HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bob_Hearn@qm.claris.com (Robert Hearn)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Boarding of E in Rascals
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:38:55 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Spartacus Software

In article <1993Jan24.055313.24973@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
sg0d@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN R. GILBERT) wrote:
> 
> 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


It really surprises me how often I hear this about "Rascals."  To me,
the boarding is not a big deal.  They were taken by surprise, and
after the first salvo did its damage, they were outgunned.  The
Enterprise doesn't go around prepared to meet pirates all the time,
because it doesn't happen much.

Automatic return fire phasers would start a lot of wars.  I suspect
that 24th century ethics require that PEOPLE be responsible for such
things.  Putting machines in control of warfare might be more
efficient, but there's the risk of people becoming too detached.
The ship should respond instantly, but only on command.  At least,
I can see the Federation reasoning that way.
Remember M-5.

The real problem with "Rascals" was using the transporter to turn
people into children, just by changing their genetic structure.
Whoever thought that up should be shot.  That is NOT how
transporters work, and they haven't been abused that badly since the
second season.  I thought they were much stricter about transporter
magic now, but I guess not...

I did like the characters as kids, but the mechanism used to turn
them into kids was totally unacceptable.

Bob Hearn
Spartacus Software

Opinions expressed here are those of my empolyer, since that's me.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: domnatr@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kane)
Subject: Re: 1701-D Flagship
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:22:10 GMT

Although I'm sure they're not very canon sources,
many of the original Star Trek novels (to wit, 
*Mutiny on the Enterprise*, possibly *The Wounded
Sky* if I remember correctly) mention and in some
cases include a saucer-from-stardrive separation.
And I'm sure these novels were published before
Encounter at Farpoint had even emerged... most
likely before the whole Next Generation thing had
even begun to be planned.

Just my 6x10^90 yen's worth.

_____________

Kane
domnatr@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
_____________

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Gravity? what's that?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 06:33:40 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <930116210116.20a022ea@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> FELSON_ADJ@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU writes:
>Just saw this glaring error on DS9:
>  
>when captain siskel ( or whatever ) 

And his co-pilot Ebert, giving the Bajoran terrorist two thumbs
down. :)

>orders his ship to power down near some
>moon, the ship stopped moving.  What happened to gravity?  Since when is power
>necessary for orbit?  Why didn't the ship then proceed to crash into the moon?

I'm not sure what you mean. If they had entered orbit, they
wouldn't need power. They'd keep all primary systems active, like
the Enterprise does when it enters orbit.

If they weren't in orbit, they could have been "stationkeeping",
maintaining a non-natural "orbit"... which should be trivial for
a ship with warp engines. If they powered down, they would start
to fall towards the planet... but it would take a rather long
time. Hmm... been out of physics too long. I'd guess they'd have
a few hours if they were falling straight down before getting
anywhere near a danger point. Calculations anyone?

Joshua
From: kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero???
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:35:03 GMT
 <1993Jan14.232906.262@gems.vcu.edu> <1jn43bINNhbk@umbc8.umbc.edu> <1993Jan22.105033.63049@cc.usu.edu>

sl6wv@cc.usu.edu writes:

>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?

   1*10^-7 Kelvins is 0.0000007 degrees and is of course above absolute
zero.  My physics professor has told us that she (or her collegues)
regularly attain 1 MicroKelvin (1*10^-6 Kelvin).  I think they use lasers
to reduce the motion of gas atoms or molecules.
From: sl6wv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ACME Gravitational Company Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:23:47 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1993Jan20.173202.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu>, u94_rgualtie@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Rick Gualtieri) writes:
> In article <93020.47724.L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>> 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.
> ******************************************************************************
> The main reason why the artificial gravity never fails is because it would cost
> a bundle of money to make the effects for an episode like that, and its easier
> and a lot cheaper to just have Worf tell everyone that shields have collasped
> instead.
> 
> Rick Gualtieri
> u94_rgualtie@sitvxc.stevens-tech.edu

	For a good example of what happens when Art Grav fails, take a look at
STVI:TUC when they actually do a fairly good job of showing people in
free-fall.  The little spheres of blood floating around is also a very good
special effect, not to mention everything falling when the gravity is suddenly
turned back on.


Rob "Woodchip" Horning
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: The Q-Girl 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:53:20 +0000

In article <93Jan24.190918.23084@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca writes:

>The SF version is, "What happens when a Stormtrooper fires at a
>Red Shirt?"

They both die?

***********************************************************************
*  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: duanew@atlastele.com
Subject: Solar System Defenses (was Re: On ST vs SW technology in war)
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 18:06:44 GMT

In article <80333@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1759c@prism.gatech.EDU (Don Morris) writes:
>I know one thing, if I were Commander Starfleet I'd certainly think about
>phaser/photorp installations in the Belt, global shields, and some sort
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^
>of Grand Cannon type phaser array. Too many times with only one ship in
>the Quadrant for my liking... :)
>
>Donald Morris                         Box 24815 Ga. Tech Station
>vapspze@prism.gatech.edu              Atlanta, GA 30332
>====================================================================
>"I want to live as an honest man, to get all I deserve and to give all I can.
>	And to love a young woman, who I don't understand...."
>		-Suzanne Vega, 'The Queen and the Soldier', _Suzanne_Vega_
>
This idea probably wouldn't be practical considering the actual size of the
Belt.  You would either have to have several installations (maybe several
hundred to several thousand) or hope that the enemy always approaches from
the region that your installations are situated.  Another problem is that
(if I remember my astronomy correctly) the Belt sits approx. in the Ecliptic
so if an enemy is smart they would come from the Solar North or South.

Duane (DR.) Watts
:================================================================:
:  Hey You!  Yes, You!  Don't put that .sig there!  Don't Do It! :
:================================================================:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Re: "continuum drag"
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:19:16 GMT

In article <C1HDp1.G2q@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson) writes:
>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?

As a body approaches lightspeed, its mass increases until it is so
massive that there isn't enough energy in the universe to propel it any
faster. I'm sure a real physicist could explain it a lot better than me...


-- 
"Dr. McCoy, would you do me the very great honor of eating my shorts?" -Spock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ray, when somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!" -- Winston Zeddmore
From: kyle.ashinhurst@mail.trincoll.edu (Kyle Ashinhurst)
Subject: Doom and Cheese
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Trinity College
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:11:25 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: transporters, smart computers, and sensors
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:53:09 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

As for the comments on sensor refinement, take a gander at the scene in
STVI:TUC where the Enterprise-A shows a fairly detailed surface scan of
Rura Penthe, while they are in Fed space and Rura Penthe is 'deep within
the Klingon frontier', which translates to at least a few hours travel at
moderate warp speed (moderate because they were trying to pass as a cargo
ship, which generally can not fo Warp 12 (old reckoning warp)).

That's not too shabby.  :)

CJW

--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: domnatr@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kane)
Subject: Re: Picard maneuver
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:28:57 GMT

What I want to see is the Borg executing the Picard maneuver...
Be a real thrill, huh?
(And don't tell me they don't know what it is)

________________________

Kane
domnatr@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: sl6wv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Riker`s Captaincy
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:13:53 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1993Jan20.185305.3951@fuug.fi>, an2260@anon.penet.fi writes:
> 
>>		I bring to your attention two items from the show:
>>1) Capt. Ben Maxwell was ordered by Capt. Picard to 
>>	accompany the Enterprise to the nearest Starbase...
>>	This impiles Picard (more experience, better ship)
>>	outranked Capt. Maxwell. (was not DIRECT order from
>>	Starfleet)
> 
> This is NOT true... Picard was acting under Starfleet orders to stop Maxwell.
> He was given authorization by starfleet to bring in maxwell.
> 
> Can a captain in the army be ordered to do something by another captain
> who has not been place over him without special orders?
> 
	As a matter of fact, yes he can.  Rank order for those of the same pay
grade (both captains, generals, ect.) is determined by comission date, hence
the first one to receive that rank is technically superior.

	A side note to this.  When Capt. Kirk (in STIV) was demoted from
admiral,  was his comissioning date from when he was first made captain or the
new date when he was demoted?  This is important because at this time there
were several captains serving aboard the Enterprise (namely Spock, Scotty, and
it seems like McCoy as well.)

>>2) In the second encounter with the borg, Riker was 
>>	promoted to the rank of captain TEMPORARILY!!!!!
>>
> 
> BTW, Where did it say that the promotion was temporary? One minute Picard
> was there, the next minute, Riker had 4 pips!
> 

	Who says that the writers of TNG even keep track of the pips.  Just
look at the running arguments with Chief O'Brien.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
> Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
> and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: cc6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chris D Castro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: QUES: Ship Classifications
Date: 25 Jan 93 09:25:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wfN3uxe00WBL45F85=
Organization: Doctoral student, Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


   A while back I posted a message similar to what's below on
r.a.s.current.  I'm posting it here in the hopes that someone will be
able to help.

   We all know that, combat-wise,
Galaxy>Ambassador>Excelsior>Constitution.  Does anyone know how the
other ships, such as the Nebula, Constellation, Miranda, and Oberth
classes fit in?  Other classes that I dug out of the ST:TNG Companion
(and which fought at Wolf 359) include the Cheyenne, Challenger,
Springfield, Freedom, Niagara, New Orleans, and Rigel classes.   Which
of these are capable of putting up a fight and which are better off
turning tail and fleeing?  Is there any publication which lists details
like crew numbers?

    I'd appreciate any and all thoughts and speculation.  Thanks!

Chris Castro
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: trekker@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sanjai Dwivedula Rao)
Subject: Re: The Q-Girl
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:36:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.062909.72744@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> smt0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEFAN M. THIEME) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.232514.17816@news.csuohio.edu>, cowboy@trans.csuohio.edu (
>Joe Rosenfeld) writes:
>>Christopher Jon Petit (petitc@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
>>: Why didn't the Q just take her powers away?  They showed they could do this
>>: with Q.  Why did they feel it necessary to either take her into the continum
>>: or kill her?
>>
>>
>>: --
>>
>>Perhaps what the Q really fears is Humanity gaining that kind of power.
>>They might very well interfere with the Q's prediliction for treating the
>>universes like their own personal playground.
>>
>>I think the Q would hate to have humans (or anyone) imposing a moral code
>>upon them when they could not stop it at their leisure and in their own
>>way, whatever that might be at the time.
>>
>>What if Amanda would have rapidly affected Humanity, with her great
>>powers, and produced a superrace far sooner than would normally occur?
>>
>>| Joe Rosenfeld                          cowboy@trans.csuohio.edu
>>| CSU Law Library                joer@inca.law.csuohio.edu
>>|         "We look for things ... to make us go!"
>>
>This is a longshot admittedly but...
>did anyone ever think that maybe Q was lying to the Picard et al when he said
>the Continuum stripped him of his powers? What, Q lie? Use his powers in some
>game where those foolish powerless mortals are mere pawns? Never, not him.
>Okay, it is not to likely,, but it is another angle (besides, a really had a
>hard time believing an omnipotent being could be stripped of his powers, even
>by another omnipotent being(s).
>
>
>More probably, it would take a number of Q to strip one of their species of
>their powers. The Q are spread out (presumably) all over the universe ( a very
>big place). Sort of hard to find. Given what we know of the Continuum, they
>also may not be to willing to join together in such an act unless it really
>became necessary
>Q : Why Q, I think you are over reacting. So what if one of us pretends to be
>   ...human. Let her live out her fantasies.
>Q: But, but
>Q: Besides I would much rather spend time destroying Andromeda atom by atom
>   rather than help you in anything!
> Or something like that.


I won't debate you on the True Q episode, but I do remember something you
might have overlooked in the episode where Q gets his powers taken away.
If you remember, Q tries to kill himself by taking a shuttlecraft away from
the E.  During this trip, another Q appears, and tells him that he has
his powers *back*.

Sanjai Rao.

"Bonjour, Mou Capitan"



Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: reply
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:44:38 PST

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: FELSON_ADJ@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Gravity? what's that?
Date: 16 Jan 1993 20:02:49 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Just saw this glaring error on DS9:

when captain siskel ( or whatever ) orders his ship to power down near some
moon, the ship stopped moving.  What happened to gravity?  Since when is power
necessary for orbit?  Why didn't the ship then proceed to crash into the moon?
:-P

It's probably due to the Artificial Gravity on board the ship. ACME Gravatronic
s srikes again. Dave (Don't over run the SFX budget) Simmons
From: ko_mike@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Michael Y Ko)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time travel
Date: 24 Jan 1993 19:29:13 -0500
Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

I believe it was something like this:
The Enterprise has to travel greater than warp 10 to go back in time. This
is the TNG rating. However, they can't produce that much energy.
So they use the gravitational force of a star to slingshot them past the
barrier and hurdle themselves back in time.
From: weed-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Weed)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: re: Enterprises
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:07:13 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rattlesnake.zoo2.cs.yale.edu

The episode is "That Which Survives", and Scotty is trying to reverse the polarity on a  magnetic probe which he is using 
to try to get the matter/antimatter reaction under control.
He tells Spock to eject the reactor,
in order to get the ship off of warp drive, and back to 
a non-critical, though crippled, state.  
Today's nuclear engineers would quite likely call this a SCRAM,
or something of the like.  I don't think 
that the ship is "built" to do this normally,
as the Enterprise-D is set up to separate.  The 
"core breeches", which we see in all too many episodes are more-or-less
the same thing, but Enterprise-D is more able to SCRAM
its systems than the TOS enterprise was.

-- 
"The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets 
which it must turn over to the next generation, increased and not 
impaired in valued."  --President Theodore Roosevelt
Matthew Weed	weed-matthew@suned.zoo.cs.yale.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: canadian@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Mark Aitken)
Subject: Re: DS9 -Alderaan?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:58:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.103716.1@acad2.alaska.edu> assaf@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>	Did anyone catch in the third episode of DS9 the departure location of
>the ship ODO was on. It goes like this
>	43863
>		clear for departure
>		departure from Alderaan Spaceport
>	
Sorry it was Aldern.  I checked.
JON
:-)
But he did look like a Jedi though.
;-)
	
>


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@vccsouth11.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Space Rangers
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:39:30 GMT

roland@quadsys.com (Roland Besserer) writes:

>You certainly got a point. A couple of times a year we're fed a few episodes 
>of decent violence and destruction - a welcome relieve. More Borg episodes 
>would certainly help.

 Actually, I think what would be cool in DS9 would be if there were some OTHER
hostile lifeform on the other side of the wormhole---the one which created it.

 But, knowing Starfleet, they'd be taken over in a week.  It seems that all
of the 'battle' scenes show poor performance by the E, and then give some
pathetic excuse (e.g. the Borg are too powerful, the Romulans have kickass
weapons).  I'd MUCH rather see the E put up a good fight and lose by a slim
margin, rather than be womped in 30 seconds or less.

 Like I said in my last post---this is the FLAGSHIP of Starfleet.  I can see
a little freighter being outclassed, but why would the 'flagship' lose so
easily and quickly?

 I think the only episode where the E actually WINS a battle is the one where
they are fighting a vastly outclassed weapons system.

 * Raise Real Shields, Mr. Sulu.  Not those Plot Device ones---the Real ones.
   Prepare to jump to Warp 8 on my mark. *

-- 
"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."
From: kkepkep@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (DragonClaw)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: other races' weapons
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:58:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


    As far as i am concerned most of the other races in TNG are presented
  as ruthless and immoral by our standards. (Romulans, Ferengi, Cardassians
  etc.) Then how come they have low setting hand held weapons? For example
  in the episode where Picard becomes a child, why didnt the Ferengi kill
  Worf or in 'Chains of command, part 1' a cardasssian shot Worf but Worf
  was only slightly injured. And also what happened to the whip-like 
  weapons of the Ferengi (the ones they used in the episode with the first
  contact) ? 

    Thanks in advance for the replies

								DC
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech