Star Trek

Why couldn't the Klingons figure this out?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DSCWB4GqcFE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because star trek's retarded

> what are shields

because once you kill the humans controlling the ship, the ship's AI takes over and cannot be defeated

Pretty sure the way combat works in Star Trek the shields are a ship's first and only line of defense, they don't seem to have any ability to sustain hull damage.
Also Star Trek is as soft as sci-fi gets and it uses its setting as a vehicle for character drama and moral/ethical parables. There probably isn't any worse sci-fi universe to get into autistic tech arguments over.

That's not actually where the crew are

They can take hull damage.
>Also Star Trek is as soft as sci-fi gets
You must not watch much trek or sci fi if you believe that.

>two ships meet
>the bridge orientation is always upright
>IN FUCKING SPACE

Still better than Babylon 5 when ships just disintegrate when it get hit like one time.

The retards won't get it otherwise

Space has a definite up & down

It's not the softest scifi, but it's nowhere close to hard scifi either. It's inconsistent. One episode you have stories about real scientific concepts, another it's just social allegory with humans that evolved to be half black and half white for some reason. It's all over the place.

Well, they are meeting. To be oriented in the same way is like a friendly handshake between spaceships.

How is Star Trek not soft? Did you miss the omnipotent space gods and the magic particle quantum flux fields?

Yes I know they're not supposed to be humans, but that makes it even worse.

I'll give you that.

>Shields
>Evasion maneuvers so the bridge is not in line of sight

You can't be this retarded right?

I suppose something like Warhammer 40k or Star Wars is worse, but Star Trek is definitely on the soft end of the sci-fi spectrum. Basically anything can happen as long as it serves the purpose of the story they're trying to tell, there are almost no limits.

>evasive maneuver when the enterprise turns like an eighteen wheeler because of its horrible design and fuckall navigational thrust

40k is about as hard as sifi comes

...no?

>structural damage sustained even with shields still up

Inflict hits like this on the bridge and that's checkmate.

...

Hard doesn't mean humorless

Please, tell us what you think "hard scifi" means.

40k literally has magic and gods that power most of the universe's bullshit.

it's a tv show you goddamn motherfuckers

Star Fleet Battles used to have a great reason for why exact targeting is impossible: ECM

Because both ships are constantly jamming and counter-jamming each other's sensors, and also firing from vastly greater ranges than the shows imply, exact targeting of specific parts of a ship is impossible.

reminder that star fleet allows families on board their military and exploration(fully equipped for warfare) vessels so they can false flag on a moments notice

The Klingons were retards

Never forget that their entire war effort and ability to sustain themselves was disrupted when a single moon blew up

But it's all explained as science fact

>implying there is such a thing as aerodynamics and air resistance in space you brain dead fucktard

>what is solar wind
>what is particles in space
>what is structural integrity

>what is extremely spaced out particles that some how correlate with being aerodynamic where there is no air
>what is solar wind, (i think you should google it)
>what is retardation ()

everyone knows torpedoes can penetrate the shields cause they only stop beam weapons like lasers

The Reliant opened fire before the shields were completely up.

explain the Enterprise in TOS and Voyager being able to enter atmosphere and fly on planets

It's still not "soft as sci-fi gets". Which by no means makes it "hard sci-fi".
Yet I'd say it's "as hard as space opera gets" in some selected instances (which includes none of the movies except for the first one).

wat, so basically these ships are shooting without ever knowing where they will hit? bullshit. Also if they can jam each other's sensors, why cant they stop people from teleporting over to their ship all the time

>they only stop beam weapons like lasers

What would be an example of a scifi that's softer than Star Trek?

>the first one
Climaxes with a man and a machine merging together to ascend into a higher form of life on a higher plane of existence that exists outside of the space-time continuum as we know it.

That's as soft as space opera gets.

First episode of ENT

The ship is nearly torn to shreds because without a forward deflector, space debris hits the ship like shrapnel.

There is no atmosphere, but there is matter present to create resistance

The original idea was to have the bridge inside the hull

Are you retarded?
Do you not know what inertia is? Do you not understand why navigational thrusters are needed?

I don't recall TOS enterprise ever entering atmosphere:

it's the episode where they travel to the past and pick up an american pilot who was sent to intercept the ufo which was the Enterprise

Tomorrow is Yesterday

>What would be an example of a scifi that's softer than Star Trek?

Star Wars, Doctor Who (mostly), every single instance of sci-fi capeshit

>space has a definite up & down
This is you pretending to be retarded, right?

Not him, but since "up and down" are always defined through a frame of reference (what's "down" on earth? Is it the direction towards the center of gravity? Is it south?), once you can define axes of any sort, you can also define "up" and "down".

I am a pretty autistic sci-fi fan and Trekkie so I am going to do my best here:

Because TOS technically inferior tech compared to TNG, bridge placement and orientation was more crucial to blind flying when the scanners shat the bed, like in situations in nebulas or ion storms (think Wrath of Khan). I don't have a problem with humans flying spaceships in linear lines, we have virtually been doing that for thousands of years with other craft so it makes sense in terms of navigation to point a ship in linear paths. The obvious answer is "this is aesthetically easier to see on film".

TOS-era Enterprise wasn't as tactically equipped with the scanning ability of TNG-on ships, so a viewscreen was more important. Kirk blind flies from a viewscreen a few times in the show and the films, when basic operating systems fuck up. Of course, the bridge is the most heavily shielded section of the ship next to the warp core.

A vaccum of 360 degree directional movement does not have a fucking up or down...

You are giving me autism, stop.

Enterprise was literally never meant as a military vessel.

Does a luxuray cruise become a battleship once it is attacked by pirates?

the defiant had "ablative armor", but as far as I know it was the only star trek ship that could sustain damage with the shields down

Stark Trek is literally hard sci-fi, I don't know where all this contrarian horseshit is coming from that it isn't.

>Klingons
>having room to talk about retarded ship designs

Why, yes, let's not only put our entire command section in front, let's extend a skinny neck connecting it to everything else.

Face it, Star Trek designs have always been knee-deep in retardation. BSG is clearly the patrician choice for warship design philosophy.

>he thinks the bridge is up top in the open

It is.

what did they mean by this?

if you're somewhere inside a galaxy there's a general plane of reference

I wish that shit was labelled.

What the fuck is that big yellow room? Those rooms of the green shit in the bottom right? And that room of purple space stuff that looks like a picture of a galaxy above the room with red and black beams

>yellow
probably a hangar/shuttle bay
>green/purple
fuel storage probably

...

That doesn't mean up and down are real. You are talking about relative directions, not "durrr there an up and down in space". Stop beating this autistic horse.

humans are used to a mostly two dimensional frame of reference
in a three dimensional frame like space, humans need to associate a two dimensional plane to understand it better

That isn't the question you absolute retard. There are no objective "ups" or "downs" in space. 360 degree space does not give a dusty fuck what sort of handicap you have with understanding limitless direction.

Only downs here are you though.

>Only downs here are you though.

neat, although
>no holodeck
>no transporter room

Transporter room would be amidships adjacent to the turbolift shaft, somewhere below Stellar Cartography.

Holodeck on a TOS ship? Bait harder, kiddo.

You simply can't read, as it would seem. It doesn't matter on how many axes you can MOVE. All that matters is what frame of reference you define and take into account.

And again, this doesn't change the fact thar independently of what you want or can process, there are no actual directions in space.

There are in Star Trek. The Riker maneuver was ground breaking tactics.

Who cares. Here's Chris Pine having fun with Sofia Boutella.

Holy shit, chris literally behaving like a rapist, why is he not jailed yet

I think they actually kinda like each other

He's getting old FAST, man!
I think Sofia Boutella is only 2 or 3 years younger than him but this looks like a 40-something trying to get into a 20-something's panties.

>implying the bridge and the battle bridge are in the same place

you'd need a complete ambush for your idea to work.

Star systems all orbit within the galactic plane, so yes it's very easy and logical to define up/down.

No, but it does when you equip it with torpedoes.

If it has FTL it's soft.

>star systems all orbit within the galactic plane
Please, for the love of Kahless...stop talking.

There IS a holodeck on the Constitution Class but it didn't appear until The Animated Series.

That is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Why?

also the bowling alley isn't marked.

>destroy bridge
>eliminate almost all senior leading officers
>destroy weapon and flight control
come on, user!

I appreciated The Expanse for thinking about this.

>the Donnager is constructed around a hollow central core with other compartments, sub-assemblies and equipment assembled around it like the layers of an onion. The Donnager's core contains several important elements of the ship's structure including the heavily-protected CIC pod and the hangar bay.

>travel at warp speeds to exotic planets
>still install a bowling alley just in case you get bored

six lanes at that, they must have taken bowling very seriously

Boutella is a dancer and model and probably fit as fuck.
Pine, on the other hand, is an actor who probably only works out for the odd shirtless scene here and there, most likely enjoys a good drink every now then and appears to have a genetic disposition towards getting sorta "soft in the middle". So it's not THAT surprising, if you ask me.

Is this show worth watching? I'm curious about it and I would like to hear an opinion from someone who also enjoy Star Trek.

The galaxy is disc-shaped. That necessitates a top and a bottom.

Star Trek is NOT hard science fiction. Jesus, what would that make the stuff that people like Greg Egan write?

isnt AI retarded in Trek? otherwise they wouldnt have people manually flying ships

Bowling is a universal language. You may not be able to speak to a new alien race but you can always bowl with them.

dubs deserve reply
it's nothing like trek, but it's definitely a good show

They actually figured it out in Generations albeit a little bit too late...

youtube.com/watch?v=DSCWB4GqcFE

#Skip to 1:34 ^^

what your opinion on her, QT or BEAST

she'd be QT if she stopped trying to be so BEAST

Either way she's a trash-tier Bobbie

exept having fighters, ever getting that close with ships and the cylon basestars. hard sci fi combat would be shit to look at, imagine the donnager battle in expanse, but as soon as the first torp hits its over

You DO realize that in its 50-year run (already 30 years by the time Voyager came around) Star Trek has been flip-flopping on a ton of issues.

Just to name one example: In that TOS episode whose name I don't remember right now, the one where there's that "vampire cloud" that magically drains its victims of all their blood, it's stated that a single OUNCE of antimatter could render a large part of a planet's surface inhabitable. It's basically the Tsar Bomba squared. Now while it's never stated how much antimatter is actually needed to power a ship's warp reactor it has to be a lot more than an ounce, since they could procure that amount very quickly in that episode and didn't have to wait for days until they could generate it (thus it's fair to assume that copious amounts of it are stored somewhere on the ship).
TOS has been SOMEWHAT consistent on how dangerous an exploding starship could be since the Enterprise's self-destruct mechanism is sometimes treated like an "ultimate weapon" and a ship exploding thousands of kilometres away (note that they seldom if ever had face-to-face combat in TOS – mainly due to budgetary reasons, but it was actually a ton more realistic than the clusterfuck space battles we got in DS9 which however looked cool as fuck) would still send the big E rattling.
Come the movies and subsequent series, you had starships exploding left and right, sometimes crashing into each other, sometimes crashing into asteroids, moons, planets, you name it, and sometimes they would just fly through those explosions completely unaffected whereas, had they stayed true to TOS logic (which was far from consistent itself, mind you!), at some point every starship explosion should've looked like the Nostromo's explosion in "Alien".

So, as you can see: "Canon" is but a guidline and that also very much applies to Trek starships' durability,

That's not it what "hard science fiction" is.