HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: victor.volkman@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Victor Volkman) 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: RE: WHICH WAY IS "UP" IN
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: victor.volkman@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Victor Volkman) 


-> I hate to tell you this, but the Space Shuttle usually orbits with
-> its top towards the Earth.

That is purely to avoid overheating in the presence of sunlight.
Surely, technology has advanced to where this is not a problem in the
23rd century...
   
----
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+----------------------------+-------------+--------+--------------------+
| Member of EFF, ASP, & ASAD | 1.5 Gigabytes Online | Service since 1988 |
From: gary@msu.edu (Gary J LaPointe  CIS-AH  MSU)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re:Time Travel
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ah3.cal.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: ah4.cal.msu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

>Our first real problem is "Time's Arrow". When Samuel Clemens comes
>forward to 2368, history should have changed immediately to accomodate
>him vanishing in 1893. However, Riker remarks that Clemens isn't
>supposed to be here. An explanation is as follows: Riker isn't much of
>a literary historian, and simply assumed that a man of Clemen's
>apparent importance would be missed. The simple answer is that Riker
>was wrong - history had been changed so that Clemens vanished in 1893
>and that did not affect events in the 24th Century to any significant
>degree. When Clemens returned to the past, history was changed yet
>again - and the "main" stream was now a stream where Clemens came
>forward and back again.
I see no reason why this should change history, if it is his destiny to 
travel to the future and then BACK to the past, then going to the future
would change anything unless he didn't go back to the past (such as he goes
the future and is killed or his mode of transportation is destroyed.
It is only a problem ifhe doesn't go back to 1893.

Gary J LaPointe
gary@ah3.cal.msu.edu
From: kkepkep@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (DragonClaw)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: red not read
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:50:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


  sorry, i meant a red dwarf not a read dwarf
							DC

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: umennis0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Sean Douglas Ennis)
Subject: Re: Data Why not a direct link ?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:35:04 GMT

In <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, the writers probably want to make Data a much more 'human'
character.  If he was to jamb his finger in a socket in the computer (or
a spike in his head) every 5 minuits of an episode, he realy wouldn't be
all that human - would he.

It would be a heck of a lot more logical for Data to communicate with the
computer with a hard-link, or even the way the 'pads' and 'tri-corders'
(sp?) do.  If I was building an android (once I got all the bugs out of
it (ie Lhore)).


-- 
===========================================================================
Sean Ennis --- a.k.a. Blades  | 'I do not fear computers,
  <umennis0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> |        I fear the lack of them'
                              |                             --Issac Asimov
From: sl6wv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:45:00 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1jm8bmINNi7@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk>, drew@bnr.co.uk (Scooby Doo) writes:
> In article <L52NXB8w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>>stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:
>>
>>> I'd disagree (i.e., I agree with Chris).  The plane the races choose
>>all, it's rather hard to define exactly the plane of the galaxy.  Much 
>>more likely a choice would be the plane of the orbit defined by their 
>>home planet.
>>
> 	Why is it hard to define the plane of the galaxy? We've already done it
> as far as I knew. Don't all star charts have the 'Ecliptic' marked on them? And
> we do have right ascension and declination for all stars visible to us here on
> earth.
> 
> Drew.
> 

	Well, yes and no to your statement.  What is roughly thought of as the
main plane that the galactic disk rotates through has been determined.  You can
see it yourself at night from what the ancient astromoners called the "Milky
Way", from which our galaxy gets its name.  Now the 'Ecliptic' is the main
plane that the planets, the Sun, and about 90% of all the junk in the Solar
System travles. (Notable exceptions include comets and asteroids that have had
their orbits changed by moving too close to larger objects like Earth or
Jupiter)  The Ecliptic itself is determined by the imaginary path that the Sun
takes through the sky.  Right asension is determined from the point where the
Sun crosses the Equator (that is, the Earth's)  (ever heard of the time called
Vernal Equinox?  :*) ).  And declination is strictly a terrestial
determination, based on how many degrees north or south of the equator a star
is located.

	What I'm getting at here is that there are many different systems for
stellar coordinates even according to current usage, and real space exploration
has occured only within my own lifetime.

	I am kind of curious as to what coordinates that the Federation uses
for their own navigation.  How big is a "sector" and is it a volume of space,
such as the old townships in the settling of the American "West", or is it a
pie-shaped wedge with the point centered on Earth?  The now famous coordinates
of the Earth are [0,0,1], which makes me wonder how the rest of the Federation
was able to stomache such chauvanism?  Of course we still use a grid system on
the Earth that is centered in London (OK, close enough that is).  An alternate
pie-shaped sector could be centered on the center of the galaxy, but even TNG
era exploration hasn't discovered the entire galaxy yet.

		Rob "Woodchip" Horning

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: assaf@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Bird of Prey?
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:56:48 GMT

    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
From: guest@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA (Muhep Guest account)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re:"continuum drag"
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:43:01 GMT
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

I just thought I'd mention: the usefulness of the concept of "continuum  
drag" is that, in real world physics, you can go as fast as you like even
to the point of approaching but not reaching the speed of light.  In
Star Trek, not only can you exceed the speed of light but if you do not
remain in warp, you will return to sublight speeds. Thus, there is more to
consider than the efficiency of the warp engines: there is clearly a
"restoring force" involved.  Whoever came up with the idea of "continuum
drag" must have had this in mind.  As for the Technical Manual, well, we
should really stop thinking of Sternback and Okuda as scientists and think
of them as the artists / entertainers that they are.

Martin Phipps
LOULA@hep.physics.mcgill.ca

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.   
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: afzal@divsun.unige.ch (Afzal Ballim)
Subject: Re: Re:"continuum drag"
Reply-To: afzal@divsun.unige.ch
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:17:53 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?
|> 
|> Besides, how does a photon reach lightspeed?  Does my flashlight
|> have infinite energy?  (If so, why is it always going dead...)
|> ---
|> Jeff Robertson

Guess there's a relativistic effect you've never heard of. As you
approch the speed of light your mass increases. Anything with finite
mass at rest would have infinite mass at light speed. Thus infinite
energy would be needed to accelerate to lightspeed. Photons do not
have rest mass.

-- 
Afzal Ballim	             |BITNET,EARN,MHS,X.400: afzal@divsun.unige.ch
 ISSCO, University of Geneva |UUCP: mcsun!divsun.unige.ch!afzal
 54 route des Acacias	     |JANET: afzal%divsun.unige.ch@uk.ac.ean-relay
 CH-1227 GENEVA,Switzerland  |CSNET,ARPA: afzal%divsun.unige.ch@relay.cs.net
From: cms@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Colin Simpson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Data Why not a direct link ?
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:29:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

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'. 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Jeff_Holinski@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeff Holinski)
Subject: Re: Data Why not a direct link ?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:32:51 GMT



It would seem to me that the reason Data doesn't use a direct link to the
enterprise computer is because they would have to open his head or body to
make the connection. Data was not built by Starfleet engineers, he was built
by the foremost expert in 24th century cybernetics. (now dead)
Since Dr Sung was not with Starfleet it would be unlikely that he have access
to detailed data on the federation's as yet unfinished flagship. Adding a
general purpose computer link may not have seemed like a good idea after the
trouble he had with Lore.

Geordi might be able to add a wireless link to the Enterprise computer, but
it would likely have to go outside of his body since in most of the shots in
the show where he had access covers open on Data, there didn't look to be a
lot of spare room inside Data. The problem with an external link is that they
wouldn't be able to seal his skin as well and might run into problems making
him waterproof again. (it would be a little awkward if Data couldn't go to
rainy planets)
There's also the question of what another circuit would do to Data's power
systems.

All in all the best system is to leave Data as a VERY high speed touch
typist.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: phaedrus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John)
Subject: Re: "Rascals"---You Call That Fighting?
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:20:30 GMT

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.

-- 

___________________________________________________________
"Time is an illusion, Lunchtime doubly so!"  --Ford Prefect
From: drew@bnr.co.uk (Scooby Doo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:27:18 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs203.bnr.co.uk

In article <L52NXB8w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:
>
>> I'd disagree (i.e., I agree with Chris).  The plane the races choose
>all, it's rather hard to define exactly the plane of the galaxy.  Much 
>more likely a choice would be the plane of the orbit defined by their 
>home planet.
>
	Why is it hard to define the plane of the galaxy? We've already done it
as far as I knew. Don't all star charts have the 'Ecliptic' marked on them? And
we do have right ascension and declination for all stars visible to us here on
earth.

Drew.

>
>Erik Max Francis  -)(-  ..!apple!uuwest!max  -)(-  max@west.darkside.com   __
>USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1; San Jose, CA  95117  ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  /  \
>Like strategic games of interstellar conquest? . . . Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
>-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt; all things that are, are lights. -)(-


-- 

Pretty damn silly place to leave a signature...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: assaf@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Nebula class Starship
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:59:47 GMT

In article <C15t9K.Knw@unccsun.uncc.edu>, ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes) writes:
>      What is a Nebula class starship? has it appeared in TNG?
> 
> 
  it has not appeared in TNG it is in the 1701-d book, at the end when they are
discussing future looks.

S.F.
From: ddeckert@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: transporters and consequences
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:25:14 GMT
Reply-To: DDECKERT@oak.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: Center for Instructional and Research Computing Activities

In article <1993Jan20.144639.5699@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, kruegerb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kay Krueger-Barvels) writes:
,
>okay. Still the question is: Why can't they reproduce anything they want to by 
>using the scanning feature of the transporter?
>

Actually I remember one episode where they did that. Picard lost his body and
got dumped into the computer. They re-integrated him with his body. Neat trick.
Key to immortality. Notice that they haven't done that again. 
The die-hard trekkers can probably supply the name of this episode. It was the
one where the E passes thru a nebula and the disembodied intelligences there
swipe Picard. 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: talbert@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Robert Talbert)
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero???
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:17:47 GMT

In article <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?

Actually, just this morning I was talking to a friend of mine who said that 
in some of the experiments at the Free Electron Laser facilities here at
Vanderbilt, there are times where the temp could dip below absolute zero.
He went on to say that the heat transfer with the cold space would be so 
violent, anybody who touched it would explode. (Cool.) 
   I wish I knew more about that kind of physics! I asked him how you could 
possibly get colder when absolute zero means no molecular motion... He didn't
know. Oh well, I guess there really *are* no absolutes in the universe... =)
My guess is the writers of this particular episode of TNG still just goofed
the numbers up, regardless of whether or not there happens to be a justifi-
cation of it. (Like they'd know or anything...)

-- Robert



--
Robert N. Talbert    		  | "I saw what cannot be seen
Mathematics Department  	  |  She spoke to me
Vanderbilt University		  |  'Take what you've learned, set it free
talbert@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu |   See what you'll see.' " --- King's X
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: course of the Enterprise?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:30:49 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Joshua Bell (jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca) responded to me:

> It was Lt. Dax, actually. And if you recall, the computer
> verified its identification (spectral type?) and referred to an
> ancient long-distance probe as the source of the original
> identification of the star in the Gamma Quadrant.

Actually, I didn't remember the mention of a probe, but I'll take your
word for it.

> 							However,
> the fact that there is a blossoming intragalactic economy on
> _this_ side of the galaxy is at least a possible clue as to what
> could be on the other side. Even if there is one planet, as
> primitive as 20th century Earth, the Ferengi can go to town. :)

The way I see things now is this.  The wormhole just gave the Federation a
major interest in the Bajor system.  The wormhole is going to be an
incredible starting point for all sorts of scientific and exploratory
missions.  Most major spacefaring races/organisations are going to want to
get a piece of the action for possible exploitation, esp. those near
Bajor, an area which seems to be regarded as a real backwater.  Thus,
nearby races now have a chance of opening markets without travelling
across the Federation to sell their products.

However, nobody is just going to throw a ship of 'beads and trinkets'
through the wormhole hoping that someone on the other side is going to
want to buy.  It would be really bad business to try and open the markets
before ascertaining whether or not such a market actually existed.

Space exploration is not, by any means, an instantaneous sort of thing. 
It should be *years*, perhaps over a decade, before anything resembling
major economic opportunities arise as a consequence of the wormhole's
existence.

CJW

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Gravity? what's that?
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:06:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.201212.2555@admiral.uucp>, dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman) writes:
|> In article <930118130200.20800f41@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> FELSON_ADJ@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (The Central Scrutinizer) writes:
|> >! From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
|> >! 
|> >! 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 ) 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?
|> >! 
|> >! Power is not necessary for orbit (at least, not until the orbit starts to 
|> >! decay). The ship didn't crash into the moon, because it was in orbit. What's
|> >! the problem?
|> >
|> >The ship did not continue to orbit.  When siskel cut power to the ship,
|> >the ship stopped.
|> 
|> Before Sisko (note spelling) cut the power, the ship was moving because it
|> was entering orbit around the moon. Once the power was cut, the ship simply
|> stayed in the orbit in which it was placed.
|> 

   So the answer to this question seems to be that the camera was in the
rotating reference frame, and that the shuttle performed some small braking 
acceleration (to get it into the proper orbital speed) before powering down.

Rod
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking Devices...just an idea??
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:50:23 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

jthorpe1@cc.swarthmore.edu (jere7my tho?rpe) writes:
hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) wrote:
<> The only idea that I have thought of that would seem to work for a 
<> _visual_ cloaking device is one that would first absorb all impinging 
<> E/M radiation.  It would then release E/M radiation in the right 
<> direction and at the right time so that it appears that the original
<> radiation had simply passed through without being effected.
<
<> -Jay
<
<I think if the Romulan ships were just able to absorb all EM waves and then
<emit stable virtual photons 180 degrees around from the incoming photons
<(some sort of one-to-one mapping) it might work.  Of course, then there
<would be a slight delay in the time it would take for a photon to get from
<point A to point B through a cloaked ship, so such ships would be
<detectable if they passed between two Federation ships beaming EM waves to
<one another--some portion of the waves (in a ship-shaped outline) would be
<slightly out of phase with the rest (a la the Michelson-Morley
<interferometer).  The light could never be emitted at the "right" time
<because the signal travelling from the "absorber" to the "emitter" would
<have to travel slower than light, and thus would have to lose some time as
<it passed through the ship.


If I remeber reading correctly, Star Trek computers use warp technology
to send signals FTL, so that wouldn't be a problem.


-Jay

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:48:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.061808.89912@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> smt0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEFAN M. THIEME) writes:
>>
>Also, how come starships are always shown orbitting a planet with their gravity
>planes perpendicular to the planet. Yeah yeah it looks cool and people think
>of starships as boats I know that. But that's reality. Why do they do it in ST?
>Besides, aren't all the transporter emmitters on the bottom of the hull? Think
>how much easier transport would be if the Enterprise did it like the space
>shuttle.

I hate to tell you this, but the Space Shuttle usually orbits with its top 
towards the Earth. 


-- 
"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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech