HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kidknee@pro-smof.cts.com (Joe Fowler)
Subject: Artificial Gravity
Date: 24 Jan 93  3:29:39 GMT 
Organization: The SMOF-BBS: Science Fiction Online Since 1985 [512-467-7317]

   The Klingons could have lost their gravity in ST6 because the evil
captain of the cloaked ship specifically tried to knock out the gravity. 
The plan must have been to do so, otherwise the asassins wouldn't have worn
gravity boots.  The evil captain knew where to attack because he was a
Klingon and had access to ship spec's.  There is also the possibility that
the klingon captain one-eye (sorry I forgot his name) disengaged damage
control or backup to these systems that usually take care of such
situations (the Federation wouldn't even know there were backup systems to
diseengage, and from what they had seen of Kilngon technology, would expect
no backups in the crude technology they posessed.)

           Just my guess...  but I liked it.

                         Due for a Transplant...
                                KidKnee!
----
ProLine:  kidknee@pro-smof
Internet: kidknee@pro-smof.cts.com
UUCP:     cs.utexas.edu!wixer!pro-lep!pro-smof!kidknee
==============================================================
From: sg0d@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN R. GILBERT)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Boarding of E in Rascals
Date: 24 Jan 93 05:53:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I know the idea of how wimpy the E is is being discussed under some
other non-obvious name right now, but I just saw "Rascals" again and
it burned me so much I had to post this.

I thought this episode was great, except for the fact that the E was
rendered virtually helpless in 30 seconds by two Kligon ships run by
Ferengi.

You would think certain capabilities would be resident in the E:

1. Automatic shields/deflectors
2. Automatic return-fire phasers
3.    "            "     photons
4.    "      evasive manuvers

I know, I know here I go reguritating this subject again, but...

The damn computer can simulate Einstein in the hollo-deck (sp?) but
the conceited humans of the 24th century think they can defend the E
better than the computer can???  ...ridiculous.

Just MHO and venting.

Steve Gilbert
sg0d@Lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@nuge112.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Time Travel/Enterprise C
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:35:07 GMT

weed-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Weed) writes:


>Without such an ending, the first two-and-a-half years of TNG would be
spurious, and the writers would have to learn how to fight battles properly
*very* quickly.

 That's a good point---why is it that, when these writers do battle scenes,
they are almost always boring?  You can have a great battle scene and still
lose (remember TOS---now THEY knew how to write battles).  Something to keep us
on the edge of our seats would be cool.
 
-- 
"Protect endangered species!  Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
"Pay no attention to that little man behind the keyboard."
"If you want to look for fish, best not to look in desert."
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chejasw@yalevm (Jason Cherry)
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Department of Mech. Eng., Yale
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:46:43 GMT

In article <Fg6JXB6w165w@west.darkside.com>, max@west.darkside.com (Erik
Max Francis) wrote:
> 
> sg0d@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN R. GILBERT) writes:
> 
> > My offering: The standard audience member likes looking at starships
> > as if they were boats, that is, it is visually pleasing to always
> > picture them as they are (and always have been) shown ...but I'm sure
> > someone will come up with at least one techinical reason.
> 
> Naturally, this is the real reason.
> 
> In actuality, it's vastly more likely that ships never intended to land 
> on the surface of a planet (such as the _Enterprise_) would have no 
> external up-down configuration.  They'd probably be cylindrical or 
> spherical to conserve surface area.  If you have artificial gravity, of 
> course, the insides will look oriented . . .
> 
	
				Actually, the way that I like to justify it is as follows:
		In all their travels, all starships must navigate by using stellar bodies
or beacons or other form of relatively permanent points. So, if the
astrogation computers use, say, any three stars and/or beacons as
referents, (as we all know, any three points define a plane), and we can
assume that the computers are programmed to use certain of these bodies,
then at least the Federation ships would always be in the same plane and
facing right-side up when they met. 

--Jas 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*      LL    LL    LLLLLL  LLLLLL  LL  LL                                  
 *
*      LL  LL  LL  LL      LL  LL  LLL LL       "There is an old Vulcan    
 *
*      LL  LLLLLL  LLLLLL  LL  LL  LL LLL          proverb: Only Nixon     
 *
*  LL  LL  LL  LL      LL  LL  LL  LL  LL         could go to China."      
 *
*  LLLLLL  LL  LL  LLLLLL  LLLLLL  LL  LL                           --Spock
 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ACME Gravitational Company Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:22:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

sweet@ug.cs.dal.ca (garth r sweet) writes:
<L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote:
<> Does anyone know why the artificial gravity never fails reguardles of how much
<> damage one of the ships takes. What ever the Art Grav device is it can't be
<> very big or need much power since it fits on the shuttle craft as well as the
<> starships.
<
<	And, there have been episodes where the ship was flat out of power
<and interior temperature was falling rapidly, but gravity was working full
<bore, so those gravity generators take less then the heaters do, that's
<pretty efficient. And BTW as the STVI demonstrates, the gravity generators
<can be knocked out as a plot device as required, but only when money
<allows as zero-gravity shots tend to be pricy I assume. :-)


So, this has come up again.  Well, I refer you to your friendly neighborhood
Technical Manual.  From it's explanation of the Gravity Generators it seems
that gravity is generated by spinning a special disk (they call it a stator)
which is suspended within a special gas and housed within a special cylinder
(Technobabble deleted).  Normally, these disks are given a "push" every 
sixty minutes to keep them from slowing down by a noticable amount.  
However, if there is no power to do this, they will continue spinning on
their own to "provide an attraction field for up to 240 minutes though some
degradation of about 0.8 g will be detected." (p144)

From STVI, I would say that Klingon gravity generators don't work in quite
the same way.


-Jay
From: WEZAMG@DEVAX1 (George ZAMROZ)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking Devices...just an idea??
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:55:27 GMT
Organization: BHP Information Technology
Nntp-Posting-User: wezamg
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1k0fh1INNr9p@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk> drew@bnr.co.uk writes:

> In article <C19uuJ.Knx@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
> >NOMAD........ (wtm@cck.coventry.ac.uk) wrote:
> >7. "It is not esthetically pleasing for the viewer to be treated to a
> >   TV screen full of stars whizzing by without the Enterprise planted
> >   squarely in the middle.  Or worse, a TV screen full of stars just
> >   standing in place while SFX for the Enterprise roaring by are
> >   played in the background."
> >   (to quote Tony Nardo)
> 
> 	It seems to me that the best way to detect a cloaked ship is to
> leave a few microphones hanging around in space. After all, that roaring
> noise ships make as they fly around must be audible miles away! :-)
> 
In space no one can hear you scream.

---------------------------------------------------------------------/\/\-------
    George Zamroz                                                   /// /\
    Information Technologist                                       /// //\\
    Process & Engineering Section                                 /// ///\\\
    BHP Information Technology                                    \\\/// ///
    Wollongong Region                                              \\// ///
--------------------------------------------------------------------\/\/\/------
    Mail      :    P.O. Box 261, Warrawong 2502, NSW, Australia
    Telephone :    +61 42 755426
    Fax       :    +61 42 755215
    Internet  :	   "DEVAX1::WEZAMG"@itwol.bhp.com.au (or)
		   wezamg@itwol.bhp.com.au (or)
		   george.g.b.zamroz@bhpmelmsm.bhp.bhpmel04.telememo.au
    X.400     :    G=GEORGE I=GB S=ZAMROZ OU=BHPMELMSM O=BHP P=BHPMEL04
		   A=TELEMEMO C=AU		
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jt_rask@pavo.concordia.ca (RASKU, JASON T.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: BRS
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:06:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have a freind who is working on a Bassard Ram Scoop project and was woundering
what information there is out there.  So if you could E-Mail me with anything
it would be apreciated.  Thanks.

								Jason Rasku
From: yjc@cs.bham.ac.uk (Yvan J Cartwright)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Where was that STARDATE posting???
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:59:18 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham


   The subject says it all. I had the posting and then it disappeared. I've tried
looking in every trek group but to no avail. The list was the one that explained
how to calculate stardates/real dates and gave evidence to show that the
calcualations were at least consistent with most episodes/films. If you can help,
then don't hesitate to reply!!! If I can find this info then I'll tackle the
burning telepathy question (I've read a lot about this sort of stuff). Thanx!

_________________________________________________________________________________

\  /\  /
 \/  \/ AYFARER : USS Morrigan - (active) currently working on Betazoid telepathy.

_________________________________________________________________________________
From: det@sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: New Physics,Healing & Paranormal 2 "White Paper"
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:50:06 GMT
Reply-To: somebody@somehost.edu
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <C1H5D6.6Jr@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
<lots of BS and partially understood physics deleted>

Look, Jack, this crap has nothing to do with star trek, it's total blathering
baloney, please limit it to the crackpot groups (some of which you have
posted to).  The rec.arts.startrek.tech group is for discussion of the
plausibility and implications of technology portrayed in Star Trek.
It is not a soapbox for New Age pseudoscience.  There are more than
enough forums for this drivel without dumping your load here.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
From: shapiro-david@yale.edu (The new Number Two)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Data Why not a direct link ?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:54:43 -0500
Organization: What, me organized?
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
In-reply-to: cms@dcs.ed.ac.uk's message of 25 Jan 93 11:29:03 GMT

In article <C1EqKF.MM9@dcs.ed.ac.uk> cms@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Colin Simpson) writes:

  Could anyone suggest an explanation as to why data does not use a direct link
  into the ships computer when he is at his station. This would be a lot faster than 
  punching keys, even for Data. The reason is not that it cannot be done, because he
  did this in the episode 'Disaster'. 

Well, I suspect that it is more for the benefit of the rest of the
crew.  It would certainly be disconcerting for much of the bridge
crew, and certainly for the commanding officers, to have Data "plug
in" and interact directly with the computer.  His not being plugged
in, furthermore, helps maintain the stability of the chain of command.
After all, he may need to take command at a moment's notice, and to
have a series of wires stuck into his head from the console would make
it more difficult for him to get up and take the Captain's chair, if
need be.

In addition, Data is trying desperately to be "more human," and
for him to plug in as you suggest would be, at a certain level, to
deny what humanity he has.

Just my $.02

David
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before us lies eternity; our souls   |   David Shapiro
Are love, and a continual farewell.  |   shapiro-david@yale.edu
 -W.B. Yeats, "Ephemera" (1889)      |	 shapiro-david@minerva.cis.yale.edu
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before us lies eternity; our souls   |   David Shapiro
Are love, and a continual farewell.  |   shapiro-david@yale.edu
 -W.B. Yeats, "Ephemera" (1889)      |	 shapiro-david@minerva.cis.yale.edu
From: sl6wv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero???
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:50:33 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1jn43bINNhbk@umbc8.umbc.edu>, ac999239@umbc.edu (ac999239) writes:
> I am not trying to justify their blunder of info, but at Absolute 0 there is
> no movement on the atomic level. However, I have heard there is movement or
> perhaps vibrations on the subatomic. Maybe there's some way to force the scale
> down even further to stop all activity even that which is subatomic. Please
> don't flame me on this...
> 
	I was just reading in my physics textbook about a serious reserch
project to achieve well below 1*10^-7 Kelvin.  I don't know how much colder you
can get than that, but the article I was reading said that even somebody
lightly walking in the same research building where the experiment was taking
place would cause so much heat from the vibrations that it would ruin the
experiment.  I'm just curious if anybody else has heard more about this?

Rob "Woodchip" Horning
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Excelsiorclass ship that was blasted in DS9
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:46:14 GMT
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)

In article <19355@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca writes:

>>>but i'm curious did anyone catch the NCC designation and the name of the
>>>Excelsior Class ship that had its saucer section blasted by the Borg?
>>
>>HEY!!! Knock it off, some of us haven't seen the first episode yet, it
>>doesn't start here till Thursday........please put SPOILERS in your
>>subject line!
>
>Don't worry, it's not a spoiler.. It's 'almost' the same scene (different
>angles etc.) that we saw when the borg came to earth..A bunch of dead
>starfleet ships and the borg shooting the ones that were still alive. It has
>nothing (directly) to do with the plot of the show.

"when the borg came to earth" - what season is that in?  We've only had
up to the the first episode of season 4 (Best Of Both Worlds part 2),
and we won't get any more until 1995 (I think - could be 1996).  Gods
know when (if at all) we'll get DS-9.

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:03:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.220239.13904@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

|> Okay, so I understand why starships in trek are always symettrical (And
|> sleek).  But here's a question that always puzzled me:
|> 
|> When two ships meet (even if 100% by accident) why are the ship attitudes
|> ALWAYS the same?  That is, the orientation between the two ships are
|> alike?  It would seem that with 360 degrees of freedom (in one plane
|> alone!) for both ships, when two ships meet, one should have at least
|> one in a while show up "upside down."
|> 
|> Joe
|> 

   Yep.  Worse, why do they always seem to be travelling in the same plane?

Rod
From: haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet (Ross Hayden)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Galaxy maps and stardates...
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:35:21 CST
Organization: WKU Computer Science Dept.

Hello all!

I have a couple of questions here:

1.  Is there any kind of translation of a stardate into a MM-DD-YY
format?  And if there is, how closely is it followed?

2.  Is there a map of the current galaxy as is known in ST:NG?  I'm
interested in exactly where such things as the neutal zone, Bejor, etc
are located.

Thank you for any help.

-- 
Ross Hayden                     |
haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet           |     "What you see is all you get."
Computer Science Department     |                -- Brian Kernighan
Western Kentucky University     |
From: wigginse@dragon.combat.edu (Ender Wiggins)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:55:10 GMT
Organization: Space Fleet Orbital Combat School

The enemy's gate is down.
From: cc6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chris D Castro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: QUES: Matter/Antimatter Spread
Date: 25 Jan 93 09:12:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.kfN3iaK00WBL85F55=
Organization: Doctoral student, Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


   I'm busy working on a story and I'm interested in one of Riker's
anti-Borg maneuvers in The Best of Both Worlds episodes.  To disguise
his efforts to have Picard/Locutus rescued, Riker fires a
"matter/antimatter spread," which seems to be simply emitting packets of
the two substances to create myriad small explosions.
    My questions: Is this described in the ST:TNG Technical Manual?  If
so, where?  If not, does anyone have a guess as to what parts of the
Enterprise emit the packets of matter/antimatter?
    In advance, I thank those who respond.

Chris Castro
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: kmorton@panix.com (Ken Morton)
Subject: Re: "Rascals"---You Call That Fighting?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:13:52 GMT

In <C1CKE7.L9A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> phaedrus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John) writes:

>In article <1jt49gINNc3q@RATTLESNAKE.ZOO2.CS.YALE.EDU> weed-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Weed) writes:
>>There are too many problems with this episode to mention.
>>
>You're telling me!  The biggest problem I had was that of Picard's heart.
>Picard happens to have a fake heart.  If we believe that a transporter can
>become a fountain of youth, fine.  But a false heart made of plastic and metal
>cannot be reduced in size to fit the younger picard's body.
	
	Picard has a fake heart?  How?  When?

				Ken

>-- 

>___________________________________________________________
>"Time is an illusion, Lunchtime doubly so!"  --Ford Prefect

-- 
Ken F Morton
kmorton@panix.com		"Good Tea, Nice house." -Worf

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson)
Subject: Re:"continuum drag"
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:43:48 GMT

In article <C1DD7q.C5p@cs.mcgill.ca> guest@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA (Muhep  
Guest account) writes:
> PS: I should mention that in real world physics, it takes an infinite
> amount of energy to *accelerate* to light speed.  Once you're at a
> given speed, you'll stay there unless acted on by an external force.   
--
Well, I know that you need to accel. to increase velocity, but
why would have have to have infinite energy?  Lightspeed is not
infinite speed.  It takes the same energy to go from 0 to 10 m/s
than from 10 to 20 m/s.  Or is there some relativistic effect
I've never heard of?

Besides, how does a photon reach lightspeed?  Does my flashlight
have infinite energy?  (If so, why is it always going dead...)
---
Jeff Robertson
4B Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
"A sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 14:22:48 EST
From: <JCS124@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: "Continuum drag"

guest@Chopin.Physics.McGill.CA writes:
> PS: I should mention that in real world physics, it takes an infinite
> amount of energy to *accelerate* to light speed.  Once you're at a
> given speed, you'll stay there unless acted on by an external force.

Yes, this is true in real world physics, as it also is in Treknology.
But, the E (or any warp-capable ship) never reaches light-speed.
On full impulse, the speed is 3/4 light speed...
To jump to warp speed, it is not necessary to achieve light-speed,
instead, those speeds are bypassed through use of sub-space fields
to reach a greater-than-light-speed.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: anderson@cs.uiuc.edu (Andy Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bird of Prey?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:36:17 GMT

In <1993Jan25.105648.1@acad2.alaska.edu> assaf@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

>    I am looking for a decent model of the Klingon Bird of Prey
>Can anyone here tell me where I might find a decent one, or if 
>not a good line drawin g so I can make my own. I am also 
>interested in the Excelsior and the Reliant and would like to know
>if drawings are available for any or all of these are available.

>Thank in advance - Shane Forth

     I looked into this last year.  I asked a local hobby shop owner and he
 told me that AMC (the company that makes Star Trek models) doesn't have
 any BOP models and doesn't plan to have any (with the exception of the
 *tiny* 7-piece version in the kit with the Romulan Warbird and Ferengi
 ship [can't think of its name]).

     Of course, that was last year.  This information may now be wrong.
 If anyone knows better, please post it.  I too would like a good BOP model.

 Andy
From: sberger@sedona.intel.com (Scott Berger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Data Why not a direct link ?
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:05:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: chnews.1k4g3kINNmmv
Distribution: world
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler AZ.
NNTP-Posting-Host: alamo.intel.com
Originator: sberger@alamo


In article <C1EqKF.MM9@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, cms@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Colin Simpson) writes:
> Could anyone suggest an explanation as to why data does not use a direct link
> into the ships computer when he is at his station. This would be a lot faster than 
> punching keys, even for Data. The reason is not that it cannot be done, because he
> did this in the episode 'Disaster'. 

	I thought they tried that in "Fistful of Datas", (season 6)
where Worf and Alexander had their wild west holodeck adventure.
They were trying to let Data control various functions in engineering
when something went wrong and Data and the holodeck memories got
crossed up. Data wound up speaking Wild West talk, and the holodeck
had about 4-5 characters played by Data. 

	So it can be done, just not very reliably :-)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Scott Berger                               sberger@sedona.intel.com -
- Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ            sberger@fa.intel.com     -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------