ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

A source of annoyment

Oxiegen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 3:23 am

Hey!


I'm new on this board, but I've been kind of a fan of Star Trek for a bunch of years now.
I have a question for anyone who feels he/she is up to the task of answering it.

Currently I'm re-watching Star Trek Voyager, and I'm at the episode Twisted (Season 2, Episode 6).
The ship is about to be surrounded by some space anomaly in the form of a cloud ring, with Tuvok in command.
And he orders the helm to plot a course straight through at Warp 3.

Here is the question: why doesn't the Star Trek universe ever employ the use of the Y-axis in this type of situations?
Instead of going through the anomaly, they could have simply pitched "up" slightly and gone over it.
After all, Space is not 2-dimensional.

In fact, this has kind of annoyed me with virtually all space based sci-fi shows I've seen.

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 6:10 am

That would be the Z axis, but yeah, television and movie scifi tend to overlook that.  I hate it whenever some planet or very large space station explodes and forms a ring.

Oxiegen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 8:46 am

Julian40900:> Compared to what?
It's well established that minor course corrections can be done during warp speed, and going up and over that distortion field at warp 5 or 6 would actually be faster than going through it at warp 3.
And as it is, they couldn't even run at warp speed because the field knocked out the warp chamber so they had to limp through it at impulse.


Broadstorm:> Axis depends on your point of view.
But because the common census is that the Y-axis is vertical, then I'll just go with that.
And I agree with you. Though they can make it look cool, it's just not realistic.


ServalanFan:> I don't mind the weird fact that ships in sci-fi are turned the same side up. I'm just curious as to why there are so few, if any, sci-fi writers and producers out there that can't get their head out of their a$$ and implement publicly known physics.
And that in turn would make it look a whole lot cooler. Don't you agree?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 5:17 pm

Quote: Oxiegen @ Jan. 07 2013, 8:46 am

>

>Julian40900:> Compared to what?
It's well established that minor course corrections can be done during warp speed, and going up and over that distortion field at warp 5 or 6 would actually be faster than going through it at warp 3.
And as it is, they couldn't even run at warp speed because the field knocked out the warp chamber so they had to limp through it at impulse.

>Broadstorm:> Axis depends on your point of view.
But because the common census is that the Y-axis is vertical, then I'll just go with that.
And I agree with you. Though they can make it look cool, it's just not realistic.

>ServalanFan:> I don't mind the weird fact that ships in sci-fi are turned the same side up. I'm just curious as to why there are so few, if any, sci-fi writers and producers out there that can't get their head out of their a$$ and implement publicly known physics.
And that in turn would make it look a whole lot cooler. Don't you agree?

>


 


Because its about entertaining casual viewers, not scifi nerds. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Jan. 07 2013, 11:58 pm

Isn't it funny how the most successful movies in the franchise were the only ones to have actually employed this.



I'm not making a connection though


Oxiegen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jan. 08 2013, 1:20 am

True enough.
The casual viewer might not react upon it the same way we do, but don't you agree that most viewers who watch sci-fi shows do have a certain amount of geek gene in them?

I wouldn't know of any such movie. Could you give an example, Blockman?
However, if I'm not entirely offline, I think that both the shows Andromeda and Stargate SG-1 employed this concept.
But I must confess that it's been a while since I watched those shows, so I can't be certain.

In any case.
I've been doing a bit of research and googling regarding this, and it's quite fascinating to find that there are so few of us (if any) that have botherd to even ask this question.
I don't presume to know if anyone have even reacted on this, it's just interesting to find that noone have publicly asked the community.
(Please forgive any mistakes in my grammer, I'm from Sweden) 

Capt William Brewster

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27

Report this Jan. 08 2013, 1:25 pm

I have to agree with the others about Coordinants and how to make the episode Security Officers like Lt Tuvok makes mistakes by going into a black cloud in space only to find out that he should have went around it.....for in that black cloud was the mother of the cloud alien eaters, whom could gobble up starships and planets.   I have books such as The Star Trek Guide to The Enterprise, I have made starcharts and learned how to make them by reviewing the books I have here.   A helmsman or helmswoman would make corrections by using both the navigation computers and science station Astrogation computers, they could do the calculations in a few seconds to avoid annoying anomalities in space.    The Coordinant Systems are either astrogation charts or starcharts as created by astronomers and approved by Star Fleet Command as known starcharts.   Normally you have 2 hemispheres for reference points when you input info into the helm.   A Bearing Coordinant made up of instead of 360' but of 400 in a Horizon setting from 0 to 400.   Then a vertical coordinant from cross to cross in the North Poler hemisphere.   0 to 200 and West-East Starboard-Port reference points from 100' to 300's.   You would input those if you were going in a North Hemisphere directions as 4 reference points both in the Next Generation Starships and in the old Star Trek TOS Starships.    Of course if you had to find a area of space in the South Hemisphere you would have to use those spacial coordinants coinsiding with spacelandmarks such as constelliations and starsystems when you input those things into the Astrogator and Navigator systems.   However before you would go into warpspeed drive because you would have to know what is in front of you.


Captain William Brewster

Oxiegen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jan. 09 2013, 1:39 am

Wow.
That is very long-winded and on the verge of too geeky.


I think the only reason that writers ignore the real science and not have the characters go around obstacles like weird anomalies and space clouds is because it would make an uneventful episode, kind of like a reality-show.


It's true that calculation of a direction, either in space or for an airplane, requires both a heading and a bearing(?) in a spherical space.


Heading is the horozontal plane (north, east, south, west), and bearing would be the vertical plane.
You've probably noticed that  pilots say something like "bearing 230 mark 2" or something like that.
Which means they are going in the direction of 230' horizontally (somewhere along the lines of west) with an upward angle of 2'.


As far as picking a direction and go to warp goes, you just have to plot a course that won't make you crash into a planet or asteroid, or a star.
Other than that, just pick a direction and hit the accelerator, 'cause space is kind of empty.

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Jan. 09 2013, 4:33 am

There are numerous examples of this 2 dimensional thinking though. 


Enterprise D dealt with radiation trying to tractor somehting through an asteroid belt on the way to the star.  They could have gone off the orbital plane of the system to maneuver around that belt.  They could have gotten it started so its inertia would keep it moving, moved far enough away to avoid the radiation, then redirected it into the star.


Does anyone here know where Wolf 359 is compared to the orbital plane of the Sol System?  Would the Borg really pass by an outer planet on the way to Earth taking the most direct course from there?

Nerah

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Jan. 10 2013, 1:12 am

Speaking of Physics, and one thing that really gets up my nose is how the explosions occur in space. Firstly, they don't need sounds because as we all know, there is no sound in space.
Secondly, the fireball explosions, I mean come on I can understand to and the early movies due to the lack of special effects technology but now its a bit inexcusable.
people who are not nerds like us who happen upon a star trek rerun one night are going to go away from the experience probably thinking that space has a right way up, has spectacular explosions that would not be physically possible in space and not to mention the big bang sounds. Not that I don't relish every minute of star trek ever to grace a screen and I know its just entertainment, but shows like star trek can at least teach people some real science so shouldn't it represent the true facts a little better, not for people like us who know better but for people who don't

Oxiegen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jan. 10 2013, 8:07 am

I belive that we all can agree on that almost all sci-fi writers/producers/directors have problems with flight-physics. In the regards that they almost completely disregard that something like that even exists.


Although they do go to great lengths to use as much real science as possible, with the occasional made-up names of this and that.
I watched a clip from the ST VOY season 1 dvd extras, and the guy said exactly that.
They just can't seem to wrap their heads around what's up or down, or not, in space. Or even what's impossible to occur in vacuum.


This has been an interesting "conversation". I didn't realize that this topic would invoke such a response or reaction.
I'm glad it did.  

Capt William Brewster

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27

Report this Jan. 10 2013, 9:26 am

Oxiegen, I certainly can agree with you ab out Scifi Writers....but they really do try for Star Trek, since we as viewers get up upon their backs and tell them in places like this Website for Star Trek, "You got stuff wrong that you gotta correct!"   They certainly try to correct their errors, NASA itself did use "Joystick" flybywire navigation that gave us the ideas for such spacecraft navigational flight.   Your right too I am abit geeky when I talk about the navigation end of starship flight.   I got interesting astronomy starcharts I am looking at right now produced by the Government Of Canada showing the night skys that some Star Trek Tech Writers made use of in their own starcharts and navigational computers aboard the Enterprises.   The charts seem to go by 360's for horizonal movement and right ascention and left ascention to view the night skies; you have the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere showing all the stars in both planes.   I suppose the Star Trek Writers came up with advanced starcharts and based them on up-down movement along with North-South Hemispheres with the info that I have seen because having horizonal degrees from 0-400 makes lots of sense when you have to deal with both Lightspeed Flight and Warpdrive Flight in flying starships.   You have to make it simple for the helmsmen and helmswomen with slightly geeky coordinant systems that are abit complex but user friendly for we all cannot be Lt. Commander Spock that can do all the math of piloting a starship in his head.   Hummmm Wolf 359, a good idea to compute where that might be where the Star Fleet got trounced by the Borg.    According to my starchart it may be near Deepspace Station K-7 about Bearing 359.-75.7 Mark 154 since on my map most of Klingon Empire space is between 320' and 360' being on an area of -57.28 to 198.511.   I am using our normal 360' north and south hemispheres instead of the 0-400 Northern and Southern Hemispheres that Star Trek uses....but my estimates are educated guesses based on my gamemap I had made.


Captain William Brewster

Oxiegen

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Jan. 10 2013, 8:39 pm

Don't get me wrong.
I have no dought what so ever that their starcharts do have proper navigational properties.
And I'm sure that writers try to get the science right, mostly.
On the other hand, some director reads the script and toss it out because it doesn't look cool.
That's just wrong, on the verge of incompetence and ignorance.

As far as Wolf 359 is concerned.
I believe that they wanted to use the real deal, which is a red dwarf star in the constellation of Leo, about 7.8 lightyears from Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_359
And when watching episodes that deal with that battle, I get the distinct impression that that is the case. 

kkt

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 170

Report this Jan. 10 2013, 11:33 pm

Star Trek is not a documentary of how real starships would operate, it's drama.  If there's a choice between realism and dramatic effect, dramatic effect will win every time.  Why do aliens from another star system look human, and why are they able to have sex and even children with us?  Why do starships make a 'whoosh' sound as they go by in space?  How can the universal translator start translating a previously unknown alien's language with a sample size of one sentence?


 

Capt William Brewster

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27

Report this Jan. 11 2013, 5:00 am

Oxiegen I think your exactly right; I wonder if Wolf 359 is not too far away from the Barnard's Star?   My calculations of course were made of my Starchart Map which is a compolation of both Star Trek and real astronomers maps.   If you get your hands on an atlas they have Northern and Southern Hemisphere Maps in atlases, very good ones.   I have an atlas from Readers Digest that gave me alot of info.   I blended in all the info to make my starchart map which I use for my Star Trek Game I created.


Captain William Brewster

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: heronymous

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum