Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Starfleet Head Quarters

my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

»	Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » General Trek » Starfleet Head Quarters (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Starfleet Head Quarters

trekfan2k
Ex-Member

posted

I was wondering about the location of Starfleet HQ during the time of Voyager. I know before then, it was located in San Francisco, but in the Voyager Episode when the crew goes back in time to CA, didn't Janeway make the remark that the big one had occurred and CA sunk or something. Wouldn't that mean that the HQ would of had to be somewhere else.

------------------
"You left spacedock without a tractor beam?"

"It won't be installed until Tuesday."

-Captain James T. Kirk to Captain John Harriman

IP: Logged

Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33

posted

I believe Janeway mention it was Los Angeles.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

posted

I'm not sure what we're talking about. Starfleet HQ is in San Francisco, and as Tahna pointed out the Voyager folks were in the City of Angels. Besides which, going through a devastating earthquake does not render an area unlivable, otherwise we wouldn't have a San Francisco today.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

trekfan2k
Ex-Member

posted

I thought that she ment that all of Califorina had sunk, not just the area they were in.

------------------
"You left spacedock without a tractor beam?"

"It won't be installed until Tuesday."

-Captain James T. Kirk to Captain John Harriman

IP: Logged

TSN
I'm... from Earth.
Member # 31

posted

Even if the San Andreas really went off, the entirety of California wouldn't be gone. Just the western half or less.

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

colin
Active Member
Member # 217

posted

In the episode "Future's End, Part 1", Capt. Janeway mentions the Hermosa Earthquake of 2048. This earthquake caused Los Angeles to sink beneath the ocean. (Hermosa is a city with a major faultline northeast of Los Angeles.)

Though not sure, I feel the science in this event is suspect. If someone can prove that a major severe earthquake could sink a large metropolis, I may find this event more believable.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Ritten
A Terrible & Sick leek
Member # 417

posted

Were the water levels lower long ago, or did a quake sink those Egyptian cities in the Med.???

------------------
"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

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Registered: Sep 2000 | IP: Logged

Fabrux
Epic Member
Member # 71

posted

targetemployee: Try to find Port Royal, Jamaica on a map.

Ritten: I believe it was just a case of the water levels being lower, because IIRC there was a project a little while ago that involved moving some monuments from underwater to higher ground.

------------------
"Lately I've noticed that everyone seems to trust me. It's really quite unnerving. I'm still trying to get used to it."
- Garak, "Empok Nor"

[This message has been edited by Fabrux (edited February 18, 2001).]

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

Siegfried
Fullmetal Pompatus
Member # 29

posted

Yes, a major earthquake can return an area of land to under the ocean if it strikes a coastal area. As Fabrux mentioned, Port Royal is a wonderful example. It was a port city on the southern (?) edge of Jamaica that a popular docking city for pirates, theives, the dregs of society. It had a vast wealth stored within the city limits. I believe it was the 1800s (might have been earlier) when a large earthquake sank most of the city. There was an expedition to retrieve some artifacts in the mid- to late-1980's. Since about the mid-1990's, archeaology students from Texas A&M University have been involved in a massive dig in the ruins of the city. They're still finding stuff.

I learned all of this on The Learning Channel, and it has been a while since I saw the episode. Aside from the dates, I'm certain of everything else.

------------------
Nic: She's not a practicing lesbian. We need PRACTICING lesbians!
Me: I have a camcorder.
Nic: But no lesbians.
Me: Ahhh... no.
Nic: DAMN IT MAN! WE NEED LESBIANS! LOTS AND LOTS OF LESBIANS!

ICQ Conversation From January 23, 2001.

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

Epoch
Geology Rocks
Member # 136

posted

Well since a lot of the questions are coming from will a portion of land sink due to an earthquake. Answer No. In order for the land to sink into the water it would need to be floating on it and since land is not floating on it it therefore cannot sink into it. So California in the near/medium/distance future will not sink into the Pacific.

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

Registered: May 1999 | IP: Logged

Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343

posted

Four words: Krakatoa, east of Java.

------------------
"You just push off....and the falling sort of happens on its own." ---Dave Titus

Registered: Jun 2000 | IP: Logged

warbird5
Ex-Member

posted

I think it's possible. I read somewhere that a powerful nuclear explosion in the megatons placed at the San Andreas fault can sink California.

IP: Logged

Epoch
Geology Rocks
Member # 136

posted

Ok I'm going to walk thru this but first a brief agreement. I agree and am back by the fact that small portions of land can become loose and slide (ie. Landslides, avalanches, mudslides). However these are usually on a fairly small scale. Port Royal while sort of a good example isn't really, the earthquake only slid portions of the city into the water not the whole city. Good on small scale not on large. However to sink California it just is not possible (not even with a nuke). The fault lines that run through California are a result of two plates sliding past one another which is called a transform boundry. The largest of the faults is the San Andreas. One plate is the Pacific plate(oceanic crust) the other is the North American plate(continetal crust). The Pacific plate has a small portion of land above water that is up against California. The plates slide past one another like this.

N.A plate -------> Southeastward
Pac plate <------- Northwestward

This is the movement that has been happening for millions of years and will continue to until that chunk of California is a part of Oregon. No sinking will occur only a seperation that will perhaps form a small channel but that is unlikely. There are many other factors that I don't have time to go into nor do I think anyone really wants to here them for this to happen. Thanks for listening to me while I was on my soap box. Oh and as for Krakatau it was destroyed by a volcanic eruption not an earthquake big difference.
------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

[This message has been edited by Tec (edited February 19, 2001).]

Registered: May 1999 | IP: Logged

Timo
Moderator
Member # 245

posted

I don't remember the dialogue of "Future's End" exactly, but it might leave open the possibility that LA was simply covered by the ocean long enough for the city to be destroyed. Perhaps the big earthquake simply drove a tsunami against the coast so that for a brief moments, Beverly Hills became the Beverly Islands and everything else was washed to the sea? That could count as "sinking" even if the involvement of water wasn't all that long-lasting...

That said, I doubt California would perform any major up or down movements within the next few centuries, but it shouldn't be impossible for the direction of continental drift to change. We could simply get lucky and witness a change within this timeframe, nicely coinciding with rising sea levels or something.

Timo Saloniemi

Registered: Nov 1999 | IP: Logged

SIR SIG
Ex-Member

posted

Simply put: Watch late s7 DS9. You see SF HQ/Academy in a bad way!

------------------
An Aussie Trek Narrator

IP: Logged

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic