Recommended Posts

On 2/16/2020 at 3:36 PM, shockz said:

I can definitely see that, after the dominion war, mars incident, etc... and that they took Picards mothball concept and went with it. I still have a feeling we'll see a starship or two by seasons end.

Mar's isn't Starfleet's only shipyard, merely its main one.  I'm sure that in the intervening years since it burned, they've upgraded others.

5 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Mar's isn't Starfleet's only shipyard, merely its main one.  I'm sure that in the intervening years since it burned, they've upgraded others.

Doesn’t look like it, with old recycled shuttles and them nowhere to be seen.  

Even during the Mars attack there were dsc ships sitting in space dock. 
 

starfleet seems to have a capacity issue after dom war, there weren’t enough ships seems to be a constant theme with this series. 
 

In reality it’s probably some red tape issue where the majority of ship designs we’ve saw are part of cbs/Viacom differences, and the show was completed before the merger discussions happened. I’m sure season 2 will have more ships. 

Edited by shockz
10 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Mar's isn't Starfleet's only shipyard, merely its main one.  I'm sure that in the intervening years since it burned, they've upgraded others.

That's accepted Trek cannon.  But can you, without looking anything up, name another?

 

I can't.

12 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

That's accepted Trek cannon.  But can you, without looking anything up, name another?

 

I can't.

I thought there was one near Jupiter, wasn't it also largely featured in Into Darkness with the secret ship piloted by Robocop? (all this without looking anything up) 😛 

 

Edit: I wasn't far off 😛 

Quote

In the 2013 sequel, Montgomery "Scotty" Scott discovers a covert Starfleet facility, near Jupiter, that has built a much larger Federation warship, USS Vengeance. Source

 

4 minutes ago, Steven P. said:

I thought there was one near Jupiter, wasn't it also largely featured in Into Darkness with the secret ship piloted by Robocop? (all this without looking anything up) 😛 

 

Edit: I wasn't far off 😛 

 

Different timeline ;)

28 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

That's accepted Trek cannon.  But can you, without looking anything up, name another?

 

I can't.

Without looking anything up, I can name two.  One at Deep Space 5, and another in San Francisco.  WITH looking it up, there are a lot more...

 

40 Eridani A Starfleet Construction Yards

Antares Ship Yards

Baikonur Cosmodrome

Beta Antares Ship Yards

Copernicus Ship Yards

Deep Space 5

Earth Station McKinley

Iadara colony

Luna Shipyards

Marin County Starfleet Yards

Oakland Fleet Yards

Proxima Maintenance Yards

Riverside Shipyard

San Francisco Fleet Yards (also known as "San Francisco Naval Yards" or "San Francisco Yards")

Starbase 47

Starbase 234

Tranquility Base

University of Copernicus

Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards (also known as "Utopia Planitia Ship Yards")

Tri-Rho Nautica (Located close to the Klingon border and the largest of Starfleet's shipyards)

 

Everyone should know the San Francisco one.. It's the orbital drydock facility near Earth, as seen in Star Trek the Motion Picture and several others.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Without looking anything up, I can name two.  One at Deep Space 5, and another in San Francisco.  WITH looking it up, there are a lot more...

 

40 Eridani A Starfleet Construction Yards

Antares Ship Yards

Baikonur Cosmodrome

Beta Antares Ship Yards

Copernicus Ship Yards

Deep Space 5

Earth Station McKinley

Iadara colony

Luna Shipyards

Marin County Starfleet Yards

Oakland Fleet Yards

Proxima Maintenance Yards

Riverside Shipyard

San Francisco Fleet Yards (also known as "San Francisco Naval Yards" or "San Francisco Yards")

Starbase 47

Starbase 234

Tranquility Base

University of Copernicus

Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards (also known as "Utopia Planitia Ship Yards")

Tri-Rho Nautica (Located close to the Klingon border and the largest of Starfleet's shipyards)

 

Everyone should know the San Francisco one.. It's the orbital drydock facility near Earth, as seen in Star Trek the Motion Picture and several others.

OK yeah, the San Fran one was kinda obvious.  The others, are they cannon?

 

My point being, there has to be some explanation for the lack of modern ships:

 

1) Not as many shipyards as we thought

2) Throwing accepted cannon out the window

3 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

OK yeah, the San Fran one was kinda obvious.  The others, are they cannon?

 

My point being, there has to be some explanation for the lack of modern ships:

 

1) Not as many shipyards as we thought

2) Throwing accepted cannon out the window

I'm pretty sure every single one has featured in at least one TV episode throughout the years.  Some may only be in ST:TAS, but those are still official canon as they were on TV; which is the primary criteria.

 

I think Starfleet has plenty of the regular ships; it just doesn't have COLONY ships. Big massive people movers that would be necessary for moving entire worlds of people.  Something like the holoships we saw in Insurrection.  IMO, that's almost certainly the sort of thing they were referring to, given the context of the Romulan evacuation.

1 minute ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I'm pretty sure every single one has featured in at least one TV episode throughout the years.  Some may only be in ST:TAS, but those are still official canon as they were on TV; which is the primary criteria.

Hence the latter then?

 

See - we saw the San Fran campus and it was busy with uniformed people and people literally constantly beaming in and out via those archway transporters.

 

Where are the ships in orbit?  Hell where was spacedock?

It's obvious that Earth has improved its transporter technology enough so that it's now instant instead of taking several seconds to cycle.  That alone has probably negated the need for so many ships in orbit. As for the orbital station, just because they didn't show it, doesn't mean it's not there.

 

Also, I would imagine that they're expending quite a lot of resources to put Mar's out...

I don't think ship counts or showing off brand new ship designs were the goal for the show to start.  Who knows what we might see later or in season 2 but I just think they didn't plan for them and the VFX team hasn't done any work on more ships.

9 minutes ago, George P said:

I don't think ship counts or showing off brand new ship designs were the goal for the show to start.  Who knows what we might see later or in season 2 but I just think they didn't plan for them and the VFX team hasn't done any work on more ships.

This is for certain the OOC reason, but you know fans.. Always trying to figure out and IC reason for something they didn't show on TV. :p

 

16 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

It's obvious that Earth has improved its transporter technology enough so that it's now instant instead of taking several seconds to cycle. 

Hell, in Picard they were just walking through a "doorway" and they were transported.

5 hours ago, spacelordmaster said:

Rumor has it Worf is the new captain of the Enterprise and that he, and the Enterprise, will make an appearance at some point in the series.

Well, it's known he was on set at one point as his signature is on one of the "wrap" clapboards, but they've been vehemently denying he was shooting anything. I *would* love to see Worf again though, and Dorn would jump at the chance to be in Trek again, especially considering he tried to get them to create a Worf based show...

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Well, it's known he was on set at one point as his signature is on one of the "wrap" clapboards, but they've been vehemently denying he was shooting anything. I *would* love to see Worf again though, and Dorn would jump at the chance to be in Trek again, especially considering he tried to get them to create a Worf based show...

I am pretty sure they are denying it just like they denied bringing Frakes and other characters. They just don’t want to spoil the surprise. I am quite sure we will see the Enterprise once again and Worf and Crusher and Geordi. I know for sure Q will be there soon. Probably by the end of the season on the last episode.

3 hours ago, George P said:

The newest episode was good, we hardly got any answers though, just some good 7 character development. 

Yes, and then at the very end, even more questions!

Nothing wrong with it either, shes still trying to "find herself"

One thing I'm not a fan of though is how the phasers seem to be more like projectile weapons now... Thanks JJ..

3 minutes ago, Matthew S. said:

Nothing wrong with it either, shes still trying to "find herself"

I mean she embraced her humanity by the end of voyager, especially near the end of its run, and now she’s a soulless renegade? I mean, sure, losing a “son/kin” would be traumatizing and anyone would seek revenge, but I don’t like that she’s gone full vigilante. Almost dexter style.  Also, not seeing the Bi angle. 

  • Like 2

While she did embrace it, I don't believe she found her purpose by the end of VOY.  Also remember there's about a 16 year gap minimum between when VOY got back to the Alpha Quadrant and Picard too...

17 minutes ago, Matthew S. said:

While she did embrace it, I don't believe she found her purpose by the end of VOY.  Also remember there's about a 16 year gap minimum between when VOY got back to the Alpha Quadrant and Picard too...

I could go with the angle of helping the helpless, especially with xB, but out right premeditatedly murdering someone? That’s not Seven. A plot that was subtly explored during voyagers run (see: Infinite Regress, Imperfection, Survival Instinct, Prey), especially with the guilt of being a borg drone assisting in the countless destruction and murder of people while being in the collective. It’s just counter to everything her character was made into.

Edited by shockz

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!