ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Top 10 Biggest Design Flaws In The U.S.S. Enterprise
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek on Television
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bulldogtrekker
Space Sector Admiral


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 1024
Location: Columbia,SC

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:20 am    Post subject: Top 10 Biggest Design Flaws In The U.S.S. Enterprise Reply with quote

Top 10 Biggest Design Flaws In The U.S.S. Enterprise
by Charlie Jane Anders and Diana Biller



(BDT: I should point out that in my opinion, the design of the Enterprise was brilliant and these design flaws were created in order to save money or create drama, or both.)

Star Trek broke new ground by having a spaceship without fins and rockets, and by consulting with the RAND Corp. on its design. And the Enterprise is indeed a beauty. But the Federation's coolest starship isn't flawless, by any means. Here are the 10 biggest design flaws in the U.S.S. Enterprise.

10. Separate Phaser Firing Room
9. No Seatbelts
8. Bridge Consoles That Constantly Blow Up
7. Bridge is easily cut off from rest of ship
6. Only One Transporter Room
5. Main Engineering is really easy to access
4. Self destruct talks really loudly
3. Super easy to make the Enterprise blow up
2. Bridge is kind of an easy target.
1. So easy to take over.'

LINK:
http://io9.com/top-10-biggest-design-flaws-in-the-u-s-s-enterprise-1678274241
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would also say that one of the issues about the Enterprise was the complete absence of robots.

In an age of warp drive & transporter systems you have got believe that robotics would be equally advanced & an absolute necessity in space exploration.

Internal/external ship maintenance, repairs, and upgrades would be done by bots. Bots or drones could be sent down to a planet's surface or to another vessel, or into spatial phenomena that required intel.

I realize that at the time the original series was shot there was no cgi in existence to create bots. Practical working props were probably expensive, unreliable, or both.

Having an actor costumed as a bot would have just looked silly as it was on Andromeda.

Later sf series did do some corrections on this issue. Seaquest had a Hyper-Reality Probe that was done via cgi & proved to be a terrific idea. Farscape had actual robots scurrying around Moya.

I realize that by not having robots or drones aboard space ships also allows the writers to create dramatic situations with the cast that might not exist due to having bots available.

However, no matter how you slice it, asking an audience to buy into star ships that travel faster than the speed of light, have advanced weaponry systems, and can scramble molecules of humans but lack any robotics on the same ship is astonishingly inane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1437
Location: Arlington, WA USA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ANY long space voyage is boring. Even at warp speeds.

At warp 8 (the ST:TOS maximum safe speed) it still would take i earth year to go 512 light years. The planet of the Squire of Gothos was about 900 light years from Earth. That's just over 1 3/4 years travel time. And the USS Enterprise went much farther that that!

NOT having droids or bots do the majority of the work actually keeps the crew from going "space happy" (as the old pulp stories called it)!

_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gene Roddenberry didn't want robots on the show because he thought that like with rockets it was too space opera.

The Enterprise obviously had may automated systems, but like Butch pointed out, not having robots keeps the crew occupied. The U.S. Navy has actually remove automated system from their vessels. They feel that people can handle the situations better than automated systems, can handle the unexpected better, they are more flexible in situations, and it keeps the crew occupied.

It wouldn't matter if TOS Enterprise had seatbelts. The chairs swivel and, except for the Captain's chair, are not attached to the deck! All that would happen is that you would be strapped into a chair that is lying on it's side after being whipped around like in a carnival ride.

David.
Back to top
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Krel wrote:
It wouldn't matter if TOS Enterprise had seatbelts. The chairs swivel and, except for the Captain's chair, are not attached to the deck! All that would happen is that you would be strapped into a chair, that is lying on it's side, after being whipped around like in a carnival ride.

I often wondered (every time it happened onscreen) if the chairs were supposed to be anchored per the supposed "real" Enterprise, and just got knocked over at the director's whim because he saw that they weren't in fact secured. It sure took me out of the moment whenever it happened.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:26 am    Post subject: Re: Top 10 Biggest Design Flaws In The U.S.S. Enterprise Reply with quote

bulldogtrekker wrote:
. . . Here are the 10 biggest design flaws in the U.S.S. Enterprise.

10. Separate Phaser Firing Room

Seen in only one episode, "Balance of Terror." Subsequent episodes had Mr. Sulu firing the ship's phasers from his helm console.

Quote:
6. Only One Transporter Room

According to The Making of Star Trek:

"There are eleven personnel and cargo transporter stations aboard the vessel. Four are the familiar main operational stations, two are cargo transporters, five are emergency personnel transporters which can handle twenty-two people each but involve a risk factor at such power loads and are limited to use in ship abandoning emergencies."


Quote:
4. Self destruct talks really loudly

I don't recall the ship's computer voice during the self-destruct sequence in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" being any louder than usual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:07 am    Post subject: Re: Top 10 Biggest Design Flaws In The U.S.S. Enterprise Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:
bulldogtrekker wrote:
. . . Here are the 10 biggest design flaws in the U.S.S. Enterprise.

That was actually
bulldogtrekker wrote:
Charlie Jane Anders and Diana Biller wrote:
. . . Here are the 10 biggest design flaws in the U.S.S. Enterprise.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
larryfoster
Space Ranger


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pow wrote:
I would also say that one of the issues about the Enterprise was the complete absence of robots.
In an age of warp drive & transporter systems you have got believe that robotics would be equally advanced & an absolute necessity in space exploration.

Internal/external ship maintenance,repairs,upgrades would be done by bots. Bots or drones could be sent down to a planet's surface,or to another vessel,or into spatial phenomena that required intell.

I realize that at the time the original series was shot there was no cgi in existence to create bots. Practical working props were probably expensive,unreliable,or both.
Having an actor costumed as a bot would have just looked silly as it was on Andromeda.

Later sf series did do some corrections on this issue. Seaquest had a Hyper-Reality Probe that was done via cgi & proved to be a terrific idea.
Farscape had actual robots scurrying around Moya.

I realize that by not having robots or drones aboard space ships also allows the writers to create dramatic situations with the cast that might not exist due to having bots available.

However,no matter how you slice it,asking an audience to buy into star ships that travel faster than the speed of light,have advanced weaponry systems,& can scramble molecules of humans but lack any robotics on the same ship is astonishingly inane.

I completely agree! I was disappointed by the third episode that this great new space sci-fi series had no robot crew members, and no flying saucers - not even as shuttlecraft.

my suggestions:

human-sized general-labor robots



an old (pre-Federation) Earth fleet of C-57-D saucers to engage Romulans, in Earth-Romulan war. (Note: Enterprise and C-57D are to same scale)



and a credible style of shuttlecraft for planet-landings from Constitution Class Enterprise


_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We all love robots, no doubt about that, and there's no question that in a real world with technology as advanced as they portray on Star Trek, you wouldn't be able to swing a bionic cat without hitting a robot smack in the head.

As for why they've rarely been seen in any Star Trek series or movie -- well, the answer is obvious.

TOS couldn't afford to create robots without doing a rotten job of it on their lean budget, so they just pretending they didn't exist. And every series and movie after that just adopted the Star Trek mold: no robots, no bad-ass soldiers, no aliens that couldn't fit into a human three-piece business suit, etc. etc. etc.

But let's step back and be just a tiny bit realistic for a moment. Even if Star Trek had presented robots as part of their bright and optimistic future, would they really have looked like this?



Frankly, I doubt it.

Mankind's burning urge to create humanoid robots has little to do with the notion that the human form is perfectly suited to perform labor of all kinds. It has more to do with our artistic urge to build walking, talking works of art than with making mechanical factory workers for those boring assembly lines.

That's why our factories today are plum filled with robot workers -- but they don't look like Asimo, they look like this.



Therefore, if the Enterprise did have robots doing various chores (inside and outside the ship, inside and outside the areas that people can't even get to), I think they would look a lot more like the ones below than anything remotely humanoid.











And if they did want a robot with certain human features, I doubt it would get much closer than this.





Naturally the artist in me greatly prefers that blue beauty above -- but not because it's the most efficient. Like I said -- walking, talking works of art. Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
larryfoster
Space Ranger


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Enterprise 'Saucer Section' should have had an atomic-powered 'Hyper Space Drive' (Hyperdrive) for moderate 'faster-than-light' speed, when detached from the warp drive and matter/anti-matter power components. The Impulse Drive it has would need years to move the saucer from a danger zone. Insufficient to even escape from a pending matter/anti-matter engine breach.

If the saucer had retained the older hyperdrive propulsion from the C-57-D patrol saucer cruiser... it could achieve at least a warp-3 (equivalent) FTL speed - as the C-57-D did to Altair star system. Smile

_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pye-Rate
Starship Co-Pilot


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 626

PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As nano technology advances repair robots for space ships would be very small. Big ones would be the size of a week old kitten. Working in swarms they could do in 10mins what would take one of us 4hrs. Thus most of the robots on the Enterprise would invisible to the naked eye.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
larryfoster
Space Ranger


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pye-Rate wrote:
As nano technology advances repair robots for space ships would be very small. Big ones would be the size of a week old kitten. Working in swarms they could do in 10mins what would take one of us 4hrs. Thus most of the robots on the Enterprise would invisible to the naked eye.

That may be true, Pye-Rate. But it kills the viewing fun of robotics - IMO. I could extend your logic, and propose that advances in human brain-to-computer linkage, could result in the entire Enterprise crew being 'uploaded' to the ship's computers. Then we have an invisible crew also. That's not much fun to watch either. However, I do like the the application of 'injected' nano-bots, for in-body medical repairs on human bodies - to eliminate current surgery butchery method.

The "Zero" robot (from the "Earth 2" tv series) I suggested was a sci-fi compromise between old Robby robot and reality robots. However, Bud pushed the concept to all-reality with his examples. To that, I would say that I could accept seeing several of his 'Blue Beauty' models roaming the areas of the Enterprise - servicing crew needs and making ship repairs. But, their wheel-base would not allow them to function on most 'away missions'. The wheels would fail in 'exterior' environments: wet grass, sand, swamps, mud, snow, etc. Legs are needed for these, and to climb pre-existing stairs and ladders.

But, in keeping with a push for 'reality' robots... I would suggest NASA's "Valkyrie" robot. I still have hopes that NASA will eventually get it working.



Still... I would guess there could be applications for all 3 robot types (Valkyrie, Blue Beauty, and Nano-Bots). This is in addition to any 'android' types. But, if only one style is permitted... I want the humanoid styled: Valkyrie. They could even put a 'red shirt' on any Valkyrie robots, for an expendable away-mission team member.

It's all about inspiring future engineers. Those 'limited application' robots that Bud shows on wheels and tracks are not inspiring to me. Only 'fully humanoid' (arms, hands, fingers, legs, and feet), are 'fully applicable' to most 'human' tasks.

_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

larryfoster wrote:
The wheels would fail in 'exterior' environments: wet grass, sand, swamps, mud, snow, etc. Legs are needed for these, and to climb pre-existing stairs and ladders.

That, of course, rules out Jeffries tubes.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

larryfoster wrote:
. . I was disappointed by the third episode that this great new space sci-fi series had no robot crew members, and no flying saucers - not even as shuttlecraft.[

Matt Jefferies' original shuttlecraft concept didn't look like a flying saucer, but it was much more aerodynamic and bullet-like than the "flying butter dish" they ended up with.

Bud Brewster wrote:
. . . Mankind's burning urge to create humanoid robots has little to do with the notion that the human form is perfectly suited to perform labor of all kinds. It has more to do with our artistic urge to build walking, talking works of art than it does with making mechanical factory workers for those boring assembly lines.

Machines, by their nature, are specialized. A robot that looks, walks and talks like a human being would be of extremely limited use — it would basically be an expensive toy.

But robots that don't look humanoid can still be cute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
larryfoster
Space Ranger


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:
larryfoster wrote:
. . . I was disappointed by the third episode that this great new space sci-fi series had no robot crew members, and no flying saucers - not even as shuttlecraft.

Matt Jefferies' original shuttlecraft concept didn't look like a flying saucer, but it was much more aerodynamic and bullet-like than the "flying butter dish" they ended up with.

The "much more aerodynamic" style of shuttlecraft would not matter. If it is not a 'flying saucer' . . . then it inspires future engineers (i.e. NASA) to pursue a failed approach to human space conquest — via rockets and space-planes, and not by (gravity/magnetic) 'field' propulsion.
_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek on Television All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group