From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: The Enterprise Stinks!
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:05:00 GMT
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Aug29.170031.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, rtiger@vax1 writes:
>I mean, let's be realistic.  First off, it has a frisbee shaped top. 

This, of course, is a direct product of 60's culture.  Hop into your
time machine, and ask the 60's man on the street what a space vehicle
should look like.  You'll get two answers: 1) a rocket 2) a flying
saucer.

So basically, the old Enterprise is basically a flying saucer with
a couple of phallic symbols attached, so you can tell its humans flying
it and not litte green martians.

>Considering there isn't much friction in space, why not go with a big cylinder,
>and get more square feet for your money?

Well, if you want the best ratio of materials (and surface area) to volume,
you want a sphere.  Not even remotely phallic, though...

On the other hand, if you've got anti-matter power, heat loss is not a
problem, and the Federation has never been presented as being poor, so
lack of materials is not a problem either.  Thus, beyond simple requirements
of functionality, the choice of design is purely artistic (which is, of
course, 100% a matter of opinion as to whether it is good or bad).

>(boy, when was the last time the Enterprise stopped for gas)

This is one of the things Trek actually gets right.  Even a little antimatter
goes a long, long, way.  Where they get it from is an interesting question,
and one that has never been addressed (probably never will be, either).  But
refuling is /not/ going to take a lot of time, or be required very frequently.

>and the "torpedoes" (which make that cool blastoff
>sound even in the midst of a vacuum).

Lots of stuff on Trek is done for dramatic effect, even if it is in direct
conflict with known physical laws.  The "sound in space" effect is one of
these (notice Star Wars did this too...)

>Let's be real.

OK.  That means toss out warp drive, impulse drive, matter transport,
the replicator, the universal translator, all but the most rudimentary
AI capabilities, phasers, photon torpedoes, etc, etc (including the
very design of the ship: we simply don't have the materials technology
to construct the hull well enough to withstand the pressure of 1
atmosphere.

>They should all be in something much more practical and economical.

What do you know about what's going to be "practical and economical"
in the 24th century?  Barely 50 years ago, computer designers supposed
that there would be demand for perhaps 10 computers world-wide.  100
years ago, most people would've considered the thought of a trip to the
moon as the wildest flight of fancy.

Think of the things that shape our society today: mechanized transportation,
world-wide communication, computers, space technology, etc, etc.  Only the
barest glimmer of these things was evident even 100 years ago.  400 years
ago, they would've sounded lunatic, ridiculous, unreal.

IMHO, one person's guess is as good as the nexts when it comes to what
will be "practical and economical" 400 years hence.

-- 
Dave Schaumann			dave@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current