That link isn't working for me. Maybe it's been pulled?
New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017
32 of 46
Originally Posted by GDK:
“That link isn't working for me. Maybe it's been pulled?”
“That link isn't working for me. Maybe it's been pulled?”
Its still working for me anyway I repost link###
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1XrgHNvZxY
Originally Posted by Duncan_Styles:
“Holodecks are an extension of transporter tech so I imagine the system can move you around or hold you in place as it needs to.
I think they changed what warp speed was between the original series and TNG. IM sure I have heard them call out some high warp speeds in the TOS that were way above what was thought possible in TNG.”
“Holodecks are an extension of transporter tech so I imagine the system can move you around or hold you in place as it needs to.
I think they changed what warp speed was between the original series and TNG. IM sure I have heard them call out some high warp speeds in the TOS that were way above what was thought possible in TNG.”
The Enterprise reached Warp 11 in a couple of original series episodes, due to modiications by others (Nomad in The Changeling and the Kelvans in By Any Other Names) and Warp 14.1 unaided, but due to sabotage by Losira in That Which Survives. In the animated series story The Counter Clock Incidents she reached Warp 22 (!) while being tractored by a ship travelling at Warp 32.
Enterprise D's maximum speed was Warp 9.6 with brief periods at Warp 9.8
Warp 10 was considered infinite velocity.
Clearly Federation science and Starfleet must have re-calibrated the Warp scale for some reason between Kirk and Picard.
I'm pretty sure there are other inconsistencies too.
Re warp speed. Wasn't warp 1 originally the speed of light, warp 2 twice that and then so on exponentially ?
Originally Posted by andy1231:
“Re warp speed. Wasn't warp 1 originally the speed of light, warp 2 twice that and then so on exponentially ?”
“Re warp speed. Wasn't warp 1 originally the speed of light, warp 2 twice that and then so on exponentially ?”
According to my copy of the Starfleet Technical Manual, published by Franz Joseph back in 1975, warp factor was the cube of the speed of light. E.g warp 1 was the speed of light, (1 x 1 x 1) = c, warp 2 was (2 x 2 x 2) 8 times the speed of light 8c, warp 3 was 27c warp 4, 64c, and so on.
I don't think it's canon, and it certainly was never made explicit in the original series. Actual velocities and distances were intentionally kept vague. I'm pretty sure it's been contradicted in other non canon material too. Famously, Roddenberry made up an equation to explain the distances and speeds which he put in the series bible, intending to look up the actual equations involved and replace it, but never did.
And then TNG overturned it all, making warp 10 infinite speed, much as the speed of light itself is to us today.
So much for the minutiae of Star Trek technicalities!
Originally Posted by GDK:
“According to my copy of the Starfleet Technical Manual, published by Franz Joseph back in 1975, warp factor was the cube of the speed of light. E.g warp 1 was the speed of light, (1 x 1 x 1) = c, warp 2 was (2 x 2 x 2) 8 times the speed of light 8c, warp 3 was 27c warp 4, 64c, and so on.
I don't think it's canon, and it certainly was never made explicit in the original series. Actual velocities and distances were intentionally kept vague. I'm pretty sure it's been contradicted in other non canon material too. Famously, Roddenberry made up an equation to explain the distances and speeds which he put in the series bible, intending to look up the actual equations involved and replace it, but never did.
And then TNG overturned it all, making warp 10 infinite speed, much as the speed of light itself is to us today.
So much for the minutiae of Star Trek technicalities!”
“According to my copy of the Starfleet Technical Manual, published by Franz Joseph back in 1975, warp factor was the cube of the speed of light. E.g warp 1 was the speed of light, (1 x 1 x 1) = c, warp 2 was (2 x 2 x 2) 8 times the speed of light 8c, warp 3 was 27c warp 4, 64c, and so on.
I don't think it's canon, and it certainly was never made explicit in the original series. Actual velocities and distances were intentionally kept vague. I'm pretty sure it's been contradicted in other non canon material too. Famously, Roddenberry made up an equation to explain the distances and speeds which he put in the series bible, intending to look up the actual equations involved and replace it, but never did.
And then TNG overturned it all, making warp 10 infinite speed, much as the speed of light itself is to us today.
So much for the minutiae of Star Trek technicalities!
”
That makes sense actually: In Voyager they are thrown 70,000 light years from home and they say it will take 75 years to get back. That works out at 933 lights years a year - which according to the above would be warp 9.78 (9.78x9.78x9.78 = 933).
Interesting, if correct. The earliest uniforms, from the pilots, don't have the black collar we saw later in the main series. It's nice to see that, visually at least, they seem to be trying to acknowledge the style of the original series.
Originally Posted by GDK:
“Interesting, if correct. The earliest uniforms, from the pilots, don't have the black collar we saw later in the main series. It's nice to see that, visually at least, they seem to be trying to acknowledge the style of the original series.”
“Interesting, if correct. The earliest uniforms, from the pilots, don't have the black collar we saw later in the main series. It's nice to see that, visually at least, they seem to be trying to acknowledge the style of the original series.”
Yes but one thing that have to change is the badge as each ship had their own badge at that time.
Originally Posted by JDF:
“Yes but one thing that have to change is the badge as each ship had their own badge at that time.”
“Yes but one thing that have to change is the badge as each ship had their own badge at that time.”
Perhaps the Discovery crew will have their own logo? Or perhaps both the Enterprise and the Discovery were two of the first crews to adopt the universal Starfleet emblem?
I know some fans cherish the belief that the logo we associate with Starfleet now was originally adopted across the whole of Starfleet to honour the success of the Enterprise under Kirk, but it's not canon. It's just a speculative reason fans have invented to explain the change in the uniforms.
From memory, we do see some of the pilot style uniforms in later episodes with different badges in Court Martial. I think it's straightforward to explain it by saying Starfleet was in transition when adopting the one we know today and some crews and individuals switched to the new uniforms earlier than others.
TNG did a nice job of fitting their changes in the uniform from season one and from the original crew movies.
It does seem that Starfleet redesign their uniforms frequently!
It keeps the merchandisers happy, at least. 
Originally Posted by JDF:
“Yes but one thing that have to change is the badge as each ship had their own badge at that time.”
“Yes but one thing that have to change is the badge as each ship had their own badge at that time.”
that's a misconception. it was per assignment, not per ship. So any ship with the same assignment will have the logo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comment...s_canonically/
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“that's a misconception. it was per assignment, not per ship. So any ship with the same assignment will have the logo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comment...s_canonically/”
“that's a misconception. it was per assignment, not per ship. So any ship with the same assignment will have the logo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comment...s_canonically/”
Interesting. I didn't know that. Bob Justman's memo seems like proof that it was the intention, even if execution in the series contradicts it, with crews of other Starships sometimes having different emblems.
I can't see the picture of that new uniform, for some reason Twitter isn't agreeing with me. I have been seeing a few more pictures of the Discovery lately though, and they haven't changed the design at all. It's still that god forsaken ship design. The hell are they thinking? I do not approve at all!! 
I really do think this show, being set in the prime universe, is going to bring about it's untimely death. Fuller should have just gone with his own envisioned reboot.
I really do think this show, being set in the prime universe, is going to bring about it's untimely death. Fuller should have just gone with his own envisioned reboot.
My prediction: This is going to be Star Trek on the surface only.
People will recognise certain imagery and technology, but the concept is going to be something else.
I think it's going to be a strong concept, but it will tend to dominate with weaker stories than Star Trek has tended to have.
People will recognise certain imagery and technology, but the concept is going to be something else.
I think it's going to be a strong concept, but it will tend to dominate with weaker stories than Star Trek has tended to have.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“My prediction: This is going to be Star Trek on the surface only.
People will recognise certain imagery and technology, but the concept is going to be something else.
I think it's going to be a strong concept, but it will tend to dominate with weaker stories than Star Trek has tended to have.”
“My prediction: This is going to be Star Trek on the surface only.
People will recognise certain imagery and technology, but the concept is going to be something else.
I think it's going to be a strong concept, but it will tend to dominate with weaker stories than Star Trek has tended to have.”
Taken straight out of chapter 1 of the book of Star Trek fandom cliches. The very same thing was said about TNG, and every subsequent series after that.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“My prediction: This is going to be Star Trek on the surface only.
People will recognise certain imagery and technology, but the concept is going to be something else.
I think it's going to be a strong concept, but it will tend to dominate with weaker stories than Star Trek has tended to have.”
“My prediction: This is going to be Star Trek on the surface only.
People will recognise certain imagery and technology, but the concept is going to be something else.
I think it's going to be a strong concept, but it will tend to dominate with weaker stories than Star Trek has tended to have.”
Given the background of the people involved in creating Discovery i'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't instantly recognizable as Star Trek. Maybe more DS9 than TOS though.
it will be Star Trek for 2017, so of course it will be different from the earlier series. but I have faith in Fuller and co, they're clearly massive ST fans.
(though I remain hestitant about this 'number 1'/lead is not the captain business.)
(though I remain hestitant about this 'number 1'/lead is not the captain business.)
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“it will be Star Trek for 2017, so of course it will be different from the earlier series. but I have faith in Fuller and co, they're clearly massive ST fans.
(though I remain hestitant about this 'number 1'/lead is not the captain business.)”
“it will be Star Trek for 2017, so of course it will be different from the earlier series. but I have faith in Fuller and co, they're clearly massive ST fans.
(though I remain hestitant about this 'number 1'/lead is not the captain business.)”
I just find it odd that they are even specifying who is going to be the focus - ST has always been an ensemble show (well, since TNG anyway). The captain is nominally the 'lead' but they don't get much more screen time then the rest of the cast.
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“I just find it odd that they are even specifying who is going to be the focus - ST has always been an ensemble show (well, since TNG anyway). The captain is nominally the 'lead' but they don't get much more screen time then the rest of the cast.”
“I just find it odd that they are even specifying who is going to be the focus - ST has always been an ensemble show (well, since TNG anyway). The captain is nominally the 'lead' but they don't get much more screen time then the rest of the cast.”
Exactly like The West Wing.
The President is one of the cast not the head. In fact initially he was not even going to feature much if at all but ended up doing so out of popularity for Martin Sheen's character.. But he never dominated the show and it was always the story of a White House presidency from several angles lower down the chain but quite high up.
I think this show might be a bit like that.
okay 1 question
when William shatner hosts the next episode of "The Captains" who does he interview? does he interview this 'number one' or completely ignore her and interview someone who is the secondary or tertiary character in the show? that would be weird
when William shatner hosts the next episode of "The Captains" who does he interview? does he interview this 'number one' or completely ignore her and interview someone who is the secondary or tertiary character in the show? that would be weird
Originally Posted by GDK:
“If she gets promoted in the course of the show it won't be an issue.”
“If she gets promoted in the course of the show it won't be an issue.”
will shatner last that long??
Originally Posted by James_Picard:
“okay 1 question
when William shatner hosts the next episode of "The Captains" who does he interview? does he interview this 'number one' or completely ignore her and interview someone who is the secondary or tertiary character in the show? that would be weird”
“okay 1 question
when William shatner hosts the next episode of "The Captains" who does he interview? does he interview this 'number one' or completely ignore her and interview someone who is the secondary or tertiary character in the show? that would be weird
”
Sisko wasn't a captain in the first two series
Originally Posted by blueisthecolour:
“Sisko wasn't a captain in the first two series”
“Sisko wasn't a captain in the first two series
”
That is true.
Often the focus shifts to different characters after the first year of a new series.
In TNG, Worf could easily have been a background character but the actor made him a leading character by just being so good in the role.
While a character that was obviously designed to be more central, Tasha Yar, was boring and one dimensional because; Denise Crosby.
But it seems to be the modern trend not to change anything after the show has started.
In TNG, Worf could easily have been a background character but the actor made him a leading character by just being so good in the role.
While a character that was obviously designed to be more central, Tasha Yar, was boring and one dimensional because; Denise Crosby.
But it seems to be the modern trend not to change anything after the show has started.
32 of 46
