I hope that the Enterprise writers will keep the continuity in check during the series. For example, previous Star Trek series' have already esatblished several events happening in the time frame that Enterpise is set in, like the Earth- Romulan war (alledgedly happen around 2153 or 2158), the founding of Star Fleet and the Federation (2161). TPTB have already detroyed the date of first contact between the Federation and the Klingons was supposedly sometime in 2218, but it will now be set in 2151 or something. PS: I hope that TPTB will have the Eugenics Wars from the late 20th century mentioned too. (if you are not familiar with the Eugenics Wars, see the TOS episode Space seed or ST II: The Wrath of Khan.)
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
We have already been through several threads with the topic of continuity with Enterprise. The short answer is that we do not know how the writers will respond to continuity until the series gets going and we can see the style of the writing staff.
Based on the information we have avaliable right now, Enterprise is not violating continuity. The design of the ship itself is causing some ripples in fandom, but this matter is merely opinion. Do you think the ship is from the mid-22nd century or not? Well, considering we know of only one design from that era, it's hard to make the call (in my opinion).
As for the powers that be destroying the date of Klingon first contact, this simply isn't true. In none of the episodes or movies was it said that humans met the Klingons in 2218. We've differing references to stuff, though. McCoy said something about 50 years of hostilities with the Klingons in "Day of the Dove." This is largely backed by Spock in The Undiscovered Country where he says 70 years of hostilities. Picard in the TNG episode of "First Contact" said that Klingon first contact was a disastrous affair that happened centuries ago. It is this comment that specifically refers to first contact and it does not gel with the previous two comments unless the other two were not responding to open hostilities.
The date of 2218 comes from Okuda's chronology. He guessed at this date by using McCoy's line in "Day of the Dove" and ignoring Picard's line in "First Contact." Other chronological references that came out before the Okuda one gave others dates for first contact. But since this was conjecture on Okuda's part and that date has likewise never made it onscreen, it can be easily ignored. When the next edition of the chronology comes out, it will reflect the new date for first contact.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
AAAAAAAAHHH!
Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :
What are you trying to say, Jeff?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
He's trying to answer conclusively his dentist's question "is it safe?"
Posted by Jack_Crusher (Member # 696) on :
Has anyone noticed that TNG and VOY shuttles with warp nacelles have never actually used warp speed (with the exception of VOY: Macrocosm, although we didn't see the shuttle go to warp) when the situation merited warp speed to travel distances that would take up to six or more hours to travel at impulse, they could be traversed in 1 or 2 hours at low warp. Plus, has anyone actually seen a shuttle's fuel tanks, matter-antimatter reactor or fusion reactor?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
We've seen the Class 2 Voyager shuttles use warp drive quite a bit. "Threshold" and "The Basics" easily come to mind. So, yeah, we've seen the Voyager shuttles at warp. I don't think we ever saw them in The Next Generation, but in "Samaritan Snare" Wesley makes a comment that either their shuttle is just barely doing warp one or is just barely under warp one.
As far as I know, we've never seen the warp core or fusion reactors of any of the shuttlecraft. However, we have seen the warp core of the runabouts in Deep Space Nine. At least, that's what I think O'Brien was playing around with when he opened the panel in the floor of the cockpit.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The intermix chamber on runabouts are along the spine on top of the ship over the center compartments. It's a horizontal core.
But how did this end up in a thread about the new series' continuity?
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
That is a good question...
Anyway, does anyone think that when Picard mentioned the disasterous first contact with the Klingon, he was referring to this pilot?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Well, I doubt that when the script was written the writers were already thinking ahead to Enterprise. However, the events that made it "disastrous" have never been revealed (until September 26, 2001 at least). So now we know, and we can assume that Picard was referring to this incident.
On the other tangent of this thread, I thought that the warp core was below the runabout. If it really is in the upper spine of the craft, then what was in the floor of the cockpit that was accessed by that hatch so many times?
Posted by Jack_Crusher (Member # 696) on :
Well, if the shuttle in Samaritan Snare was doing some where near warp on, we would have seen the stars doing a slower warp effect, instead of them just being stationary with the ship moving at impulse. Also, I have seen schematics of runabouts that have the warp core positioned on the top of the runabout, with the lines from the small matter and antimatter tanks and the main EPS relays the the nacelles.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Check out the DS9 Technical Manual for the warp propulsion system of a Danuble-class runabout. As for shuttles, good luck.
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Boldly going off-topic where others have gone off-topic before:
I think there was a total of one reference to a shuttle at warp in TNG, and we never saw that shuttle in flight: in "Skin of Evil", I believe it was mentioned that Shuttle 13 was initially at warp until things started to go haywire. Of course, Shuttle 13 was of a type never seen before or after that episode...
I think the floor hatch the runabout cockpit has been shown open in two episodes only: "Past Prologue", where it gave access to a probe-launching tube through which Tahna Los could eject his bomb, and "Hippocratic Oath", where O'Brien accessed the transporter systems through it. The innards looked different in the two episodes.
Or perhaps there were two different hatches. I seem to remember the "Prologue" hatch was farther forward than the "Oath" one.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What about the hatch under which the Orion bomb was hidden in the ep where Odo and Quark crashed on that planet? Was that different?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I just thought of that episode, too. What was it called? "Rise" or "Ascend?" Anyway, I had always assumed that there was just the one hatch in the floor of the cockpit. Is it possible that it moved after the free-standing console was added to the cockpit?
Either way, I guess the warp core really isn't under the runabout based on just that episode. A bomb detonating that close to the reactor surely would have breached it instead of just crippling the runabout and prompting the emergency landing.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"The Ascent."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Sisko was inside a mini-jeffries tube in, um, For The Uniform, wasn't he? Er...wait...not that one. The last Eddington episode, anyway.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Blaze Of Glory."
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I read the script that is on line at various sites for "Broken Bow". As I read the script, I noted two oddities. If the script is a fake, then we can ignore these oddities. If not, fooey.
Oddity One Dr. Cochrane is recording a speech that the SS Enterprise NX-01 crew play decades later in the year 2121. This is thirty-two years before 2153, the year for "Broken Bow". The premiere occurs ninety years after first contact in 2063.
Reason for this being an oddity? The canon evidence states that Dr. Cochrane disappeared in 2217. ("Metamorphosis")
Oddity Two The script refers to the scout parties as 'Away Teams', not 'Landing Parties'.
Reason for this? In Star Trek, the term is 'Landing Party (ies)'.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I see an oddity in the fact that they are using "Phase Pistols." While this doesn't conflict with the canon evidence for when phasers were invented, it does conflict with the evidence that LASERS were in use by Starfleet prior to Phasers. Why isn't ENT using LASERS?
I also don't see how Starfleet can have been in existence 15 years prior to ENT if the Enterprise herself has a registry of NX-01. Did starfleet exist for over a decade without any ships?
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Maybe it's the first to have an NX registry? The others could have had registries of "FOO-42" or "PLEH-666", or some such.
"Phase pistols" are apparently just phasers under an old name. At one point in the script (not in dialogue, though), one is actually referred to as a "phaser".
The "away team"/"landing party" thing is okay. Terminology changes, and it's entirely possible for it to change, and then change back.
And I think the "2117" reference is actually a "150 years ago" reference, so there's no problem there.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Please note that the tem "away team" is never used in the actual dialogue parts of the script. We will never hear it used by any of the characters, if the episode is filmed as written.
Similarly, at one point on Rigel X, the heroes are said to draw their phase pistols, and at another point to use their phasers. In fact, at this point of the story, they are packing their old-fashioned plasma pistols. This is a minor error on the part of the script proofreader, but will not create any sort of problem in the actual aired version, since it does not carry over to the dialogue.
As for the date of Cochrane's speech, I thought the recording will be played in 2151, not 2153, making the date of original recording either late 2118 or early 2119? Still not 2117, but closer to the mark - but it makes one wonder. Cochrane disappeared into space very soon after starting this project. Why? Was he really feeling that the end was nigh and, knowing that he'd never see the project succeed, wanted to go out with a bang rather than die out in the middle of a prolonged failure?
Or did he flee from somebody or something? Did the Vulcans play a role in this?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
My main problem with the term "away team" is that it's always sounded bloody stupid. "Landing Party" makes much more sense given at this time they're still supposedly dependent on orbital shuttles to reach the surface of a planet.
And as for "phase pistols" versus "lasers," my expert opinion is that those things in "The Cage" didn't behave anything like lasers. It could just have been a term that came into use for a while.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Away team" has a more "general use" sound to it, whereas "landing party" is pretty specific.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:The canon evidence states that Dr. Cochrane disappeared in 2217.
And what is the evidence that "Metamorphosis" was in 2267?
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The only evidence comes from the "Chronolgy". Its first basic assumption is that "the original Star Trek series is set 300 years in the future of the first airings of the episodes." Since "Metamorphosis" was the second episode of the second season, that places it in the latter half of 2267.
Of course, if you accept what is spoken on-air as canon, the Chronology's basic assumption has to be tossed out the airlock. After all, in "Space Seed", Kirk told Khan he'd been sleeping for two centuries. That places it in 2196 (in STII Khan said the Botany Bay had been lost in space since 1996).
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
In then comes the other dating information that TargetEmployee started a thread on from "Who Mourns For Adonois?" Going from the information there, Star Trek takes place sometime in the 3000s given our current knowledge of Greek history. Or there's "All Our Yesterdays" when the Enterprise is thrown back to 1968 and accidentally disrupts the timeline by picking up Colonel Christopher. Going by this episode, around 2168 is the episode's ending time.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:The "away team"/"landing party" thing is okay. Terminology changes, and it's entirely possible for it to change, and then change back.
NO! There are already far too many instances of TBTB drawing from TNG instead of TOS. The "It switched back" excuse works once maybe twice, but gets real old real quick. If they don't want to use TOS terminology(or whatever) fine, then make up new stuff that is different from both series.
[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Obi Juan ]
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The whole problem with continuity between the series has been there since the beginning. Hell, TOS couldn't make up its mind whether it was set in the 22nd, 23rd, or 28th Centuries! (Don't believe me? Go check out "The Squire Of Gothos" again.)
It isnt't only dates, either. Pity poor Chief O'Brien. His rank's gone up and down more timesthan an elevator.
Then again, you can't really blame the folks back on the original Trek. They had no way of knowing their work would be picked to death by us noble nitpickers for the next thirty-plus years.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
However, Icheb's line in VOY "Q-2" clears it all up by saying that Kirk's 5-year mission was from 2265 to 2270. Alas! Alas!
Obi Juan: I feel your pain. I hate that whole explanation of "it was always this way except for the one period of a decade or two in the late 2200's." It just burns me.
