Page 5 of 12

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:56 am
by Teaos
April fools day would be great on that ship. The transporter room beams the ships "Waste" into the bridge.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:10 pm
by The Wormhole
On that note, I remember a similar conversation on another forum once. There it was suggested that there were no bathrooms, whenever a person had to go, the ship's computer would detect it, beam the waste out of them and convert it to energy which was used in the replicator systems. This is also why everyone complains that replicated isn't as good as actual food.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:11 pm
by celeritas
ew....

wasn't site-to-site transport not really done frequently in TOS? TOS doesn't have lavatories either right?

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:04 am
by Bryan Moore
Site-to-site transport wasn't even done that frequently baring security situations on any of the 24th century shows.

As for the lavatories, I believe the original Technical , Manual mentioned them in it but that's just about it. I guess it was never something that was overly considered. Honestly, I think the TOS sound effect for a flushing toilet would be great.

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:10 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
Teaos wrote: By being one big computer it can achive results better than many smaller ones.
I know that was an older post but I'd like to point out that the Borg have the same thinking. Look how they turned out.

Also, I think the reason why people want the Holodeck fixed over the safer Warp Core is that the warp core is a high energy reactor using very volatile materials for energy. Holodecks on the other hand are supposed to be common forms of entertainment. There is no way a common form of entertainment should be that deadly after ever malfunction. Every time something goes wrong with your TV does it do anything dangerous? Maybe once in a thousand incidents, and that's usually from user error.

Now if they made other systems more redundant that would be great. There should be no way that a virus or anything else should be able to disable/take over the ship's computer. I've never heard of anything like that on any ship in real life, civilian or military.

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:22 pm
by Captain Seafort
It isn't that the holodecks and computers aren't major problems - they are. The problem is that if the holodeck goes haywire it's only those in it that get killed. If the warp goes goes up everyone dies. To a great extent the warp core and computer problems are linked, since the Feds rely on the computer to control their safety systems. If the warp core was designed propery it wouldn't matter what went wrong with the computer - failure of containment should result in the core being ejected regardless of what the computer did or didn't do.

Can't help it

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:33 pm
by Josiah Thompson
Well, the Enterprise D HAD to be sacrificed in the name of advancing the plot in the movies, but the way they did it was rather unfitting. Perhaps making the Duras sisters steal a Nebula class starship and then fighting the Enterprise would be better...

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:12 pm
by Sionnach Glic
:?
Are you sure you replied in the right thread?

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:33 am
by Teaos
I think he's rfering to the Warp core blowing up plot device.

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:34 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Oh, okay. :oops:

Re: What would you fix on the E-D?

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:10 pm
by Mithrandir
Well, as I wrote elsewhere, I think that the biggest problem on the Enterprise D were not the constructors, not the designers but the writers who wanted things on board to blow up every now and then. Also computer breakdowns and (threat of) a warp core breach was quite popular. But the problem was, that the ship was too strong in concept: It had three seperate computer cores who should have worked individually. It had several redundancies to every system (Data stated it once, I think to remember). It had escape pods near the crew quarters. It had a system to evacuate the civilians and non essential crew but that Picard hardly used it is the fault of the writers.

Got the point? I still think that the Galaxy-Class starship has a wonderful design and a beautiful philosophie behind it!

(And yes, you might have noticed that I do not watch Star Trek to see stories about a military service but of explorers who "boldly go, where no man has gone before" (I know, that was a little solemn). I do not think that I would have watched and enjoyed it as much, if we would have seen constant "Elite Force").

Re: What would you fix on the E-D?

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:16 pm
by Mark
The GCS isn't a design to be sneezed at. But, as a class it's already phasing out. I don't believe they are even building them anymore, in favor of the Soverign, Nova, and Prommie classes. I could be wrong though. The ones still in service will most likely see long years of use.

Re: What would you fix on the E-D?

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:09 am
by Deepcrush
I'd like to know why we don't have an "All the above" vote on here. :poke:

Re: What would you fix on the E-D?

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:17 am
by Mark
They DID fix all of the above. They built the Soverign class.

Re: What would you fix on the E-D?

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:25 am
by Deepcrush
:lol: