What, no one's posted yet? As always, I have to wait for my download, so...
Mark
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
My download has just finished, so here come my notes.
- The ship is badly wrecked (doh!). We see more use of the on-board workbee. There are 5 deaths initially, 14 later on.
- Archer is transfered aboard an Aquatic ship, in a small dry cell. The ship has a very thick hull.
- The traveling EPS surge announced by Engineering was a neat trick.
- The NX-01's 'primary warp coil' is badly damaged. Archer wants to trade a coil from 'Damar'. I believe this entire episode confuses the warp core with a 'warp coil'. Weird.
- First (and probably a slip-of-the-pen) mention of a stardate.
- Again a bald female villain.
- We have a MACO male called Richards. And another Corporal was named, but I didn't quite catch it. Forrester (the female MACO from the Western episode) is injured in the assault.
- The assault is completely done by transporters.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Xindi aquatic ship - do we see it onscreen? "Pod" in bay - is that just a coffin or does it travel in space?
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: There are 5 deaths initially, 14 later on.
no wonder NX-01 doesnt rate a model on the conference room wall... no one survived!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I don't think we had an exterior shot of the Aqua ship. Unless this was one of the underwater ships from "Azati Prime".
That pod in the bay was presumably a shuttle, also capable of submarine operation.
I imagined that Casey Biggs' role would've been bigger.. In fact.. looking back on it, it could've been funny to actually make them Cardassians. We know that the old peaceful Cardassia had relations with Vulcan very early on.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Hmm, I�ve only seen pics, not the episode, so I might be confusing things. The "pod", is that the ship the stole in a previous episode? Or is it the same "pod" that Archer pops out of?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It's a pod launched from the Aqua ship. It's something of a conspiracy between Degra and the Aquatics against the Reptillians. The pod contains just Archer (it's not much bigger than a coffin..), and a document with coordinates to a specific location (as of this episode of unknown significance, but promos for the next episode reveal that it's a meeting with Degra).
Come to think of it.. if that 'coffin' shuttle was filled up with water, it would probably be big enough to be a 1-Aquatic shuttlepod.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Just saw the episode, didn�t Travis call it an escapepod?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I haven't seen it, but so far it sounds like a pretty lame "Continuation..." after a month hiatus...
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
It is.
I spent most of the episode wondering why I'd had to wait six weeks to watch that POS...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
There isn't really any continuation. Nothing has been resolved. If the 'warp coil' hadn't been damaged in the last 2 minutes of "Azati Prime", this episode wouldn't have been needed.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Vulcan did not have prior relations with Cardassia... the only mention is that an exiled Cardassian found his way to Vulcan.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I was always expecting that Degra and the other Xindi would just call off the attack seconds into the next episode. There was no other way that they would be able to get the NX-01 out of the pickle they were in. Annoying and disappointing, yes, but not surprising to me in the slightest.
My notes:
-- Was anyone else as surprised how easily T'Pol's spacesuit's air hose came apart? Granted, she fell pretty hard, but it seems to me it could've been the kind of accident that the suit should be built to avoid!
-- Y'know what that alien ship reminded me of? It looked like the upper/rear section of a Romulan warbird!
-- The NX-01's new top speed using the pilfered warp coil is Warp 3.2. We'll see how long they manage to hold on to that statistic!
-- It seems that just about everyone's gotten over their transporter phobia -- they could've used a shuttlepod instead. But of course, the transporter is convenient because it speeds up the story and helps the plot! Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: Vulcan did not have prior relations with Cardassia... the only mention is that an exiled Cardassian found his way to Vulcan.
That is one interpretation of: "One of my previous hosts, Tobin, met him when he was in exile on Vulcan. He had quite a temper, I recall..."
Tobin was the Dax host approximately during the late 21st or early 22nd century.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: -- Y'know what that alien ship reminded me of? It looked like the upper/rear section of a Romulan warbird!
That's what it was. The Mazarites used the same design in Fallen Hero. Different species, though . . . make-up's different.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Why has everyone seemed to neglect how much this episode sucks? I mean, the fact that the used the wrong technobabble totally screwed up the rest of the episode. If you lose a single warp field coil, even the first one in the nacelle [presumably the primary?] you just shut off the first one in the other nacelle and continue on. There is nothing drastic about that.
Now, as it should have been, they would have said the Warp Core is beyond repair, "we don't have enough material to repair the cracks in it." And then we can say that the alien's warp core could have been melted easily to fill in those. But this doesn't make much sense either unless they needed top speed. Trip could have easily run Power Conduit through the corridors from the Impulse Generator. Then to a point where they could connect with the Power Transfer Conduits and powered the nacelles that way. It would have been easy and would have given them 3.2 at least maybe even 4.
There would have been no need to show the aliens unless they wanted to give Archer some conflict. Offering that option to Archer would have made him consider compromising himself. But in the end, he would have not stolen their warp drive's interior lining stranding the aliens and returning ENT to "normal"... and they would have to deal with this in the future, meaning repairing their warp core.
The episode also sucks because of T'Pol's little B-plot, at least Mayweather and Hoshi had more than two lines! But, the fact that they used the wrong plot device [Warp Coils instead of Warp Core] and that they totally went about fixing that wrong plot device in the wrong way [stealing another "coil" from aliens instead of shutting off the corresponding mate in that pair!], it's the kind of thing that ticks me off--- It's not bad Trek, it's bad story telling. Know your medium before writing a story.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Again a bald female villain."
The Xindi's "FutureLady", for those who haven't seen it, but are wondering.
Did she have the same makeup as the guy from the SphereBuilder race? One of the Xindi asked her if she was of that race, and she evaded. But I can't remember what the other SphereBuilder guy looked like.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Again a bald female villain."
The Xindi's "FutureLady", for those who haven't seen it, but are wondering.
Did she have the same makeup as the guy from the SphereBuilder race? One of the Xindi asked her if she was of that race, and she evaded. But I can't remember what the other SphereBuilder guy looked like.
That episode rerun like a couple weeks ago, didn't he kind of have that "crackled" face look...sorta reminiscent of the Corvallens.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think I actually like the idea that a single scratched warp coil ruins the whole drive. This could be quite an intricate business, really: if you swap the places of coils 1 and 4, you get 50% less warp thrust, and if you swap 1 and 12, you blow the ship up. Much like firing the shells of a big naval gun out of order...
Removing one coil per nacelle might work in some situations, but should have some really drastic effect, such as a new top speed of warp 1.1 or so.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
But they didn't replace a coil. They stole the entire frikkin *warp core* off the alien's ship. And then, as if by magic, Tucker 'fixes' the Enterprise with it. We don't see how or what he has done.
What's even weirder, the NX-01's M/ARA works after he Tucker does his magic.
I really don't have a clue about what was going on, and neither did the writers.
OTOH, I did notice that in the schematics shown of the alien vessel, the *coils* are very clearly highlighted. It seems Okuda got his tech right Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Screenshots!
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Perhaps the Warpcoil is part of the Warpcore and not the field coils in the nacelles.
Prior to the hijack, we see the Starboard nacelle only half lighted... maybe they needed a single warp coil, in the forward part of the nacelle, for it to make a warp field.
Without warp drive, the other ship is 3 years from home. That would mean they are probobly less then 10 light years away (maybe only 3) and they didn't seem to familiar with their neighborhood, so they may very well may have had only a single warp coil in their drive, while the Enterprise may have a dozen.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
That could all be true, were it not for:
1 - The engines are still only half-lit at the end, IIRC.
2 - This console seems to loads of coils on the Illyrian ship.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
So, maybe the coil is part of the warp core and different from the field coils in the nacelles. That WOULD explain the half-lit nacelles and the warp 3.2.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The whole time they kept mentioning the warp coil, I was reminded of the episode of Voyager where they steal a transwarp coil from that Borg flying cigar thing. B&B probably messed up there in the first place and figured it would be the same for regular warp on the NX-01.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I see Tucker and T'Pol are still making the beast with two backs.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well about Warp Coils - remember Riker said something about Warp COILS in "A Matter Of Time" TNG season 5 to Burlinghoff Rasmussen.
He also added that Starships before Warp DRIVE were restricted to one sector of space...
Maybe he just meant Warp Drive a la Zephram Cochrane.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Removing one coil per nacelle might work in some situations, but should have some really drastic effect, such as a new top speed of warp 1.1 or so.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo, you're disappointing me... it's really hurtful. I'm wheeping over here man!
Warp Drive 101 Let us review how a Warp Drive works. Power from a generation source*1 is exposed to the forward most pair of warp field coils, and then in a matter of nanoseconds to the next pair back. This continues on until the end of the nacelles then is repeated again. Thus the warp field coils are energized and the veritium corinide produces an assymetrical*2 subspace field. The very nature of the subspace field is what propels the ship*3. > TO END
*1 Any source of significant power is capable of working. Fusion is limited to the amount of power it can reasonably produce, however it is capable of producing enough for warp power. M/AR within the presence of dilithium crystals for tuning the plasma is the most common form of generation for Federation and even Alpha Quad vessels.
*2 A symmetrical field can assumably be produced by a) only doing one set of coils, or b) all the coils at once.
*3 While the assymetrical field is produced with the wider end at the front of the ship and the thinner at the back in normal operations, it isn't unreasonable that a ship can reverse the firing sequence and go in Reverse Warp. Also, turning is achieved by an offset in coil charge. Turning left/port is achieved by firing sooner or a higher charge into the starboard side nacelle, this creating a controlled imbalance in the field just as forward motion is a controlled imbalance.
< END
Now what in the world makes you think that requires any specific set of coils? Maybe, just maybe there is a factor of length to coil number, but I've honestly never seen that. But at the same time, it certainly isn't that the first set of coils is the only one that reaches the forward parts of the ship, this can't be true. Each coil pair has to support the entire ship, and not just a small part of it, otherwise the ship would be torn apart in literal spahgettification.
Yes, it would certainly be a lot harder to reach Warp 5, and I would go as far to say impossible... but such a drastic reduction to Warp 1.1 is completely unreasonable, there's just no way. I'd see 4.5 as a good place to go---
... no no no... I'm feeling better now, see ... whaaaaaa
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, there's one problem with your explanation. The energy generated by fusion, M/AM, etc. is used to heat hydrogen into a plasma, which is what gets sprayed at the warp coils. They don't just shoot an electrical arc at the coils, or something.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Yeah, that's something I left out because I thought it was understood... it's usually easily understood. While how warp drive works isn't.
Posted by Davok (Member # 143) on :
"Warp coil" could as well be a magnetic constrictor coil used to channel the AM through the M/ARA. Stealing the alien warp core would make perfect sense this way. Also, I don't think it would be that easy to "just shut off" one of the field coils "and continue on", J. Apart from technical problems, we don't know whether "subspace physics" would allow that. Your knowledge about warp drive obviously comes from the TNG TM, but keep in mind that NX-01's tech is 200 years less advanced! We don't know that much about how their nacelles exactly work.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Forrester (the female MACO from the Western episode) is injured in the assault.
That was S. Money, and Archer calls her "Parsons". Weird. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
J,
How many times have we seen fusion-powered warp ships?
(I love Masao's museum and the ideas therein, but I'm talking about the Star Trek shows themselves, here.)
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Well, there's a certain fusion-powered Bird of Prey from TOS... Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
No, no, impulse-powered... B)
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Impulse and fusion are interchangable from Trek terminology.
Davok, the explaination from the TNG TM, to my understanding, is backwards compatible all the way to Cochrane's Phoenix--- and even similar with alien technology.
However, a magnetic constriction coil is a good idea, that would definately put the warp core out of commission unless they were able to rearrange the coils left [but I doubt this is possible with any margin of safety]. But then again, Trip should be capable of repairing that coil with parts from one of the backup fusion generators or even one of the impulse engines... they use magnetic constriction too.
And as for the subspace physics thing, as I said in the last post, we've yet to see anything that suggests this won't work--- like I said there is no ship length / field coil count ratio. Obviously there is a reason why they have a certain amount of warp coils within a nacelle, but we just don't know why and if each one of them is absolutely necessary.
I simply believe that every coil isn't and this episode could have proved that, if they had written it correctly. But despite the small amount of fudging in my description of the problem, that doesn't erase the fact that this episode is the worst concerning technology--- possibily beating out "Threshold" ... ok maybe not that episode, but it rates high!
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Picard said that the old fusion reactors, on the Stargazer, couldn't take the strain.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: J,
How many times have we seen fusion-powered warp ships?
(I love Masao's museum and the ideas therein, but I'm talking about the Star Trek shows themselves, here.)
The Promellian battle cruiser had Lang Cycle fusion engines. Whether or not that powered its warp drive is another thing....
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Picard said that the old fusion reactors, on the Stargazer, couldn't take the strain.
He said no such thing...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Usually, writers equate "warp drive" to "matter/antimatter reaction". The BoP's "impulse drive" isn't really an exception to this rule, because at the time not much had been established yet about the nature of Trek's tech.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Eep. I didn't have much problem with the tech in the episode, and my wife usually has to tell me to shut up. I actually liked it, given the ethical dilemma Archer had to deal with, which I think is the whole point of the episode.
I don't think it's usually necessary to say this here, but 95% of the people watching hear "blahblahblah engine broken blahblahblah they have parts to fix it"
B.J.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Impulse (in physics) The product of a force and the time for which it acts.
The measure of a rocket motor's performance is its specific impulse.
I don't know every instance where impulse power was used in the endless list of Trek technobabble, but logically it wouldn't make sense to use the terms interchangeably. Impulse engines might be fusion powered but fusion power doesn't have to be used for impulse. However, this isn't to say that a specific ship's warp drive might not be dependent on elements of the impulse engines. For instance, if the fusion reactors of the impulse deck are necessary to power the particle accelerators on the warp core, someone could by way of shorthand say the impulse engines can't take the strain of running the ship at warp, since it's a key component of said engine that's the limiting factor.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Maybe impulse refers to a specific type of fusion reactor, possibly the most efficient form possible? Someone at SCN proposed that it was an acronym, I'll see if I can look up what for.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
It's like describing today's cars as having Internal Combustion drive, but there's Gasoline engines, Diesel engines, and cars with hybred drives that use an engine to power an electric motor. Technically, a hydrogen burning car also has an internal combusion engine.. where Hydrogen fuel cells are different.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
There are also ones which use GLP (gas licuado de petr�leo, Liquefied Petroleum Gas or LPG in English, 90% propane and 6% butane) around here instead of gasoline, but it's still an internal combustion engine too.
Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
Wasn't there a ship in "The Ultimate Computer" that had her impulse drive taken out and Spock said she was still maneuvering on warp drive alone?
For what its worth, Ent should be using fusion reactors exclusively and kept it simple
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Impulse (in physics) The product of a force and the time for which it acts.
The measure of a rocket motor's performance is its specific impulse.
I don't know every instance where impulse power was used in the endless list of Trek technobabble, but logically it wouldn't make sense to use the terms interchangeably. Impulse engines might be fusion powered but fusion power doesn't have to be used for impulse. However, this isn't to say that a specific ship's warp drive might not be dependent on elements of the impulse engines. For instance, if the fusion reactors of the impulse deck are necessary to power the particle accelerators on the warp core, someone could by way of shorthand say the impulse engines can't take the strain of running the ship at warp, since it's a key component of said engine that's the limiting factor.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Either way... it's possible for a ship to use the warp drive to move at impulse speeds. I'm not certain on the effects temporally though. However, it would work just like normal. A warp 1 field is 1 cochrane and assymetrically shaped. It's the assymetrical shpae that makes the field propulsive, not the field strength. It is possible, that a field of lower strength still has to power to move a ship... maybe at 999 millicochranes and below the accelleration factor sucks but that's the only thing I can think of besides extra wear and tear.
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: Either way... it's possible for a ship to use the warp drive to move at impulse speeds.
i like this theory.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The Enterprise seemed to do exactly that in TMP.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
In V'Ger? Or where?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
In the beginning. Kirk orders Warp 0.5 (or something), and slowly rises to Warp 1.0, causing a wormhole effect.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Maybe that's why they aren't allowed to use velocities less than warp factor one anymore?
What the heck? Half of my post disappeared...
Trying again...and again
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, the implication was that the Ent's new engines caused the wormhole. I don't know why they put untested engines on an operational ship, though.
[ April 27, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Admiral Nogura wasn't fit for the position? Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
The engines where untested, because they hadn't been fine-tuned yet. The ship was rushed into service, before it was finished. When making TMP, they wanted the cargo deck/shuttle bay to look unfinished, to help reinforce teh feeling that the ship was being rushed into service only 90% done.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Which is what I got... the thing that created the wormhole is that the ship hadn't been tuned yet--- the firing sequences got screwed up and a subspace wormhole formed.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I wonder what that implies abut how normal warp travel works?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I beleive Sternbach has mentioned the concept of sublight incremental warp factors for some ships or races, possibly including some Fed ships. This COULD theorhetically help explain away some poor modelling or behind-the-scenes design choices, like the Nebula class.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What's wrong with the Nebbie - she's a beautiful design!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Indeed she is... Still doesn't change the fact that most versions don't have the traditional red grille impulse drive of her comtemporaries.
Mark
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
What are you talking about? Last time I checked, there was a (albeit smallish) impulse engine on the back of the "neck."
Though looking over Pedro's (sadly in need of updating ) site, it appears that I am wrong.
EDIT (again): Looking at EAS, there appears to be two small grills underneath the "equator" of the saucer (look here), right above the pylons. Could these be the impulse engines?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Yes, those are the impulse engines (without having to look at pic), but to date, they've never been lit.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: In the beginning. Kirk orders Warp 0.5 (or something), and slowly rises to Warp 1.0, causing a wormhole effect.
Not exactly...
After leaving the drydock, Kirk order "Impusle power Mr. Sulu Ahead warp point 5." And the impulse engines visibly come on and ZZZZZOOM
1.8 hours later (according to the log) they try to go to warp. The order is "Warp drive, Mr. Scott. Ahead warp one, Mr. Sulu." Sulu replies, "Accelerating to warp one, sir. Warp point six. Point seven. Point eight..." At which point we cut to the outside of the ship and see that a) the impulse engines are off, and b) the warp nacelles are now lit up. A second later, WHOOSH. Warp speed.
Indicates that the acceleration from warp .5 to 1 was done by the warp engines, so clearly the warp drive can move the ship at sublight velocity at least to some limited degree.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Didnt we essentially see the same thing in FC when the Phoenix was going to warp? It wasn't: *BAM* "We are at Warp 1"...They worked up to it from 0 via the warp engines.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Yes, those are the impulse engines (without having to look at pic), but to date, they've never been lit.
Don't forget that the Defiant's "official" impulse engine is not lit either. It is the entire back part and is hidden behind the entire back-bulkhead.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Don't go there with the 'official' Defiant impulse engine!
Man! In the 'official' cutaway, the real impulse engine, that appropriately glows red, they have it marked for a three-escape pod ejection tube!
To quote Data from Conspiracy, "Stafleet's right hand did not know what it's left hand was doing."
The designer and the modeler of the Defiant knew where it was, but the cutaway artist apparently didn't.
(Maybe the same folks who drew up the official cutaway of the Oberth and plkaced regular decks thoughout the void between the pylons on the centerline...)
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manticore: Maybe impulse refers to a specific type of fusion reactor, possibly the most efficient form possible? Someone at SCN proposed that it was an acronym, I'll see if I can look up what for.
In Diane Carey's novel Final Frontier it's suggested that the term was originally "internally metered pulse drive," or "I. M. Pulse Drive" for short. The novel is set before TOS, when Robert April takes the as-yet unnamed, uncommissioned Enterprise out to rescue some colonists, and already the engineers are referring to it as "impulse" in casual conversation. By TNG likely only a historian would even know it was ever an acronym.
The novel has the following explanation of how it works:
quote:"Okay. Impulse engines are powered by high-eneergy fusion, got it? The fusion is created by a pulsed laser array, mounted all around a fuel tablet. The first pulse causes a fusion reaction which ignites the tablet, which results in a heavier element."
"A heavier series of elements, really," Wood interrupted.
"Which we then hit with another high-energy laser pulse, and we get the second-stage fusion reaction. That releases a hundred twenty percent more energy than the first reaction. Then the pulse hits again, and again--"
"All within a microsecond," Graff contributed, ignoring Drake's expression of abject terror.
"That's where the term 'impulse' comes from," Saffire went on. "Internally Metered Pulse Drive."
"So simple," Drake murmered. "I should have been an engineer."
Notice they're talking about producing energy. Maybe the Romulan ship in TOS: "Balance Of Terror" used something similar to produce power, even for its warp drive, while later TMP and 24th century Federation ships, while using more advanced forms of sublight propulsion, carried over the term "impulse" as a synonym for sublight drive. The transference of meaning by association has happened in real world linguistics often enough.
Marian
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: In Diane Carey's novel Final Frontier it's suggested that the term was originally "internally metered pulse drive," or "I. M. Pulse Drive" for short. The novel is set before TOS, when Robert April takes the as-yet unnamed, uncommissioned Enterprise out to rescue some colonists, and already the engineers are referring to it as "impulse" in casual conversation. By TNG likely only a historian would even know it was ever an acronym.
I doubt that. People don't just "forget" that things are acronyms. Sure, people in casual conversation might not be aware, but I doubt that engineers wouldn't know that "impulse" used to stand for something.
It's not like people have forgotten that "eta" stands for something, and that has to have been around for at least a century.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
A lot of people take AWOL as a word, not the acronym for absent without leave.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, but "eta" is rather obvious as an acronym because phoenetically it doesn't sound like a word. But what about "scuba" or "radar" or even "laser"?
As you say, people in fields directly related to the above terms still are aware of them as acronyms, but for the general public they are just words. And they're all rather recent.
-MMoM Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It's not like people have forgotten that "eta" stands for something, and that has to have been around for at least a century.
That's hardly a fair counterexample. "ETA" is still used as an acronym. People say "ee tee ay," not "eh-ta." At least, not that I've ever heard.
Besides, even if most people remember it's an acronym, or even if it wasn't an acronym, that doesn't mean the word "impulse" couldn't have evolved from something specific to a generic term for sublight propulsion, which was my main point.
Marian
PS: for many years I didn't know that "snafu" was an acronym.
Makes me wonder where "LoL" will be a century from now. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Most people probably don't think "laser" is an acronym now that the verb "lase" has been invented.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hopefully, lol will be dead and buried.
I forgot about laser, so fair enough. I still say though that while the general populace will be unaware of it's status as an acronym, scientists (and smarty pants) will still know. It's not like there'll be a worldwide cull on dictionaries printing out what the word stands for.
I do agree that impulse could very well mean something completely different to what it used to. But Geordi says in "Relics" that impulse engine design hasn't really changed in a century, which throws out any ideas that it's different from what it was in "Final Frontier" (if you want to use that). It could be different from the impulse engines on the Enterprise-NX though.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Pshaw! Geordi was just coddling the old geezer, we all know that!
Young people rule!!!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: - We have a MACO male called Richards. And another Corporal was named, but I didn't quite catch it. Forrester (the female MACO from the Western episode) is injured in the assault.
The other Corporal was named O'Malley.
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: That was S. Money, and Archer calls her "Parsons". Weird.
No weirder than, say, Eddie Paskey playing several different NCC-1701 personnel on TOS, including Rizzo and Leslie in the same episode. ("Obsession")
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Harry: - We have a MACO male called Richards. And another Corporal was named, but I didn't quite catch it. Forrester (the female MACO from the Western episode) is injured in the assault.
The other Corporal was named O'Malley.
"He's collecting pay-offs in a dark alley..." Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: No weirder than, say, Eddie Paskey playing several different NCC-1701 personnel on TOS, including Rizzo and Leslie in the same episode. ("Obsession") -MMoM
Considering that actress uniform is equipped with nametag with big letters that say "S. Money" I would say that yes, it is weirder Posted by RoboCaptainMike47 (Member # 709) on :
Jerry Ayres played Rizzo
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Hmm...according to several sites you're right, but Spike has him listed as being played by Paskey on his personnel list. Nonetheless, Paskey did play other characters besides Leslie, including Connors in "Mudd's Women." I'm reasonably sure that he also appeared as Leslie at some point after he was supposed to have been killed.
But in any case, the "S. Money" nametag wasn't visible in this episode, was it? Besides, surely explicit dialogue takes precedence over that sort of thing. So Parsons is another MACO, though she looks suspiciously like Money.
-MMoM Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Or maybe Parsons is a first name from a non-traditional family?
(In that case, I feel sorry for Money...)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, if she chose to go by "Parsons", I hate to think what the 'S' must have stood for.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Maybe she is a snowman. Maybe she is Parson Brown.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And thus we ponder the great universal question: Just how does one man get to be so funny?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oxygen deprivation would be my guess.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess that, if you come from a place called "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan", you have to develop some sort of defense mechanism.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Damage" was on today, and so I came here looking for a discussion on this interesting morality play, how Archer's actions compare with Sisko's in "In the Pale Moonlight", whether he did the right thing or not, and so on.
Instead, we have people saying that because they said "Warp Core" instead of "Warp Coil" (or vice versa), this episode is the worst one since "Threshold".
I hate Star Trek fans.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
You came to the "Starships and Technology" section of the board expecting a discussion of the morality of "In the Faux Moonlight"?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
As opposed to that bracing, no-holds-barred ethics debate going on in the General Trek forum? I think he meant Flare as a whole, not the S&T forum specifically.
Marian
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I hate Star Trek fans."
Go write your dissertation and be quiet.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
MarianLH is correct.
And I'm waiting for the pro-plus to kick in. And considering drinking some Red Bull, too. IT IS BANNED IN FRANCE!
Posted by RoboCaptainMike47 (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: IT IS BANNED IN FRANCE!
Which is in the future called Robo-France 29. In the year 9595, it is still illegal. I think we all know why. Anti-Red Bull legislation. Antideestablishmentarianism.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Antidisestablishmentarianism.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Antidisestablishmentarianisms.
Beat that, suXXor!1
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
This thread is very antidisestablishmentarianistical, I must say.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
no no no... I'm feeling better now, see ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
... ![[Wink]](wink.gif)