I don’t mind changing things to modernize but was that a refinery they filmed in for the lower decks? I remember thinking several times during the film “the Federation sure has seen better times”. I think Mr. Chambliss cut too many corners and used WAY too much “found” art. The problem with filming sci-fi has always been coming up with things no one has seen before. This man didn’t. He took the easy way and it glared.

I’m not really sure I understand everyone’s definition of cheesy. I think the old bridge looked great both conceptually and in execution. Yes, I think the technology would’ve been Next Gen touch screens by then but the new bridge has so much going on it’s almost impossible to take it in. From a designer’s (I am) point of view, information overload is something to be avoided. It’s dangerous when you have a job to do. Why wouldn’t the Federation designers try to reduce the distractions to the crew?

I just don’t like change for change sake. If it improves, then good. If it does nothing for you, then it doesn’t need to change.

I enjoyed everything about this film but the art design.

No—Bob Dobalina did. That is what prompted this discussion in the first place.

“The space race was not entirely a product of the cold war.”

Of course it was. Without the *fear* produced in the United States government by the Sputnik launch in 1957, it never would have happened. Man would probably have still ventured into space, but not within the timetable we know as history. There would have been no “race” at all.

Without The Cold War, who would have been the participants in the “race”, and why call it a “race”?

It is utterly naive and ignorant of history to suggest that it was anything but a product of Cold War politics and posturing.

It was *fear*–not optimism–which inspired “The Space Race”.

Optimism was an effect of some of the achievments of the Space Race, but never in any way its cause.

The very term “Space Race” is indicative enough of that.

What you call reasons, the people making the decisions call side benefits or corollaries. Geez, Kennedy was ready to call off the space race practically before it got started if it would have cooled things down, and that alone proves it was a bargaining chip, a pricey one, but a bargaining chip nonetheless.

“The “Space Race” was entirely a product of The Cold War….”

No. The space race was not entirely a product of the cold war. There were many reasons to go to the moon and all were achieved.

You mean the men who actually appropriated the funds and allowed it to happen?

The achievments of the space race may have been the cause for optimism, but that is quite different from suggesting that optimism was the cause for the space race.

Best evidence of that … we haven’t been back, and we haven’t gone anywhere else. 2001 looks like 3001 compared with our 2009. Geezus, major matt mason looks like the 23rd century next to our 2009.

To military strategists and some government officials, it was about the cold war, yes.

To scientists is was about history and geography. It was about developing technology to study another world and then later applying that technology to other endeavors. CAT scans and MRI technology;

For entrepreneurs. the space race was about taking what we learned from the trip and creating products. Tang; scratch-resistant lenses; freeze dried food; smaller computers; and many other modern conveniences we now perhaps take for granted.

Finally, and most importantly, to millions of children and many of their parents, the space race was about human exploration and achieving something that mankind has dreamt of for thousands of years. Landing a man on the moon and returning him home safely was about the spirit of America. Reaching for the stars—and getting it. Using the best and brightest to travel higher and farther than any humans had before.

You know, boldly going where no man has gone before. Ultimately, the space race, like Star Trek, was more than the sum of it’s parts. It was more than the core idea.