"The High Ground" is the correct term.
Consciousness in the matter stream is not dependant upon being together... just as long as the katra remains intact The matter stream is of particles, BTW, this much has been stated, even in TOS. TMP has the best line about this, it's Bones' of course. The information I have on Transporter Psycosis is that it was a condition associated with the original version of the transporter. It wasn't solved until 2319, with the addition of the "multiplex pattern buffer." Someone will have to check "Realm of Fear" to be any closer. But just to put it another way, in 2110's there are no photon torpedoes, no phaser, no subspace radio, no replicator, no holodeck, and extremely ancient impulse drives. Warp drive probably only reaches Warp 6 as often as cars break the sound barrier. Why should their be transporters? Transporters just seem too advanced. [And we know for a fact that the Vulcans who had warp drive technology years before us (2000 by the longest estimates, 90 by the shortest known {Quinn's hundred year Vulcan Romulan War}) didn't have transporter technology because they landed their ship.]
So...what? Enterprise wasn't REALLY firing photorps in TOS all those times?
The torpedo that came out in 2271 was the one with multiple packages of both matter and antimatter. This second version is much more powerful because it allows a more complete reaction. Please read the TNG TM before trying to bash it. Perhaps I was simple noting that the dating could have been better. Simpleton. (Like THAT?) :::walks off shaking head & ruffling feathers:::
By saying "So...what? Enterprise wasn't REALLY firing photorps in TOS all those times?" THAT'S how you insinuate the dating could have been better? Please tell me your last post was a joke and that you aren't really that upset. My first major problem with this is: to take that statement as an insinuation of the fact that the dating could have been better, mind you, requires some level of assumption. So don't tell us to stop assuming. If you had blatantly stated the fact outright, there would have been no need. The confusion caused is partly your fault, by creating a statement that was vague in meaning and intention. I had no idea what you were talking about until I read your second post full of colorful, descriptive, yet uncreative and unnecessary expletives. And even then it made little sense to me. Secondly, in my opinion, I see no problem with the dating of the photon torpedo as given in TNG:TM. If the photon torpedo was developed and entered service in 2215, then there were 51 years of use before TOS (2266). We update our weapons systems a lot faster in the present.
The TNGTM is an excellent book, and was perhaps the first semi-canon book ever made, but it's hasn't been considered a be-all-and-end-all reference to Trek history for years. I mean, it's history of Warp Drive puts its development a few years removed 2063 &c. If there are photon torpedoes in the new series, (which we don't know about for sure), then I should hope your undying love for a throwaway date in an 11-year old book doesn't crimp your ability to enjoy the show, should the show actually merit enjoyment.
People are so fucking quick to bash people around here lately. Some of us aren't in EITHER fucking camp, y'know. In conclusion, may I say "EAT ME," & if you don't like my phrasology, I don't care. Take me to task for it, though, & you can suck my short fat hairy Kike CRANK. Enjoy the image. End of line.
Like you're doing? Your statement about the TNGTM does not convey the idea you were apparently trying to get across. J misunderstood you (for obvious reasons, as far as I'm concerned), and responded to what he thought you were saying (and he didn't "bash" you). You, in return, called him a "fucking ass gnome" and a "simpleton". You're the only one bashing anyone around here. Stop. Now.
Just caught "A Piece of the Action" on Sci-Fi again and some dialogue makes these technologies problematic. Kirk tells Oxmyx that it'll be difficult to explain beaming down rather than landing, as if the Horizon crew didn't do it. He also says the Horizon used regular radio rather than subspace radio, which delayed the report for almost a century. They also say the Prime Directive wasn't in force at the time of the Horizon's visit. All of this is dated to 100 years before the episode, which is what they explicitly state. That would make the Horizon visit later than the 150-years-earlier timeframe TPTB have placed Enterprise in.
Chen-san (ha..I think of the Iron chef when I say that): werd on dat, yo. Now for the next challenge on "Survivor: The Flare Forums"--finding the landing legs on the Daedalus-class.
Nah. Franz Joseph's old Star Fleet Technical Manual holds that distinction. Yeah, a lot of it was poorly researched. Yeah, a lot of it has since been contradicted. But the four ship classes he created and illustrated therein made it into the first three movies as dialogue and/or monitor graphics. The UFP seal seen in TMP is almost identical to the one he created. Etc, etc... All of this is dated to 100 years before the episode, which is what they explicitly state. That would make the Horizon visit later than the 150-years-earlier timeframe TPTB have placed Enterprise in." All of this just gives up the tech level of the early Daedalus-class starship. We have no way to know if the respective technologies didn't exist yet, or if they were simply not incorporated into the Daedalus class for one reason or another. For instance, the Terra-10 colony had transporters (*holds up a warning finger to forestall the "canon" stick*), but I get the impression Earth/Federation transporter tech was being developed and perfected all the way up to Voyager... --Jonah
--Jonah
Huh? Don't worry, I'm not going to argue with you about canonicity. I read the book version of "The Terratin Incident" and though it was great. But, uh, what do you mean by the above? Technology is constantly being perfected, evolving as we develop new ideas. Sooo...what are you trying to say?
--Jonah
Was FJ official? Yes. Was it authorized? Yes. Was it on-the-whole a worthy effort? Yes. Canon? Certainly not. Semi-Canon? Well, it depends on one's definition of this term. I've always considered Semi-Canon to generally be reserved for the Trek Pentateuch (Chronology, Encyclopedia, TNGTM, TNG Blueprints and DS9TM) which have been books where one can assume within a reasonable doubt that if a piece of information contained within had been needed onscreen it would have been pulled from them. For instance, if, as Ira Stephen Behr notes in his DS9TM Introduction, a line was needed for onscreen info about the composition of a Cardassian lifeboat's hull, it would have come from the DS9TM. Okuda largely speculated that Scotty's lines in "Balance of Terror" meant that Romulans didn't have warp drive period before the Treaty with the Klingons and incorporated this as conjectural detailing into the Chronology. Piller clearly canonized this conjecture when doing some dialogue in Insurrection. To draw a more controversial example, the Defiant's length is semi-canonically 170m, as one can assume that if a line had come up on DS9 where someone had said how long the Defiant was it would have been that. Of course, as many people around here feel, the VFX suggested a different onscreen length quite often, which may be cause to say there is an overriding canon length value of something like 120m. Franz Joseph's work doesn't enjoy this kind of status today. If Voyager had encountered a derelict Constitution-class starship somewhere in the Delta Quadrant, we can by no means assume the writers would run to Mr. Joseph's work the same way we can assume they would run to Sternbach's work if it had been a Bajoran cruiser. A second factor, IMHO, in "canonicity" is accesibility. Old and out-of-print books of which few copies exist (like the FJ Blueprints, for instance) are far less likely to enjoy semi-canon status to work that is readily accessible to both the writers and fandom.
FJ served as something of a semi-canonical work during TMP and TWOK and then was run aground largely because GR woke up and saw how badly conflicting a lot of the stuff was with his vision, and because Harve Bennett and the crew didn't think the stuff was worth it's weight in shit. A lot of the stuff in it can still be reconciled with Okuda/Sternbach-era visions of the 24th century (unlike, say, Mr. Scott's Guide) but amongst the general fan body today and TPTB it doesn't hold remotely the same credence as the done-by-people-on-the-show stuff.
I'm guessing this was to keep the ships rather symmetrical-looking. I don't really know about this one. I'd say it was supposed to have something to do w/ the warp field, except that I doubt GeneR really cared about that. If that's where the Bussard collectors are, this makes perfect sense. Wasn't this always something GeneR wanted? Didn't it supposedly have something to do w/ the ships' not being warships, so they didn't need to hide the bridge, or whatever? [ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
[ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: Obi Juan ]
I sure have. Accounts of his backstabbing are just short of legion. What was it those biographers called him, a philandering megalomaniac who cheats at pool and steals people's ideas? (That last is backed up by quite a few arbitration decisions against GR in disputes brought by TOS writers to the Writers Guild of America.) Even Andy Probert confirmed this with a comment that while GR was great with him, he knew it was very different on the scriptwriting side. I think that hits the nail right on the head. Spout as many treknological explanations as you want, the bottom line is GR didn't really care about that. See what FJ's daughter has to say about it at this page. [ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: Reginald Barclay ]
I KNIGHT YOU SIR TECH! I can't believe I didn't recognize that before!!!! Shik: Daedalus doesn't land, it's shuttles do. Let's take a que from B5 and SW for once. Peregrinus: TAS is semi-canon, we can take supplementary information from it, but it does contridict a lot of stuff. --- In the least, I do think that one's opinion of this should remain. FJs Work: It is somewhat canon because of the movie consoles. I am also more than willing to accept his work, especially because of the BoBW ships. Oh well--- on to other stuff. Besides, if we take the conjectural design to be canon enough for now, it would require a lot of structural integrity and an extremely long landing leg to support the primary hull.
All I have on the Essex is that it was caught in an electromagnetic storm which came from the M-class moon around Mab-Bu VI. I'd need the actual episode to get anymore.
I'd love to see how the engineers pulled that one off!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
There's actually been no date set down for photon torpedoes. A matter/antimatter warhead can't be all that hard to put together if you already have warp drive.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Tom has got a point.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
TNGTM denotes fusions explosives being deployed through the latter half of the 22nd century & the first photorp type being developed in 2215....& that Starfleet wanted the 2nd one, operational in 2271.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
in TOS the Enterprise used slug photon torpedoes, these were the first photon torpedo and was developed in 2215. They were two packages, one of matter deuterium and the other of antimatter deuterium.
TOS was 2260's [23rd century], they had the 2215 version. The 2271 version was used in the movies [with the possible exception of TMP]. The 2271 version was also upgraded over the years [these upgrades would probably include more efficient systems (to take less of the explosive reactants which is also the fuel supply) and cheaper parts (you're blowing it up anyway)].
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Did I SAY I was trying to "bash it," you fucking ass gnome? NO. People better learn to stop fucking ASSUMING around here or Peregrinus & I are gonna have a lot of fucking ass-kicking to do.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
quote:
Perhaps I was simple[y] noting that the dating could have been better.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Um, play nice, guys.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It was just a fcuking POINT OF REFERENCE. And the texting of the book made me think of that note. So I put it down. Fuck YOU if you don't like my phrasology.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"People are so fucking quick to bash people around here lately."
Posted by Tech Sergeant Chen (Member # 350) on :
Back on topic...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Whatever. I fling feathers, you throw up a shield. Same difference. Done.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Shik: Good, you've seen this. I was just about to e-mail you. Just so we're clear, if you want to stay around here, don't pull another stunt like above. I'm not saying you have to be the magical man from Happy Land, but don't be an asshole for no reason. Just so you know.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
"The TNGTM is an excellent book, and was perhaps the first semi-canon book ever made--"
"Just caught 'A Piece of the Action' on Sci-Fi again and some dialogue makes these technologies problematic. Kirk tells Oxmyx that it'll be difficult to explain beaming down rather than landing, as if the Horizon crew didn't do it. He also says the Horizon used regular radio rather than subspace radio, which delayed the report for almost a century. They also say the Prime Directive wasn't in force at the time of the Horizon's visit.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What's this "Terra-10 colony"? What you said after it leads me to believe it's non-canon, so what bearing does it have on anything? If I say "transporters were invented by Captain Kirk a day before he started the TOS mission", that doesn't mean ENT is wrong if it doesn't follow that...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
"The Terratin Incident" -- TAS. Which is why I held up a finger to ward off anyone's attempt to tell me "it's not 'canon'!".
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
quote:
...but I get the impression Earth/Federation transporter tech was being developed and perfected all the way up to Voyager...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Just that transporter tech in TOS shouldn't be considered in its infancy just because we see Scotty playing with manual controls and the system goes phut all the time. I personally believe the tech we see in TOS is very much in media res, and that the newest technological breakthrough is Duotronics. Indeed, incorporating Duotronic computers into other existing systems might just be why everything always seemed to be running on spit and baling wire in TOS...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
On FJ being semi-canon: Well, the entire fan concept of "semi-canon" books only really came about by the time of TNG, generally brought on to distinguish the Okuda books from the crap like Mr. Scott's Guide and Worlds of the Federation and their ilk.
Posted by Reginald Barclay (Member # 594) on :
If Franz Joseph's work isn't semi-canon, it's completely because of GR's efforts after their falling out. GR made sure things onscreen would contradict FJ's work wherever possible. Another reason I never liked the man. I give him a little grudging respect as the acorn that begat the oak, but sometimes I think he did as much to hinder the franchise as help it.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
What, GR said "the Federation doesn't build warships" for the sole purpose of pooping on FJ's dreadnoughts?
Posted by Reginald Barclay (Member # 594) on :
Maybe if you didn't try to put words in my mouth. Among other things, it's generally accepted that GR arbitrarily created his rules of starship design in the early 80s purely to invalidate all the ships FJ kitbashed. Look at the drawings at Bernd's website illustrating the rules. They show FJ designs being crossed off. Be honest, can you imagine any other reason why these weird rules suddenly came into existence?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Rules taken from Bernd's site...Rule #1 Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs. (The "All Good Things" Enterprise is explained not to violate these because it has two warp field coils in each nacelle, thus creating three pairs. The Franz Joseph Designs single-nacelle ships are not official canon...)
Rule #2 Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.
Rule #3 Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.
Rule #4 The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Well, we've already blown away some of these conventions, haven't we? The 50% line-of-sight rule was done out by the Defiant and the Intrepid (during low-warp flight). And the "both warp nacelles must be fully visible in front" was nixed by the Excelsior, I believe.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Interesting point about the Excelsior there, in that it does pretty clearly break these alleged rules of GR. If GR had intentionally crafted these to spite FJ (GR may have been a weirdo but I've never heard of him being petulant) they'd have had to come out after the supposedly cataclysmic "falling-out" that was sometime after TWOK but before TSFS. Any "rule" that got broken that quickly strikes me as less than dear to GR's heart.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
Tom: I like your definition of semi-canon. I think it's also good to point out that the semi-canon status really only lasts as long as the writers actually refer to these books. If a writer decides that he doesn't want to refer to some stupid book written by some stupid guy who isn't even on staff anymore to gain information about a Galaxy class ship, then the TNG Tech Manual would sink to a similar status as the TOS TM.
Posted by Reginald Barclay (Member # 594) on :
quote:
Originally posted by The_Tom:
GR may have been a weirdo but I've never heard of him being petulantquote:
Originally posted by TSN:
I don't really know about this one. I'd say it was supposed to have something to do w/ the warp field, except that I doubt GeneR really cared about that.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I sure hope Roddenberry didn't let anything so stupid as artistic or dramatic necessity blind him from approving ship designs with proper warp ratios, because that would be a goddamned tragedy on a scale not seen since Michelangelo gave David arms like an orangutan.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:
Originally posted by Tech Sergeant Chen:
Just caught "A Piece of the Action" on Sci-Fi again and some dialogue makes these technologies problematic. Kirk tells Oxmyx that it'll be difficult to explain beaming down rather than landing, as if the Horizon crew didn't do it. He also says the Horizon used regular radio rather than subspace radio, which delayed the report for almost a century. They also say the Prime Directive wasn't in force at the time of the Horizon's visit.
As for other things:
I've never seen a TAS episode and I can't find anything on Terra-10 so:
My opinion is this: the equipment for subspace radios are too big for ships until sometime after 2200. Terra-10 must be a large colony ship, so perhaps it has a large enough for a subspace radio. If that is the case then the equipment for a transporter should not be such a stretch. So... just like planets and stations Terra-10 can have transporters and subspace radios before everyone else, but use would be extremely limited before 2200. [Think of transporters as an untested technology that they went ahead and installed on some things (Terra-10 being one of them) but it wasn't until 2200's when the were able to install and test them almost everywhere]. I do not thing that TOS was the transporter's infancy, it was around 60 years old! At the same time, someone did seem to make a good point, what about Terra-10 being upgraded, my version of Dixon's chrono indicates that it was upgraded?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Err, IIRC Terra 10 *was* an Earth colony. (planetbased and all)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Uhhh...Daedali DO land. Ref. TNG s5 "Power Play," wehre USS Essex was attempting to land on Mab-Bu VI's moon.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Shik: But was that land or crash land? Crash landing implies that there may not neccessarily be a need for landing gear, and that they do not land on a *ahem* regular basis.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Crash land maybe... there's no room for landing gear on the design of the Daedalus that most folks accept [I'm sure there are others].
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
While it was in the atmosphere. No reason to be in the atmosphere if it wasn't landing.
Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :
Makes sense, but what if they had to make a forced landing for some other reason? Anyway, my comment about structural integrity/landing legs still stands.
Posted by Sandyman (Member # 627) on :
Hey, it's Star Trek..have you EVER seen an episode where they DIDN'T have a transporter? AND its a great plot device.... 