posted
Was the starship Reliant seen in Star Trek II smaller than the Enterprise or the same length? Watching the chase scenes into the Mutara Nebula the Reliant appears to be the same length!
posted
Well, since the forward "saucer" of the Reliant was almost identical to the Enterprise, it has to be shorter, although it would be the same width as the Enterprise at their widest points.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
Reliant is definatly smaller. It's just a little cousin of Enterprise.
------------------ Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?" Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"
posted
Unlike the real Soyuz, which is still doing nicely.
------------------ "Businesses used to be like Christianity; if you were faithful and obedient, you could obtain bliss in the afterlife of retirement. Now it's more of a reincarnation model. If the worker learns enough in his current job, he can progress to a higher level of employment elsewhere."
posted
*gasps* check out the Russian space program....
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them....
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Or being relegated to "lifepod duty" for the ISS. Personally, I'd rather tak my chances on a module breach than step foot in a Soyuz capsule. Their "safety record" (if it can even be called as such) is atrocious.
On a related tangent, the Chinese variant, the Shenzhou capsules, are FAR more capable & versatile. I saw we cut the fuckin' Russians out & cozy up to the Chinese. They'll be on the moon by the end of the decade anyway.
------------------ "You just push off....and the falling sort of happens on its own." ---Dave Titus
posted
Atrocious? As I recall, only two crews were killed in 1967 (Soyuz 1) and 1971 (Soyuz 11) for a total of four people, and one exploded on the pad in 1983 (but the crew escape rocket functioned just fine). Am I missing some things here? Considering the volume of Soyuz launches over the decades compared to the Shuttle, I don't think it's THAT bad. The only thing that really sucks is the construction - they're not rated to last longer than six months in space before they start to fall apart.
posted
Don't worry, the Soyuz wont be used on the ISS for long. It's gonna be replaced by the X-37 in a couple of years. It's sort of a really shrunken down version of the X-33 VentureStar, used as an escape pod only.
------------------ Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?" Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"
posted
Now if they could bolt X-37 to the end of a Soyuz booster...
The ISS definitely needs some way to move personnel up and down on a regular basis, without having to send up an entire shuttle. While waiting for transporter technology to be perfected, one could do some feasibility studies on whether X-37 could do the job of Hermes, riding atop an Ariane V if not atop a Soyuz. Even that would be cheaper than using the shuttle.
The X-37 would of course need some sort of an expendable propulsion and maneuvering module, but that was part of the Hermes plans, too.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
