HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pierce@admiral.uucp (Clinton Pierce)
Subject: Re:  Transporters & replicators
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 16:26:04 GMT

In article <mark.0z1r@legend.akron.oh.us> mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) writes:
>This might be a dumb question, but here goes: in "Relics" Scotty is kept
>alive via a Transporter buffer and then remerterlized.
>
>I guess my question is this, which is probably an FAQ.
>How much of a person does the transporter save?  What's
>to stop a deeply greiving transporter chief who has
>lost a loved one to go back and pull the transporter
>pattern and bring the dead loved one back to life?
>--

Probably the same reason you don't keep something like the entire USENET
archives on your PC---where would you put it.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jeff_Holinski@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeff Holinski)
Subject: Re: Turbo Lifts
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:00:39 GMT


The reason that there is always a turbolift there when one of the lead
characters wants one is simple. The turbolift AI's are just "sucking up" to
the command crew. Enlisted personnel on the lower decks probably have to wait
MUCH longer.
From: starride@nighthawk.ksu.ksu.edu (David Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: 1701-D Flagship
Date: 8 Jan 1993 07:04:48 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: nighthawk.ksu.ksu.edu

rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) writes:

>In article <1if5r0INN2c8@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu> starride@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (David Chase) writes:
>>
>>	Well I see that someone flamed me before I got to do it
>>to myself. A friend of mine told me and showed me were I was wrong 
>>about the saucer going warp speed by itself, ie it does not have its 
>>own warp drive.
>>

>The Tech Manual is very pretty and has many nice pictures.  It is also
>filled with a lot of clever pseudo technobabble.  It is only slightly
>more canon than the animated series IMHO.



			Grin.   Good one. Smile.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: 1701-D Flagship
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:27:01 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

The secondary hull is also called the engineering hull in many TOS
references, and is referred to in some TNG items (mostly Paramount
production stuff) as a battle hull.  The saucer contains the bridge, all
living space (crew and civilians), transporters, cargo, shuttle bays,
probes, phasers, etc.  The secondary hull contains all of the warp related
engineering, extra transporters and cargo, the photon torpedoes, extra
living space, and, one would be forced to assume, additional phasers.  It
also contains the battle bridge.

In TOS and in the movies, the Ent. was capable of separation (according to
tech manuals and one or two refernces from TOS episodes) only insofar as
the saucer section could become an emergency non-warp capable lifeboat. 
i.e., it was a way of getting out of Dodge when the warp engines were
ready to go kablooie.  It was never intended for 1701 (no bloody A...) to
be able to separate and redock tactically until the Galaxy class. 
According to (I think) Mr. Scott's guide, reattachment of the older
Enterprises required major drydock time.

CJW

--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@vccnw03.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: 1701-D Saucer going warp speed
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:40:37 GMT

aea@cacs.usl.edu (Edwin Alexander) writes:

>fleckens@plains.NoDak.edu (Clint Fleckenstein) writes:
>: Here's my question.  The 1701-D saucer has no warp drive, and I'm
>: guessing it has no warp field generators.  Yet, when the two ship
>: sections seperate at very high warp speed, it doesn't slow down 
>: like a frisbee released from the window of a moving car.  Why?

  It DOES slow down.  However, it's the much less powerful quantum drag which
comes into play, rather than the more potent air friction.  So, that,
coupled with a 'spatial restoring force' (which MUST exist, or else we could
put a warp bubble around something, and accelerate to any speed, then drop
the bubble and not slow down (to slow down out of subspace, you must get back
into normal space somehow).
-- 
Cat Owner/Passionate Romantic/Poet/Singer/Dreamer/Philosopher...
That's me!  Modest?  Sometimes.  Crazy?  BETTER BELIEVE IT!! :&)
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
"Protect endangered species!  Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cottle@b11.b11.ingr.com (Tim Cottle)
Subject: Re: Heavy/Light Cruiser
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:00:16 GMT

aaron@serss0 (aaron) writes:


>>Until the battleships were lost at Pearl, the Navy plan was to lure the Japanesefleet to a point northeast of Midway Island, and meet them with the battleships.The role of aircraft carriers was to provide a platform for scout aircraft to 
>>lead the battleships to the Japanese fleet, and to provide artillery spotting 
>>for the gun action that would follow.  The Japanese sinking of the battleships
>>was actually a blessing in disguise to the US Navy, as it caused them to 
>>rethink the concept of war at sea.
>>

>I should like to see some proof behind this thinking.  Nothing I have ever
>seen or hear or read (and that has, in times past, been an immense amount
>of materiel) *ever* hinted at anything remotely close to this idea.  Sure,
>the Navy Battleline was a proud monument, but even before Pearl Harbor,
>thanks to such luminaries as William Halsey, it was realised that the
>carrier was going to be *THE* mode of fighting.  William Mitchell's sinking
>of the circa-WWI German battleship _Ostfriesland_ heralded that all too
>clearly, and the Japanese took it every bit as much to heart as did the
>Americans . . .

I got this from NPR's "Morning Edition" program, in a story they did shortly
before 7 December, 1992.  I'll visit the library this weekend and see if I
can find the new book they were getting this info from.



Tim


 --

 |  Timothy A. Cottle                  |                                    |
 |  Workstation Systems Development    |     Gegen Dummheit kaempfen        | 
 |  Intergraph Corp.                   |     Goetter selbst vergebens.      |
 |  Huntsville, AL  35894-0001         |                                    |
 |  cottle@gman.b11.ingr.com           |                    --Schiller      |


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: boro@ph2.uni-koeln.de (Rene Borowski)
Subject: Re: Federation v. Empire??? NOT!!
Organization: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, F. R.
	Germany
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:39:16

In article <1993Jan11.140355.1@acad.drake.edu> jsq002@acad.drake.edu writes:

   Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Path: rrz.uni-koeln.de!rrz.uni-koeln.de!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!dunix.drake.edu!acad.drake.edu!jsq002
   From: jsq002@acad.drake.edu
   Subject: Federation v. Empire??? NOT!!
   Message-ID: <1993Jan11.140355.1@acad.drake.edu>
   Summary: Empire 1 - Federation ZILCH!
   Keywords: death, destruction, mayhem
   Lines: 36

	we are discussing is mammoth - even more powerful than that of the
	Borg.  And we haven't even started to discuss the fact that both the
	Star Destroyers and DS have squadrons of TIE fighters at their 
	disposal.  Don't get me wrong - I love ST, but with the vast amounts
	of firepower involved here, I don't really feel that the Federation
	fleet would stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating an ISC's
	ass, let alone the bloody Death Star.

	   Jason 

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

Hi Jason !

You hit the point I think.
A few weeks ago when I looked ST2 and ST3 on video I got the idea that I've
seen something like the spacebattle in this films and in some TV episodes
often before - in pirate films... . And I think from this point of view
there is a great difference between ST and SW. Battles at sea were fought
between big ships only until WW2, now a sea-battle will be fought with
high-tech fighters or missiles and one single battleship will have NO chance
even against a destroyer.

I like the space battles in ST, because they are done with the right tactics
and possibilities of a ship to ship combat.

On the other hand I like the battles in SW and Galactica because in my opinion
the combats there are more realistic.

The Enterprise may have enough firepower to waste ships of her seize - but
a star-destroyer is too big !!

The Death Star would pulverize any ship of the Enterprise-class without great
problems.

But: THAT's ANOTHER UNIVERSE - OK ?!

Rene Borowski (boro@idefix.ph2.uni-koeln.de)
UNIVERSITAET KOELN
II. Physik. Institut
Zuelpicher Str. 77

5000 Koeln 41

GERMANY
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed Info PLEASE!!!!!
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:33:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>Well, according to "certain materials" (such as the "bible" that prospective
>ST:TNG authors were told to refer to) stated that:
>
>1) Warp speeds are equal to the cube of the warp# times speed-of-light, up to
>warp 9... therefore, warp 8 would be 512*c, warp 9=729*c... after warp 9, there's
>sort of an expansion of the scales involved, such that warp 10 would be
>a completely instantaneous transit from one point to another (oboy... 'beaming'

According to the "certain materials" I have seen/heard of, the exponent 
used for TNG warps through 9 is not 3, but 10/3 = 3.3333333.  This exponent
increases quickly for warps above warp 9, becoming infinite at warp 10.

The cubic way of calculating the speeds was used in TOS.


-Jay

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero???
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:20:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.022033.2759@sfu.ca> knott@sfu.ca (Dave Knott) writes:
>From: knott@sfu.ca (Dave Knott)
>Subject: Below absolute zero???
>Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:20:33 GMT
>
>	I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but I'll mention it  
>anyway.
>	Last night I was watching the ST:TNG episode "The Royale". You  
>know, the one where Riker et al are trapped in the casino. Anyway, when  
>they arrive at the planet, LaForge does a scan of the surface, complaining  
>about the hostile environment and all that. But he mentions that the  
>surface temperature is -291C !!! 
>	But how is this possible? Absolute zero (0 Kelvins) has been  
>calculated at approximately -273.15C, and it is a known fact that nothing  
>may achieve a temperature lower than that. You'd think that the ST  
>technical advisors would know better!
>
>Dave Knott
>KNOTT@SFU.CA

I think this one is too much. I can take a lot of wierd stuff from SF shows, 
but this, IMHO, is stretching the rules of fiction.  
It isn't possible. Temperature is defined as relative movement of atoms in a 
molecular structure. Thus, absolute zero is no movement at all.
Anti-movement is too hard to swallow.


          /\           | I didn't say this.      | "When there's no 
        /    \         | My supervisor would     |  more room in hell,
      /        \       | kill me if i did.       |  the dead will     
    /    (<>)    \     |_________________________|  walk the earth."
  /                \   |Gunnar Horrigmo          |
/____________________\ |gunnarh@sofus.dhhalden.no| 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: quetzal@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Quetzal)
Subject: Re: Telepathy - Anyone want to take a shot?
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:38:34 GMT

In <qz-33fc@rpi.edu> petitc@nuge115.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:

>jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:

>>Has anyone given any thought to the 'science' of Star Trek's
>>telepathy? By this, I mean the usual "I sense the blatantly
>>obvious" comments from Troi, as well as things like the
>>Traveller's manipulation of reality, the Ullians of "Violations",
>>and that sort of thing.

> Sound reasonable?

Naaaaaahhh..... I just reckon they've read the script . . . :)

Tim Pickett.
From: susser@apple.com (Joshua Susser)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Trill Symbiosis
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:57:57 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Apple Computer, ATG

I just saw the premier of DS9 [DSN?], and was thinking about the Trill
"joined race".  The relationship of the host and the rider is described as
symbiotic, not parasitic.  It's clear what the benefit is for the rider,
but it's not so clear for the host.

I was very surprised when I first saw The Host (TNG episode where we first
see a Trill) that the Trill hosts were sentient on their own.  Why would
self-aware creatures submit to take-over by a parasite?

Watching Dax's flashback of her transplant, it seemed that her new host was
eager to recieve her rider.  So it makes sense that there was some payoff
she was expecting.  The biggest clue we have is when Sisco greets Dax: he
says something like "same old Dax" and she replies "more or less".

So perhaps the mental relationship between host and rider isn't all that
one-sided.  Here's my idea of what would make sense for such a symbiosis: 
The rider and host both are sentient with their own personalities.  Riders
are very long-lived, and compared to hosts are chock full of knowledge,
wisdom and interesting memories.  Hosts spend their pre-adult lives without
riders, and get to develop their own personalities and world-view. 
Eventually a rider is implanted into a host.  The two personalities merge,
with the rider's arguably contributing more to the mix because of its
greater experience.  The rider enjoys the mobility of a body, and the host
gets a companion who is vastly knowlegable and wise.  Eventually the host
body ages and dies, and the rider is transferred to a new host, taking what
it absorbed of its last host with it.

So the payoff for the rider is a mobile body and a fresh outlook on life to
rejuvenate its psyche.  The payoff for the host is the knowlege and wisdom
of the rider, and the eventual continuation of its personality when the
rider moves on.

Make sense, or not?  (no flames, please...)

Joshua Susser, Object Percussionist
Apple Computer, Advanced Technology Group
inet: susser@apple.com | link: susser.j | phone: 408/974-6997
From: plardier@atl.ge.com (Patrick Lardieri)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Probable FAQ question about formula for warp speed...
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:09:01
Organization: /home/plardier/.organization
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bea.atl.ge.com

Sorry if this is an FAQ, but I am not a regular reader of this group,
the answer is necessary to settle a debate.

Is there a formula relating warp factor and velocity?

Thanx,

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lardieri
Internet: plardier@atl.ge.com ("reply" may not work)
GE Adv. Tech. Labs	
Route 38, Bldg. 145-2
Moorestown NJ, 08057
(609) 866-6619 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jvigneau@cs.Deep.Space.Nine (Joe Vigneau)
Subject: Deep Space Nine
Organization: Not Much
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:55:45 GMT

When DS9 starts up this weekend, will there be another newsgroup set up, like
rec.arts.startrek.ds9.*, or will everything remain here?  They're sitting
at the edge of a wormhole, so something neato should pop out of it in a future
episode...
Just a Thought...
--
jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu-<All opinions are mine, not UMassLowell's>-Joe Vigneau
      "Picard & Riker in '96: Make it So for The Next Generation!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: Excelsiorclass ship that was blasted in DS9
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:41:25 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

They never showed a very good view of the Melbourne, so it's possible it
wasn't exactly an Excelsior class.  

However, did anyone notice, in one aft view of two ships attacking the
Borg cube, a ship that looked like an Enterprise class (big gull wing
nacelle struts and such) but with more TNG looking ship parts, like engine
nacelles and such?

Also, wasn't the Saratoga from ST4:TVH an Avenger class, i.e. just like
thge Reliant?  The one from DS9 looked more like what some tech sources
call a Knox class -- a slightly smaller Reliant without the overhead
weapons pod.

CJW

--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Excelsiorclass ship that was blasted in DS9
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 21:08:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1993Jan9.194125.11848@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne) writes:
>They never showed a very good view of the Melbourne, so it's possible it
>wasn't exactly an Excelsior class.  

It looked exactly like an Excelsior class. We see about 3-4
views of it. Its Excelsior. I just checked the tape, but my VCR
sucks. I can make out "USS MEL" of the name. But it is definitely
Excelsior-class. 

>However, did anyone notice, in one aft view of two ships attacking the
>Borg cube, a ship that looked like an Enterprise class (big gull wing
>nacelle struts and such) but with more TNG looking ship parts, like engine
>nacelles and such?

Thats an Ambassador-class. Again, I just checked. A rear-view
shows the nacelle pylons going straight out, then straight up.
Its body is also more tubular than either an Excelsior or Galaxy
class.


>Also, wasn't the Saratoga from ST4:TVH an Avenger class, i.e. just like
>thge Reliant?  The one from DS9 looked more like what some tech sources
>call a Knox class -- a slightly smaller Reliant without the overhead
>weapons pod.

I called this a Soyuz-class, which the TNG Companion described as
a Miranda-class (the 'official' Okuda/Sternbach name for the
Reliant-type) minus the roll-bar and with additional turrets.
Robert Oliver (sp?) stated that the Lantree was a Miranda class,
and that it lacked the roll-bar, and that the Soyuz-class was
further differentiated from the Miranda-class (as well as being
out of service). Personally, I vote we just don't call the
Saratoga anything until we get some word on what it is, via
press-releases, a Tech Manual update, or something on the show.
I'll go with 'Modified-Miranda' though. :) Anyone want to look at
"Unnatural Selection" and "Cause and Effect" and see if they can
find a match?

Joshua
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Excelsior class ship that was blasted in DS9 (Spoilers)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 21:23:29 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <93Jan07.212112.22998@acs.ucalgary.ca> I wrote:

>Spoiler warning, to protect the innocent:

>
>The third and fourth ships appear in tandem, in an attack
>formation, breaking starboard towards the Borg cube. They are an
		     ^^^^^^^^^
		       port

>Ambassador-class and a Nebula-class. 

I hate it when I do that.

Joshua
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: "paul manson" <paul.manson@canrem.com>
Subject: wutv emissary sunday pm
Reply-To: "paul manson" <paul.manson@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:11:41 EST

Cross-posted to all Trek / TNG / DSN conferences

Notice to all Toronto - Buffalo Trekkers and Trekkies

Be aware WUTV is re-running
                 ^^^^^^^^^^
DSN Emissary Sunday, January 10, 1993 at 1:00 p.m.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe there won't be the high pit squeal (open mike???) this time.

LL&P P&LL

               PAUL S. MANSON <=-CRS TORONTO CANADA-=>
---
  1st 1.02b #815  Dammit, What's the problem? (BIG KICK) - O'Brien
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Andy.Church@launchpad.unc.edu (Andy Church)
Subject: Wormhole displacement (was Re: course of the enterprise?)
Organization: Nonexistant
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:04:26 GMT

Colin J. Wynne (cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu) writes:
>Umm, in DS9: Emissary, they say that the worm hole carried them either
>7000 or *70,000* light years from Bajor.  SOmeone might check that,
>because the latter is truly impossible to swallow.

  I did check, and it is, in fact, 70000 light years.  If I remember
correctly (which does happen occasionally :-)) the wormhole in TNG
"The Price" carried Geordi, Worf, and two Ferengi 70000 light years
away, as well.
  Funny coincidence, isn't it?  I wonder if all wormholes connect
two points in space 70000 light years apart?
  (Please, if I got it wrong, don't flame.)

  --Andy Church

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: "Final Mission"
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:33:23 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Keywords: radiation, orbit, radiation poisoning
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1ialijINNbla@shelley.u.washington.edu> labmas@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Andersson) writes:

>ANYWAY.  The planet with the garbage barge was a Class M planet (earth-ish
>size, right?).  This barge was in orbit (150-20,000 miles over the
>surface, right?).  Now, what kind of radiation would cause radiation
>poisoning at those distances?

The type of radiation always generated by nuke-uh-lar wastes on
television and in the movies.  Ask Jane Fonda for a complete
technical discussion.