lessons and a religion of sorts, so they lose their minds when the Prime Directive is violated as part of the plot of a Trek movie. Most of them however don't bat an eyelid when it is violated but it is not specifically pointed out in the script. Which happened every other week.
Problem with Abrams Trek from a Trekkie perspective is that it will tend to be placed under very tight scrutiny because it is a clear point of comparison. So lots of viewers feel compelled to watch these films with a clipboard and check-list so that judgement can be passed on every little change, error or perceived flaw as compared to the original. Honestly, would't it be easier to just catch re-runs of the original series?
Good thing for Paramount most viewers simply want Trek to mean a good time at the movies....
Kirk thought the prime directive was crap too.
Besides, I recon in the 60s the only reason for the prime directive was so that they could visit planets that looked like standing sets that already exhisted at paramount, and they could use clothes and props that already existed there too.
That said, Kirk and Spock dressed as gangsters was one of my favourite moments of the show.
For every rule there is an exception.
But I personally believe the Prime Directive is an extremely good policy. I'm not political science major by far but it seems the US could a directive like this and fast. Much of America's problems stem from nosing into the world issues whether directly involved or not. They're fight against communism in the 20th century was a complete disaster. On the other hand the foreign aid policy helped to rebuild Europe after World War II. But on the third hand it was self severing because they reinvested that money back in America.
While it seems callous to leave a non warp civilization out in the lurch that is exactly has happened to humanity. That's the "evolutionary" process, as it were. Non-interference seems to be the best policy because we tend to do more harm than good. How are we to judge what is good for the civilization we encounter that are bellow us?
That's one of the reasons why Ii didn't like ENT. Roddenberry's idea was to have the Vulcans partner with the Humans due to the war not hand hold us through a tech upgrade. The results were rather stupid and aggravating. They should have shown Vulcans with a longer life span as far far more patient in there space endeavors and dealing with other life forms and humans rather impatient pushing forward and creating tech far soon and advancing each other mutually. Dumb producers just wanted angst.