Science Diagnostic: Analyzing Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Preview |
jump to navigation

Science Diagnostic: Analyzing Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Preview December 29, 2012

by Kayla Iacovino , Filed under: Science/Technology,Star Trek Beyond , trackback

On December 14th a 9-minute preview of Star Trek Into Darkness premiered with IMAX 3D screenings of The Hobbit. TrekMovie was quick to publish early impressions along with a later (more spoilery) detailed review on release day. But, was any of it scientifically realistic? Today Science Saturday is dedicated to an in-depth look beyond what we saw on the screen. Get your tricorder ready, and reverse the polarity of the warp nacelles; it’s time for a science diagnostic of the Into Darkness IMAX preview.


Red Plants on Planet Nibiru
One aspect of the preview that caught a lot of peoples’ eyes was the red colored plants on planet Nibiru. Although we have never seen (and therefore can’t necessarily comment on) plants on another planet, studies have determined that extraterrestrial plants are probably not the green leafy things we’re used to here on Earth. In fact, some scientists say that plants with a red dwarf star for a sun could even be black in color. Plants are green on Earth because it is the part of the EM spectrum where they can absorb the most light (and, for photosynthesizing organisms, light is energy). On a planet where the most energy was available as red light, the plants might adapt to that and color themselves red in order to harness the most energy from their sun (or suns, as it were).

Verdict: Completely believable

Kirk and Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy running from aliens on planet Nibiru

Kirk and Bones Jump Into the Sea
Taking a look at the red-planted planet Nibiru takes us directly into the next questionable science — Kirk and Bones jump (quite a long way down) off of a cliff and into the sea, where the submerged Enterprise awaits them. My first instinct? “Wow! Cool!” My second instinct? “Don’t you think they would be seriously hurt?” For some reason, movies like to make people believe that jumping off of a very tall building or cliff is okay so long as you fall into water. That’s not really true. In fact, the surface tension of water means that the impact might be a bit more jarring than you’d imagine.

Let’s assume the cliff face that Bones and Kirk jumped from was approximately 30 meters (~100 feet) from the water’s surface. When they hit the water, Bones and Kirk would be travelling at over 24 meters per second; that’s over 50 mph. After hitting the water, they’d be travelling only a few mph, meaning they would experience a deceleration of about 50 mph instantaneously (or at least within a few seconds) — almost like being in a car crash. Some say that jumping into the water feet first will alleviate the dangers, but that is definitely not true. Although you’ll avoid the “belly flop” scenario or a strange positioning of your body that could make the impact much worse for you, hitting the water feet first can cause spinal compression, bone fractures, and even concussion.

Verdict: Unrealistic.

Kirk and Dr. McCoy take a leap of faith

Underwater Enterprise
After Kirk and Bones take the plunge, so to speak, they use some convenient underwater propulsion boots (or something) to swim over to the submerged enterprise that awaits them on the ocean floor. The first question: could the Enterprise survive and operate underwater? Almost certainly yes. It was designed to work in some insane environments — from the vacuum of space to areas of extreme radiation to entering and exiting planetary atmospheres (including Saturn’s moon Titan as we saw in Star Trek 2009), not to mention travelling at warp speed. The high pressure underwater environment should be no problem for a vessel like the Enterprise.

The second question: would the salt water really have a bad effect on a starship, as Scotty claims it’s doing to the Enterprise? I’d wager that Scotty is just being a whiny engineer and that there’s really nothing to be worried about. Scotty says that big E has been underwater “since last night”, so, for less than one day. “Normal” metals like steel or other ferric alloys do corrode in salt water, it’s true, but it takes a lot longer than less-than-a-day to have any real effect. Moreover, the Enterprise is most likely made of tritanium, a super strong alloy. If tritanium is anything like our terrestrial titanium, it should be super-resistant to corrosion by salt water.

Verdict: Underwater Enterprise? Totally. Salt water corrosion? No way.

The Enterprise rising out of the Niburu ocean (presumably after the first nine minutes)

Into the Volcano
The biggest science “mistake” made in the Into Darkness preview was the depiction of the Nibiru volcano (full disclosure: I’m biased about this part; I’m a volcanologist). There are two things I’d like to touch on: the appearance of the inside of the volcanic crater and the effect of the heat on Spock and on the shuttlecraft.

Like standing amongst the flames of Hell. What would it really look like to stand inside of a volcano? To see the active magma burning and churning, steaming and burping, sending ash and gas and even giant boulders hundreds of feet into the air. I can tell you; I’ve seen it (that’s my day job). And, I can tell you it doesn’t look exactly like what we saw in Into Darkness. My biggest nitpick? The fire. Sure, fire and brimstone and all that — but, what comes out of a volcano is toxic gas (sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, water vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide) and solid, molten rock. An eruption sends lava into the air, not flames and certainly not embers like we see in Trek. Some combustion can occur at the surface, but the real danger is in volcanic bombs, big slugs of molten red-hot lava, that fly through the air, deforming plastically and cooling as they fall back to earth. What they did get right was the type of rock they show Spock standing on (the non-molten one!). That is a real bonafide volcanic rock called “pahoehoe“. The lava movement around where Spock is standing isn’t bad either, but it’s hard for me to forgive the flames and embers. Have a look at the picture below, which is a good example of what it looks like when material comes out of a volcano, and the video that shows the lava lake of Vanuatu Volcano.

Spock takes a stroll through the Nibiru volcano

And, I’ve heard the argument that Nibiru is an alien planet meaning that the volcano might look different. That’s not untrue, but we know that Nibiru is a Class-M planet (it says so right on the screen in the IMAX preview) meaning that it has a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere that is breathable by humans. I don’t see what could be causing severe combustion akin to that of a house fire in Nibiru volcano that is so different from here on Earth. And, we do know something about volcanoes on other planets, so we know what materials they’re made out of. Spoiler alert: it’s rocks — the same kind that make up the volcanoes here on earth.

Material being ejected from an erupting volcano

Incredible footage of the lava lake at Vanuatu Volcano is what Spock should be seeing in Nibiru

Too Hot to Handle. According to Sulu (and everyone else who says that the heat from the volcano has “fried” some other system), a shuttlecraft cannot withstand the intense heat from a volcano. This is just crazy. First of all, a shuttlecraft, not unlike a starship, was designed to be in EXTREME environments including very hot places. Typical lava is anywhere from 900-1200 °C (about 1650-2200 °F). If hovering tens of meters above that lava, the temperature will be considerably less. For reference, the leading edges of space shuttle wings get to almost 3000 °F during a typical reentry into earth’s atmosphere. Considering the Enterprise shuttles can enter a planetary atmosphere, I’m guessing they can withstand the heat coming from a volcano. Secondly, and possibly more to the point, SPOCK IS STANDING INSIDE OF THE VOLCANO. Am I supposed to believe that Spock’s nifty volcano suit can withstand more heat that a shuttlecraft? Who designed this incredible suit, and why don’t they make spacecraft out of it?!

“If this volcano erupts, the planet dies” If by “planet” Spock means “the people of this planet”, this one is scientifically spot on. The volcano on Nibiru is HUGE. I have no trouble believing that it could cause a world-ending volcanic eruption. Such “supereruptions” have even occurred here on Earth. Okay, the planet didn’t “die” per se, but supereruptions have caused mass extinctions here on Earth and have even altered human history by killing off tens of thousands of people and by influencing migration patterns of early humans. One problem I have with the statement made by Spock that they must save the Nibiru people — aren’t they violating the Prime Directive? Spock makes a big speech about how Kirk must not interfere in any way with the Nibiru (even them seeing Kirk’s face is a violation), but Spock wants to stop a volcanic eruption that could seriously change the course of the Nibiru people’s history? I’m no expert here; what say you readers? Does the Prime Directive permit interference if the act of not interfering would result in the species’ extinction?

Verdict: Depiction of the volcano? Half right (minus the flames and embers). Showing real volcanic rock under Spock’s feet wins bonus points. The heat affecting the shuttlecraft while not affecting Spock in his volcano suit? Completely and utterly unbelievable. Bonus WTF: Violation of the Prime Directive!

Spock watches lava erupt in Nibiru volcano

The Floating Gurney
Although not a major part of the plot, I just had to comment on the floating gurney seen in the hospital where we see two parents visiting their sick daughter, since it’s what I feel is a fantastic example of a realistic technology. A floating gurney (ie one without wheels that could transport patients) would be extremely useful in hospitals. We know that the enterprise employs some kind of gravity plating (in fact, a lot of tech in Star Trek is used to manipulate gravity, e.g. inertial dampeners), so presumably the technology is readily available and, in fact, quite simple. And, the application to something like a hospital bed is just so believable. It’s little details like this that make me really feel like I am inside the world of Trek — when “simple” tech like that is common place and almost easy to miss.

Verdict: A nice, realistic touch!

Some Familiar Technology
It’s great to see the new and improved toys and gadgets, but what about the technology that hasn’t changed by the 23rd century? It’s nice to see that children still enjoy teddy bears — we see the parents giving one to their sick little girl in the hospital — but are we still using that awful digital bedside alarm clock? And, apparently cars haven’t changed all that much, except for the fact that they look like the Toyota Fun-Vii concept car but without the wheels. Oh, and they float. What other modern-day tech did you spot?

The car seen in the Trek preview looks something like this


Follow me on Twitter: @kaylai.


1. Well Of Souls - December 29, 2012

Thank you Kayla. Love the Science feeds. Keep on Trekkin’…

2. Legate Damar - December 29, 2012

I’m pretty sure they were violating the prime directive just by saving them. There were a couple of episodes of TNG where they had to decide whether to let a culture die, or violate the prime directive (the episodes with Worf’s human brother and Data’s pen pal come to mind). Still, it’s not like the rules of the prime directive have ever been consistent.

3. irishtrekkie - December 29, 2012

hmm is it me or did there not seem to be alot of aliens on earth in the trailer, come to think of it , not that many aliens in the first movie. very few of them in the star fleet cadets crowd shots.
i want more aliens (physical make up only please no cgi !)

4. Jeff O'Connor - December 29, 2012



5. Jeff O'Connor - December 29, 2012

I’m sorry, I just had to.

More relevantly, great article. As for the Prime Directive, I don’t know. Tough call. My verdict is pretty loose. All I can say for sure is that it might be more excusable in the TOS era than the TNG, since Kirk was a bit of a space cowboy compared to, say, Picard, and by extension Starfleet was a less strict sort of an overseer. So I guess in that regard at least it sits right with me.

6. The Great Bird Lives - December 29, 2012

Perhaps the volcanoes irruption was caused by outside interference. Maybe Enterprise itself is responsible for the volcanoes premature irruption. In this case additional interference would be mandated under General order one.

7. Red Dead Ryan - December 29, 2012

Well, “Homeward” was a stupid episode. I mean, c’mon, Picard was really going to let an entire population die? But the thing is, I’m pretty sure there were previous episodes where Picard did intervene.

Ultimately, there is going to be risk involved in saving a less advanced race from extinction. But the moral responsibility of not allowing a race of people has to take precedence. And yeah, the people that are saved could end up being resentful because of unintentional cultural “contamination”, but it would be up to them to deal with that.

Allowing an entire race to die because of some document is pretty cold blooded.

Sure, I can understand not interfering in civil war, that’s not in dispute as both sides would be to blame, and any third party involvement would surely result in the worsening of the conflict with the outside group(s) possibly becoming the target of one or both factions.

The Prime Directive is a good idea, but sometimes it becomes an obstacle if writers treat it like a holy book instead of a guide.

8. Devon - December 29, 2012

What’s to say that the Prime Directive wasn’t different 100 years before Picard’s time?

For instance, 100 years ago Minorities and Women couldn’t vote in the U.S. Now they can. Laws, constitutions, etc., evolve over time. In this case, the interference by trying to save the people of this planet may have been okay in the 2259 version of the PD. Perhaps Spock’s near death experience will give the higher-ups a reason to add an amendment that says Starfleet officers shouldn’t interfere with such things? Who knows. But if we’re going give a history and evolution to the technology and characters of Star Trek, we should also take into consideration that an evolution of laws and thinking will take place too.

9. David Gian-Cursio - December 29, 2012

As far as the PD issues of stopping the volcano go, the TOS version of the Prime Directive was more permissive than how it was depected in the later shows. The best precident for what happens in Star Trek Into Darkness is “The Paradise Syndrome,” where the Enterprise spends months trying to deflect an asteroid that’s about to collide with a planet inhabited by a primitive society. “Noninterference” in TOS was more about not vaporizing some people with a phaser and then claiming to be the God of Lightning than the TNG version that you don’t dare swat one fly for fear of diverting a world’s “natural development.”

As for surviving the jump from the cliffs, maybe the space-wetsuits Kirk and McCoy were wearing under their robes protected them somehow.

10. Red Dead Ryan - December 29, 2012


Conversely, the Federation (and Starfleet to a lesser degree) becomes more bureaucratic during Picard’s time, thus amending the Prime Directive to include more restrictions on policies involving intervention/interference. We saw that during a number of TNG episodes, where political correctness became the norm.

“Deep Space Nine” broke away from that, with Sisko breaking the rules a number of times.

11. son of jello - December 29, 2012

Kayla you come across as someone who buys christmas presents for people and then burns them in front of the people you bought them for on christmas day due to some technical aspect that they may not have followed as a designated present recipiant. You have to remember Its just a movie and once again the StarTrek fans cant wait to nitpick and undermine the enjoyment of a movie that hasent been released yet. Keep this in the front of your mind when you eventually see Star Trek. Its 100 of millions of dollars 1000 of hrs of dedicated work from people who want you to be happy watching the movie for the experience it is, a Movie. and all you can do is gripe about Spock standing in a Volcano and debating the quality of hull material in an imaginary space ship/shuttle. If you were making star trek nothing would happen the movie wouldent be made and if it was who would go and see a movie with all the entertainment,spectical and life sucked out of it. Thank god JJ Abrams has wrested Star Trek from the quibbling fan. The prime Directive is a plot device not a law etched on some poor Horta back. Sure you talking about science but science is a departure point for star trek. Fans always forget this. GRRRRRRR

12. Data Logan - December 29, 2012

I think the version of the Prime Directive being used in STiD is more in keeping with the PD as it was stated and used in the Original Series. Like in “The Paradise Syndrome” [9. David Gian-Cursio beat me to this point], when the Enterprise spent months and considerable resources to stop an asteroid from hitting a pre-warp civilization. In TOS, anyway, not so much TNG-on, it’s OK to help prevent or stop massive-extinction events as long as you don’t reveal the existence of your (Starfleet’s) advanced alien culture. And in some episodes, even, Kirk got away with revealing a little bit about the existence of advanced alien cultures as long as it helped save lives of his crew and he tried his best to minimize the effects (TOS “Bread and Circuses”; or McCoy’s actions in the early part of “Private Little War”). This is the Prime Directive I can really get behind. And I’m glad the new film seems to be backing that version of the PD. I’m fairly sure Kirk will reveal the (possible) existence of advanced alien cultures to the people of Nibiru (by flying a big starship over their heads) in order to save Spock’s life. And he hopefully won’t get in too much trouble for doing so; because it’s the right call to make. As long as you minimize the possible cultural contamination, life is more important.
That does beg the question of why he would NEED to reveal the Enterprise to save Spock. As pointed out here, it’s just ridiculous plot-driven science. No good reason a shuttle wouldn’t work; or why transporters won’t work, etc. Or why they didn’t just drop the “ice cube” into the volcano by parachute or drone or something in the first place. Spock getting stranded like this should never have happen.
I had a big problem with the 100 ft fall as well. But I was willing to allow an “off-screen” explanation that Kirk and McCoy were wearing some kind of protective undergarments (exoskeleton or anti-grav belt or personal forcefields or something) that allowed them to survive the impact into the water without broken bones, etc. They were already wearing some swimming gear and underwater breathing devices of some kind anyway; why not more gear to protect them from the fall? [9. David Gian-Cursio beat me to this point as well while I was typing.]

13. Zinc Saucier - December 29, 2012

I thought the TNG interpretation of the Prime Directive was way too strict and just made the Federation look like a bunch of jerks. Sure, not interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations is important, but it should really be secondary to preventing a mass extinction. It kinda comes down to the letter of the law verses the spirit of the law. The letter says not to interfere in any way, but the spirit is for the betterment of those civilizations. How does letting them all die better them at all?

14. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 29, 2012

Thank you Kayla. I myself also like to study Volcanoes a but. it’s kind of a hobby along with storm chasing I thought your article was dead on.

15. Matt Wright - December 29, 2012

Thanks for the great real-world article Kayla!

16. Legend of Link - December 29, 2012

This is just fun speculation. She’s not griping. Good article!

17. Mad Man - December 29, 2012

11. son of jello:
Hmmm, As a science teacher, I rather enjoy picking apart the science faux pas in movies. That’s how I enjoy the movie! We all enjoy movies differently, so leave Kayla and other science-minded people alone when we point out all the mistakes a movie makes with science concepts. For me, it’s like a game to find the mistakes, since every sci-fi movie ever made has made them.

Also, I will routinely use popular movie mistakes as a discussion point in my lessons, it brings some humor and spice to the way I teach. For example, I used the last Star Trek movie in a lesson on black holes. We discussed the difference between black holes and worm holes (there is not a worm hole in a black hole!) Anyway, I appreciate Kayla’s article. Thanks!

18. enterprise1965 - December 29, 2012

Science diagnostic? You people have to much time on your hands

19. MJ - December 29, 2012

@13 “I thought the TNG interpretation of the Prime Directive was way too strict and just made the Federation look like a bunch of jerks. Sure, not interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations is important, but it should really be secondary to preventing a mass extinction. It kinda comes down to the letter of the law verses the spirit of the law. The letter says not to interfere in any way, but the spirit is for the betterment of those civilizations. How does letting them all die better them at all?”

Agreed. It was like Jimmy Carter was running the Federation…..

20. Nick - December 29, 2012


I think we are just having some fun with this. Love it!

21. Bradley - December 29, 2012

It is only a violation of the Prime Directive if the people of the planet KNOW the disaster is going to happen. Stopping the volcano only stops them from becoming extinct, not changing their future course of development.
If, say, a civilization was more advanced, particularly in geology, and knew the volcano was going to erupt. If the Enterprise came in and stopped it, then it would change the future of the planet’s development.

Also, I guess we should re-canonize life support belts. :P

22. Schultz - December 29, 2012

The volcano-shuttle-temperature error was the thing that came to my mind immediately, when watching the preview… and I wasn’t even looking for scientific errors. That’s the writers really forcing it for some artificial drama. If they care, they may be able to fix it with ADR. Still wouldn’t solve the aspect of Spock’s suit, though.

As for the digital bedside alarm clock, this might (just might!) be a nod to RedLetterMedia. :) In one of their reviews (Plinkett or Half in the Bag?) they said something about two basic filmmaking rules… tongue-in-cheek, of course: never start a film showing an alarm clock ringing, never end a film saying it was just a dream.

23. Anthony Pascale - December 29, 2012

Kayla great fun article. Cant wait for the science scanner look at the rest of the movie!

BTW How do we know that was just a teddy bear (and rabbit). It might have been coated with some nano technology that monitors the kids and notifies parents of any changes, like a super-nanny cam. It might also interact with the child possibly able to teach games or lessons. It may even have built in phaser eye beams to help protect the child from danger!

24. Thomas - December 29, 2012

I personally appreciate Kayla’s scrutinizing of the volcano sequence, if only because someone pointed out that there was some kind of science error about it in a previous thread but never specified what it was.

As to diving off the cliff, the La Quebrada Cliff Divers of Acapulco do this from a height of 125 feet (higher than an altitude that Kayla states) into the water on a routine basis. If there’s a problem with Kirk and Bones’ jump, it’s that they just take a flying leap rather than trying to time their jump appropriately.

25. I am not Herbert (retired) - December 29, 2012

I love you Kayla! and i love the thrust of your article… =)

but i’m not impressed with your idea(s) of what is scientifically realistic or believable… (but you DO sound like you know volcanoes!)

here, plausibility, let alone believability, is a distant after-thought at BEST!

it’s SO FAKE, i can’t stand it! it makes me SICK! =(

the problem with the water is entering and exiting and maneuvering, especially in a hovering motion… ok? not high pressure or corrosive salinity… (facepalm)

I accept the possibility of non-green vegetation, but doubt the probability, as well as the correlation between organic color and highest light-energy bandwidth (but red plants are a SMALL THING ANYWAY!)

just make the tech work in a way that seems plausible… PLEASE!?

26. stunkill - December 29, 2012

is anyone else wondering why the enterprise isnt simply in orbit? Why does it have to submerge into the ocean in the first place to be unseen? i hope they explain this in the movie. otherwise it would drive me nuts if they did it just because it looks cooler, they need a plausible reason to go through the trouble of entering the atmosphere. we need reason, this isnt star whores after all.

27. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - December 29, 2012

It does NOT contradict the Prime Directive. One of the exceptions to the Prime Directive listed on Memory Alpha: “Helping a society escape a natural disaster that is unknown to the society and where the assistance can take place without the society’s knowledge.” This was shown in the Original Series episode “The Paradise Syndrome”.

28. rogerachong - December 29, 2012

@25 I am not Herbert: In the Caribbean there is a leafy decorative plant that grows in many hedges (my Mom God bless her soul had some in our yard all my life) called locally by the name “Croten”. This plant has mostly reddish leaves with only a tinge of green. Venus Fly Traps also have a modified red colored leaf that it uses to attract insects. Nature is more diverse than you might imagine even on this one planet. I concur with Kayla’s assessment. Red leaves are no biggy in a SiFi environment.

As to the Leap of Faith: Kayla assumed that the gravitational forces on Nibiru are exactly the same as earth when she calculated the speed that our heroes were travelling at the point of impact, assuming a cliff height as well. I could just have easily assumed the cliff was a 80 foot drop and the gravitational force involved was 0.8G that of earth’s. That will easily make the jump likely and Kirk already knew he was jumping into a natural deep water harbour. There are some in the Caribbean as well. Someone earlier also mentioned the wet-suit design had special propulsion boots seen in the preview, that could easily be and most likely be required to be reinforced. This special footwear would have to withstand great underwater pressures and would then naturally protect Bones and Kirk as long as they hit the water feet first as per their starfleet training.

29. mike - December 29, 2012

In a TNG episode where Warf must help his brother secretly migrate his brother the people of a planet using the enterprise’s hollowdeck, Picard allows the planet’s atmosphere decay which rendered all life impossible. Picard knew his crew had the ability to save the planet, but he said it violated the prim directive to do so. Therefore i think that the writers for Abrams film got it wrong a little, but there is wriggle room considering the prime directive mgiht not be exactly the same as it was in roddenberry’s universe.

30. CmdrR - December 30, 2012

Black plants on another world? So you’re saying my plants are from another world??

Thanks, Kayla.

31. Tuomas - December 30, 2012

Thanks for the article. However, I have to point out that the theory attempting to explain why plants on Nibiru are red is flawed.

Plants that appear green are not so because they absorb green light, it’s actually the opposite. The reason they appear green is because they reflect most of the green light away while absorbing other colours. You can look up chlorophyll in encyclopedia for confirmation. The same would be the case with red plants: they absorb everything else, just not red.

The mention about black plants is correct, though. Objects appear black to human eye when they absorb all visible light they are exposed to.

32. Jack - December 30, 2012

This is great. Could one argue that the gravity’s a bit less on this planet — er, do they’d be falling a bit less fast? Although, yes, they weren’t running and jumping 20 feet in the air like John Carter.

Wait, your day job is volcanoes?

33. Jack - December 30, 2012

Bob Orci, if you’re reading — I’d absolutely love to see a bonus feature where experts are doing exactly what Kayla’s doing here (heck, interview her for the volcano part). You joked on a thread about giving science teachers an opportunity to teach that supernovas can’t really threaten the galaxy — heck, give ’em an actual resource here that they could pkay to students.

– or a commentary track by a panel of interesting experts (who could get into an entertaining debate) and, say, you (explaining why a choice was made, say, because it looks awesome… or talk about what , or if, you researched it )
– or a subtitle ‘track’ or pop-up video style thing where science stuff — this disease doesn’t exist but was named after…’ , along with ‘here’s a Trek reference’ etc. come up — as was done with Lost

34. cd - December 30, 2012

I enjoy the quibbling. It is an essential part of being a Star Trek fan, or at least it used to be. I did not see the preview, but maybe those embers are from spores from the red plants, falling into the volcano and catching fire. Great article!

35. J - December 30, 2012

“What other modern-day tech did you spot?”

The Budweiser brewery I guess

36. Tobias Richter - December 30, 2012

Great article. One thing I was wondering – WHY do they have to take the disk to dive the whole Enterprise when it would be so much easier to go in with a shuttle? I hope that gets answered in the movie…

37. Tobias Richter - December 30, 2012

risk not disk….

38. Jose kuhn - December 30, 2012

Your science is wrong!

We see an objects color, we see the color it reflects, not the color it absorbs. Black objects absorb the full visible spectrum while white reflects the full visible spectrum. This is why you would wear black on a cold sunny day.

If you were on a planet that orbits a red giant, with our visible spectrum red would be the new white. Plants would be black because they would absorb everything in the red spectrum, in fact our green plants would look black on such a planet.

Here is an experiment: in the pre dawn light look at a coke can and a sprite can. The coke can looks red but the sprite can looks almost black since there is little to no green light to reflect back!


39. Smike - December 30, 2012

Yeah, “Star Trek” and sciene…long story…I know it’s called “Science” Fiction but my focus is more on the fiction than any scientific quibbles. I’m not a scientist and so I don’t share your sensibility for scientific accuracy.

But I’d rather say this: if ONE single law of physics is violated regularily on Star Trek, all of them are basically rendered irrelevant IMO. We’ve got starships producing sounds in the vaccuum of space already, so no, any scientific accuracy is pointless.

The Vulcano has got burning fire because it LOOKS cool and is reminiscent of Mustafar, and not because it’s scientific. For the same reason they’ve got sound in space… It’s not meant to be scientifically accurate, it’s just supposed to be entertainment…

Just my two cents…

40. Luke montgomery - December 30, 2012

Great article! Here’s a few work arounds for some of your points of the unrealistic stuff.
– The bed-side alarm clock was an antique. That’s why it is digital.
– Kirk and McCoys jet boots were turned on as they were falling with the thrust breaking the surface tension of the water before they impacted softening the blow. This was not shown just as close ups of the boots were not shown under water except for their thrust wake of bubbles
– Perhaps in this time line after the destruction of a federation world (Vulcan) the federation has a different interpretation of the prime directive that draws the line at letting a world be destroyed (and with fewer Vulcan voters left to argue the illogic of this they can save worlds from destruction)

Again, I really loved this article.

41. Pah Wraith - December 30, 2012

Hey, prime directive violation was the first thing that grabbed my attention. I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning that PD is different in TOS time and that it is the ’embetterment’ spirit of PD that is important.

Afterall – who would like to see Starfleet captain letting a planet of people getting killed if they had the means to save them? It would be a great mistake… It would be… Wait – just two words – ‘Dear doctor’!

42. Alex - December 30, 2012

Couldn’t the same boots or whatever propulsion system they use underwater slow down their fall from the cliff as well? Like Spock’s gravity boots in The Final Frontier?

As for PD: The thing is way to inconsistent to even speculate about it. Every writer on Trek had his or her own interpretation of the non-interference concept, and frankly, it only works if there’s no drama and tension involved (if you don’t interfere, just don’t go there). But since every story depends on dramatic turns of events, we usually come into touch with the PD when it basically fails. It’s exactly the kind of dilemma depicted here (and in countless other episodes and movies) that Starfleet would have needed to come up with a solution to a long time ago. And from a personal, humanitarian point of view: what’s worse, letting them survive with the knowledge of the existence of alien life letting them die? I’d say anything is better than the latter alternative.

43. Markonian - December 30, 2012

Save the pre-warp cultures from extinction, Prime Directive be damned. I’d rather have their natural evolution tainted than having them no evolution at all. We are not social Darwinists like Picard about the Boraalans.

44. Wayne Burman - December 30, 2012

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

45. - December 30, 2012

We’ve discovered life on other planets now or are we speculating?

46. - December 30, 2012

The trailer was great anyway.

47. Paul - December 30, 2012

– I guess Spock would have a strong opinion about extinctions, after what happened to Vulcan. Also, things that could be classified as “act of God” don’t really count as a “natural development”, do they? If you get killed by a lightning, a piece of frozen airplane refuse, or a falling flowerpot, it isn’t a “natural death” either.

– Maybe that burning stuff in the volcano could be organic sediments? Wind-borne plant matter that gathered there over time?

– Those convenient underwater boots/belts/whatever might include maneuvering thrusters as well, thus slowing the fall reasonably.

– Well there is still enough time for JJA&gang to cut the offending shuttlecraft line and replace it with some other explanation (like, for instance, “there was a cave-in in the volcano pipe, it is too narrow for the shuttlecraft to pass”). I hope they’re reading this. :-P

48. Elias Javalis - December 30, 2012

This kind of analysis is pretty sweet, cant wait to tare it apart my self when I see the full movie..

Spoilers can be really annoying!

49. Rudy 'Stretch' Twigg - December 30, 2012

The Enterprise travelling underwater?

No, No, I cannot accept this.

I was looking forward to seeing this film, but if they are going to include such nonsense as starships sitting on the bottom of oceans, I’ll pass on this.

50. Sat'Rain - December 30, 2012

regarding “Kirk and Bones Jump Into the Sea” do you consider Nibiru has less gravity than Earth? Body damages are the same in a planet with gravity as Mars (for example)?

51. CmdrR - December 30, 2012

Oh, but they’re wearing propeller boots. That must’ve helped them, like Spock at El Capitan.

It’s an ACTION movie, folks. Leave your brain at the theater door.

52. Karen Brown - December 30, 2012

I will say, in the Navy, we all had to jump off of high dives, with arms crossed and toes pointed down, in order to know how to evacuate, for instance, a navy ship when necessary. Not an aircraft carrier, maybe (those things are 20 stories above the water), but.. Now, not saying they did it ‘right’ as actors, you have to cross your arms across your chest and point your toes, keeping as small and smooth a profile as possible, and yeah, possible there is some sort of cushioning effect from their suits. And, of course, we don’t know what the gravity is like on that planet. *grin*

53. Craiger - December 30, 2012

What if you end up saving a species that ends up being a threat to the Federration?

54. thorsten - December 30, 2012

Dear Kayla, amazing to hear what your dayjob is! I guess we have to give ILM some freeroom here how to paint the insides of an active vulkan. Plus it should look nice in IMAX and 3D. About that jump over the cliff, well, it was done before ;))

55. windelkin - December 30, 2012

Thanks to Kayla for a great article and I’ve enjoyed the comments too. I wish I was fortunate enough to see the preview. I love nitpicking also. I want to add to those that are afraid of jumping from 100 ft.,that’s not so crazy. It’s leaping without looking first that’s insane. You see it in movies alot, and sure it’s dramatic and sometimes the only way to escape, but someday I hope to see someone jump and land on something hard or jump into water that’s only a foot deep! About the prime directive issue, I expect it to be explained in the movie along with why the ship is underwater. Perhaps someone bets Kirk the the Enterprise can’t do it!

56. M_E - December 30, 2012

“regarding “Kirk and Bones Jump Into the Sea” do you consider Nibiru has less gravity than Earth? Body damages are the same in a planet with gravity as Mars (for example)?”

If gravity was substantially different in on way or another, we would see that reflected on the way they moved around which in the scenes shown indicates the gravity is at least very close to Earth´s.

57. John Luck Pikard - December 30, 2012

Come on, Kirk and McCoy have special boots that absorb impacts and allow them to zoom through the water like dolphins on speed. Nuff said. Any Habs rumors?

58. Sebastian S. - December 30, 2012

Violating the Prime Directive gets a WTF? Really?

Watch TOS again sometime; Kirk and crew violated the Prime Directive all the time (“The Apple”, “Return of the Archons”, “Cloud Minders”, etc.). Even Picard violated it a few times.

I love Star Trek (the reason I’m on this thread) but I think people remember it somewhat differently than it actually was.

59. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - December 30, 2012

Not all of us really accepted the whole Enterprise-taking-off-and-landing-from-planets thing from the previous film. I still find that completely ridiculous for a huge host of reasons, and it is not in line with what came before at all which was much more believable. So citing that it can withstand atmospheric pressures and re-entry stresses has no weight with me — I don’t accept that a ship of such scale, the primary purpose of which is to traverse *between* planets, which contains shuttlecraft and transporter technology and thus has no need whatsoever to land, would really be designed with that capability.

Take that away, and you do have a ship that can withstand the vacuum of space — which may sound extreme, but is an *entirely* different engineering challenge from withstanding water or atmospheric pressure (as is withstanding radiation). You also have a ship that can withstand warp travel, but remember — warp drive squeezes the space around the ship, propelling it in a far different manner from traditional motion — and also remember that warp travel is occurring in that vacuum of space where there are far fewer resistive forces to deal with. *Inside* of the warp bubble, there may be fewer forces at work on the ship than you think.

Many seem to be forgetting, too, that the Enterprise has shields. These are usually thought of and depicted as an energy field forming a bubble shape around the ship. If we do (which I don’t) accept the ship would be capable of landing, I might expect the shields to play a part in withstanding the stresses. But we can clearly see not even this more common sense approach to explaining how its sea dive could be possible applies, because the water clearly drips from every nook and cranny on the ship and not an invisible bubble formed around it by the shields.

No, I don’t see how any of the things this article uses to defend the submersion of the Enterprise are actually relevant. Why would we waste time and money to develop the solutions to the problems raised by sea diving, when that is the least likely demand to ever be placed on the vessel?

60. Sebastian S. - December 30, 2012

# 58 USS Titanic~

Re: the whole Enterprise-taking-off-and-landing-from-planets thing from the previous film.

You also forget that Starfleet has mastered antigrav technology (antigravs are mentioned throughout TOS). Perhaps they use that technology for landing giant spacecraft (Voyager was able to land on tiny little struts; no doubt due to antigrav technology or gravitational manipulation of some sort). And by mentioning the term ‘gravitons’ throughout Star Trek, it is implied that the Federation can harness the very forces that transmit gravity (forces we are only barely beginning to understand now), so manipulating it would no longer be an issue.

And if the ship could survive the intense pressures/forces of the event horizon of a singularity (as seen in ST09)? The ocean would be a piece of cake (or kelp cake)….

61. son of jello - December 30, 2012

It must be comforting to think there will be a situation in the future where humans have the self appointed moral authority to decide whether a planet lives or dies based on How humans percive the universe and its understanding on how life should evolve. Christianity and Islam with a fleet of spaceships deciding whos worth saving is not a comforting thought. If you look at the US space program I think you will notice that Jesus gets mentioned a lot and NASA wants to go to mars backed by money from a very religious government who think god is an american. If there is a Starfleet this is what it will be dealing with when it comes to interacting with other forms of life and no matter how far you travel in space. Humans are going to be governed by one of the Stupidist ideas we have ever creaeted. My religion is better than your religion therefore you must change or die the people with the checkbook and the government backing me gave me orders to force this decision onto you. What say you?

62. Punkspocker - December 30, 2012

Kayla, you rock! Thanks. #33- yes, more tidbits. #50-I’d like to see more science fact, but my brain was a bowl of jello at this preview, sound advice.

63. Back to 2373 - December 30, 2012

Starships and space vessels have already been underwater in the Trek universe, an entire Voyager episode was dedicated to it. Just before Tom Paris takes the Delta Flyer deep into the ocean planet in “Thirty Days”, Janeway makes the comment that it would take a week to modify Voyager to take the dive, always made me think they were referring to maneuverability modifications and not structural integrity, rust, etc. Granted that ship was designed to land and operate in atmospheres… Oh wait, this one is too!

64. BulletInTheFace - December 30, 2012

#11: That was pathetic.

65. BulletInTheFace - December 30, 2012

#48: This is hardly the first time we’ve seen a starship travel through water–it even happened a century earlier, during Archer’s time. And if a ship can endure the extreme pressure, temperature and radiation of space, then traveling underwater would not be a problem.

66. Ted C - December 30, 2012

The idea of the Enterprise underwater isn’t the issue. The issue is the Enterprise entering the atmosphere to fly down to the ocean and then flying back out into space. The entire concept of the Enterprise landing is a bit of stretch within the confines of the Trek universe. But hey, if you need to change something to make a story work, even something as big as this, I guess you do it. Not like there is anyone watching over the Trek universe to protect it anymore.

67. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - December 30, 2012

@59 (Sebastian S.)

“And if the ship could survive the intense pressures/forces of the event horizon of a singularity (as seen in ST09)? The ocean would be a piece of cake (or kelp cake)….”

Yes, well, you’ve seen my objection to one ridiculous aspect of ST09, and raised me another ridiculous aspect of ST09. This is a game I am not eager to play… I just wish the Enterprise were not being increasingly depicted as a magic machine that can do anything that will look cool and exciting on screen.

As for antigravity, that may be (although, applying it to something the scale of a starship seems like a bit of extreme license to me) — but many objections to the landing/takeoff don’t even have to do with the process itself but with the forces the gigantic vessel would have to withstand just sitting still on the planet, and the complications those forces add to construction. More engineering time and money wasted, when there is no need for that in a universe full of transporters, replicators, and shuttles. Why build a cruise ship that can sprout wheels and drive onto the shore to take on passengers when you can build a wooden dock instead?

68. Darkthunder - December 30, 2012

#58: You must not have seen much of TOS while growing up. I can think of atleast 2 or 3 times where the Enterprise flew around inside an atmosphere. One of which being inside OUR atmosphere, and travelled back to the 1960s.

It was never established in TOS where exactly the Enterprise was constructed. The only reference is to “San Fransisco Yards”. My assumption is that that would be IN San Fransisco, not in orbit above it. TNG als showed atleast on one occasion where a Galaxy Class was being built or assembled on the surface of Mars, at Utopia Planitia.

69. GarySeven - December 30, 2012

What a wonderful article Kayla. It was educational and informative. Anthony is lucky to have you on staff.
I think that while Star Trek has always taken some dramatic liberties with science, it has always strived to try to be scientifically plausible. This is what makes it different, and in my opinion better, than most of it’s competitors. I even remember how Roddenberry & Co. hired experts from the Rand Corporation to design the Enterprise. They also thought of what would be powerful enough to propel a starship and decided on antimatter. I don’t see JJ Abram’s &Co. having the same regard for scientific plausibility, but then again I don’t see them having a Star Trek having a regard for exploring “strange new worlds,” and from that making meaningful commentaries by using other planets as metaphors for the human condition. I guess that doesn’t sell; just having bad guys wear capes and threatening to destroy the Earth is more their thing. I may be in the minority, but I think their Star Trek is much less special, but it will appeal to a wider audience that is bored and disinterested by science and meaningfulness.
But again, as someone who values thoughtfulness, I want to thank you Kayla, for a thoughtful and excellent article.

70. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - December 30, 2012

@62 (Back to 2373)

Two things –

1) As you say, that was a tiny vessel, the Delta Flyer, and not a gigantic starship.

2) I’m not sure Voyager is the go-to example of the soundest science in Star Trek, nor a good comparison to use when most ST09 fans allege it was series like Voyager which took Trek to a place where ST09 was necessary. According to such fans, emulating Voyager should probably not be on the new mission statement.

71. garth of I - December 30, 2012

Kayla you have missed the entire point about your observations on the new 9 minute trek movie preview.

Star Trek is science fiction. Of course you’re going to see things that could not possibly exist. Its called make believe.

Some thing’s in the trek universe are factual – (example) the communicator.

Your observations are silly about scenes being NON FACTUAL/REALISTIC. Your observation deserves a (no sh?t, duh)

72. Paul - December 30, 2012

@65 – exactly. Being underwater is not all that much of a problem. Problem is getting underwater. It means crosing two borders – space / atmosphere and atmosphere / water – both of which means increased stress to the spaceship hull.

Unless shields get to help in some way. But I’m not sure about that, since in atmosphere, let alone in water, they must be overloaded all the time.

73. Back to 2373 - December 30, 2012

@69- i think youve made my point for me… regardless of how each feel about the different series, VOY is still canon… No?

74. Gary S. - December 30, 2012

Ignore the Naysayers Kayla.

75. Lurker - December 30, 2012

TOS Enterprise survived penetration of “gelatinous” membrane and maneuvering through “semi-fluid” protoplasm of the single cell organism in the episode “The Immunity Syndrome”. Shields were used, and weakening due to power drain from the organism.

Funny how some of us pick and choose between was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now.

76. Pegasus - December 30, 2012

How come this 9-min preview is still not available to anyone else? :( I wish I could discuss the prime directive debate or anything else on this thread, but by the time I see it and know the facts of the situation, this thread will be long gone.

Please release it online. This is a strange situation to be in, where me and fans like me are being locked out of Star Trek now… it’s sad. I don’t feel welcome at all anymore. For the first time ever, I don’t know what anyone is talking about. And there’s nothing I can do to correct it…

77. Bob Mack - December 30, 2012

#11 and #70 – lighten up. This is simply some fun speculation in lieu of an actual film.

78. BulletInTheFace - December 30, 2012

#76: Exactly.

79. BulletInTheFace - December 30, 2012

#76: Exactly.

80. sean - December 30, 2012

In TOS the Prime Directive prevented Starfleet officers from revealing A)the existence of alien life and B)introducing advanced technology to pre-warp civilizations. There are several occasions where it is clear they do not believe natural disasters are included in the Directive (The Paradise Syndrome, for instance, shows the crew trying to prevent an asteroid impact).

In TNG, the Directive had apparently been expanded to include natural disasters, as shown in Homeward and Pen Pals.

81. Ctrl-Opt-Del - December 30, 2012

I could be wrong but it sounded to me like Scotty was complaining that the salt water was starting to take the paint (starfleet liveries, name, number, etc.) off the hull, & possibly perish the seals around the hatches/windows too, which both sound more plausible than the ship going “rusty”…

82. Jose Kuhn - December 30, 2012

This is a horrible article.

You lost me when you got the whole spectrum of light argument wrong.

The earth is the largest rocky object in our solars system yet you assume that this planet has the same gravity as out planet in your arguments. This is flawed too.

Neil deGrasse Tyson would be very disappointed in the science of this article.

83. Jose Kuhn - December 30, 2012

My gripes on this article aside, the first nine minutes feel more like Indiana Jones than Star Trek.

84. Jack - December 30, 2012

75. I feel for you. We’ll all get to see the whole movie — with that nine minutes (plus, at least 120 more) — in May. Heck, I paid $20 to see the Hobbit in IMAX (which I wasn’t particularly interested in seeing in IMAX or 3D) and drove two and a half hours because there’s not an IMAX theatre where I live. Yep, a bit… overzealous (it’s nine minutes that I’ll see again multiple times in May).

I guess they could sell the nine minutes on iTunes… but…

I haven’t torrented anything in years. A) I’m Impatient and B) it felt like stealing — even though I only did TV shows. Is new stuff still really easy to find? I wonder if that’s why they’re releasing it later in some other markets. I remember being in Thailand years ago and bars and tour buses were playing videos of movies (either videotaped from the screen or screeners with that warning crawling across the screen) while, or even before, they were in theatres.

As to the ship being underwater, some are assuming that:

A) it would need propellers
B) thrusters and impulse engines wouldn’t work underwater
C) it can’t move vertically up or down and can only move forward
D) water and atmospheric pressure would crush it (this is the same argument , essentially, against building it on earth).
E) artificial gravity would go haywire on a planet with real gravity
D) the original E couldn’t enter atmospheres or go underwater (although “all things being equal, this one can”) because it was huge, and not designed for it, and would burn up when in a decaying orbit with dead engines (naked time).

85. Jack - December 30, 2012

83. Bad day, Jose?

86. Jack - December 30, 2012

I meant 76, I feel for you:

“Please release it online. This is a strange situation to be in, where me and fans like me are being locked out of Star Trek now… it’s sad. I don’t feel welcome at all anymore”

But, in other words — “give me free stuff so I can talk on message boards?”

87. Dennis Bailey - December 30, 2012

The Prime Directive has nothing to do with science or logic; it was a “rule” made up by writers to complicate Kirk’s decisions in a few episodes of TOS – a problem which he solved, more often than not, by breaking it in some fashion or disregarding it based on specious reasoning.

88. Red Dead Ryan - December 30, 2012

Okay, for all you “geniuses” and “Einsteins” out there who are stuck on how the Enterprise could possibly survive entering an atmosphere and landing under water, here are some possibilities as to how it would be achievable:

Structural integrity fields


Artificial gravity

Inertia dampers


Impulse engines.


89. Ran - December 30, 2012

Why didn’t they beam the device directly from space into the volcano?

90. The Great Bird Lives - December 30, 2012

Unable to get a sensor lock due to the increased thermal isotopes. The device would need precise placement requiring manual delivery.

And as for the big E under water- not exactly a standard procedure but easily doable. A Starship faces much more intrusive environments than saltwater all the time. Atmospheric entry would be a more challenging procedure, but also doable.

And as for her construction on a planetary surface- although warp drive can not be operated within the gravity well of a planet, such a gravity well would be necessary to construct a warp engine. It has been said that secondary hulls that contain the stardrive components are first constructed in a planetary drydock, then is transferred to an orbital facility to finish installing the hull, and gravity plating, along with the ‘joining’ of the deflector array to the secondary hull. So apparently larger components that are constructed off planet are typically installed in orbit.

91. Jack - December 30, 2012

87. Exactly. Even without any of those things there are possibilities.

92. Holly Light-Worker - December 30, 2012

As a Doreen Virtue registered angelic Light-Worker, I can assure you all that in the future humans will have developed their brains to use an advanced form of telekinesis.

Therefore, it is entirely plausible that the Enterprise be built on Earth in its totality, and Starfleet members use their combined telekinetic powers to lift the Enterprise into orbit.

I have emailed Doreen Virtue with regard to my hypothesis and although she has no knowledge of Star Trek, she confirms that this is a totally believable scenario…

93. Jack - December 30, 2012

90. I should say any of those ‘fictional’ things. I’m curious about the possibilities now and the science.

Do objects really require propellers to move underwater? Would withstanding the heat of rentry really mean that a ship could function normally in high temperatures (maybe re-entry involves specific angles etc.).

At least these guys aren’t just providing too much made-up science gobbledygook (the equivilant of Harry Potter’s spells) to explain how the made-up devices are doing this. The technobabble in TNG and Voyager was just that — made up words to explain how made-up technology would do whatever the script required it to.”)

It’s interesting how often “can’t” comes up on a board about a show that showed all the things we can do…

94. Ran - December 30, 2012

@ 89

“thermal isotopes”?

95. Enterprisingguy - December 30, 2012

The “thermal isotopes” was just as lame as many other excuses used in previous Trek as a reason to justify doing something ridiculous. Are we to believe that they REALLY needed to risk a starship going down to a planet’s surface and submerging into an ocean because they couldn’t just send down a probe and visually see the target that they couldn’t scan? C’mon! The thing’s the size of a shopping mall and it would take more fuel to slow the thing down than it could carry. Not to mention what it would take to get it moving from a dead stop enough to break into orbit.

As for why it’s ridiculous for the Enterprise to double as a submarine…….HOW is it supposed to submerge? The thing is a giant pressurized vessel. Are we to believe that 2/3 of the ship are dedicated ballast tanks that could be flooded for the off chance that this has to be attempted? Even if it were, the ship is so segmented that it would be quite the feat to flood all of the separate parts of the ship evenly in order to keep the thing from sinking onto it’s side.

And while I can believe that insulation in the future may be vastly improved I can’t believe that a suit will allow you to stand in a volcano. It’s as hard to swallow as when Obi Wan and Anikan were standing over a river of lava in a super heated atmosphere without a problem. Especially since Anikan combusted while lying NEXT to the same lava river. Spock would be Vulcan on the half shell inside that suit. You can’t expose something to that sort of heat and keep it cool inside no matter what it’s made of.

Thanks Kayla for providing us some fun stuff to chew on and debate!

96. Blair - December 30, 2012

This has already been discussed to a degree, but wanted to add my two cents regarding the Prime Directive.

The interpretation of the PD was definitely different in the 23rd century. Kirk was much more lax in his interpretation, choosing to interfere if he thought it would better the society. As Nicholas Meyer put it in his Wrath of Khan commentary, it was a very “American” way of going about things. By the 24th century, they had become much more strict. As Janeway put it in “Flashback” when referring to the old guard, “they were a little slower to invoke the Prime Directive, and a little quicker to pull their phasers. The whole lot of them would be booted out of Starfleet today.”

In essence, it was simply a different time.

97. CVN651701 - December 30, 2012

There’s an Enterprise in the ocean right now… And I expect people 300 years ago said we would never be able to get 94,000 tons of steel and people to float. Imagine what we’ll be able to do with a few hundred more years of development.

98. T'Cal - December 30, 2012

6. The Great Bird Lives – December 29, 2012

Perhaps the volcanoes irruption was caused by outside interference. Maybe Enterprise itself is responsible for the volcanoes premature irruption. In this case additional interference would be mandated under General order one.

That was the first thing I thought of as well.

99. The Sinfonian - December 30, 2012

The shuttle overheating: perhaps it’s the *engines* of the shuttle having problems with intakes clogged with volcanic dust, now unable to exchange heat properly. That could be the sort of critical temperatures Sulu is contending with.

Plants on Earth appear green only to the human eye that sees R/G/10%B. If you use a security camera (which usually doesn’t have an IR filter to make the video signal look “human”) you’ll see that most all plants appear WHITE!!! They reflect green and IR about equally. Humans only see blue with 10% the efficiency of green, and IR not at all. Chlorophyll is the key: it absorbs RED but moreso BLUE wavelengths. It’s molecular bands are all in the red/orange and blue/violet parts of the spectrum. When chlorophyll breaks down in deciduous leaves, the red/orange side stops being absorbed in stages, which is why leaves of that type change color from green to yellowish to orange to red: they’re now reflecting most all of the spectrum. When the blue absorption ends, you get the shift from red to brown.

For plants to appear red as on Nibiru, they’d need something akin to retinal, a rhodopsin which dominated Earthly life during the Archaean, before chlorophyll became dominant in plant life. So all Nibiru needs is a different pigment, one which already exists in the real world. Nibiru simply never evolved plants with chlorophyll.

I do expect a bit better from you Kayla on a basic physics topic of light and color, but I’ll certainly forgive this one! Nice ‘reflections’ overall.

100. John Luck Pikard - December 30, 2012

@ 61 – Jello – take your own advice from your own post number 11 – its just a movie. Keep your ignorant political and religious views for your uni bomber style blog.

101. dontcare - December 30, 2012

@ Article Author. There is a specific clause in the Prime Directive that allows Starfleet personnel to intervene in order to prevent a civilization from being wiped out by a natural disaster, IF such interference can be done without revealing themselves or their technology to the natives. This is even listed in the Memory Alpha article about the Prime Directive, which can be checked at the link below, under the heading: Exceptions.

Frankly if this article is a real example of how well you research your subject, then Anthony should have someone else do any further articles like this, because this one is a half-a–ed mess.

102. Pegasus - December 30, 2012

#86 – Jack. Believe it or not, you paid for The Hobbit, not the trailers before. If we were paying for the trailers, we should be able to select which ones to see, not get randomly chosen ones that just appear depending on what showing or what time or something like that. It’s not about getting it for free. The reason they haven’t released it online is because they’re trying to show off the 3D nature of it and the IMAX. They don’t want to “spoil” our experience by letting us watch it in 2D on our computers. okay.. :(

103. lostrod - December 30, 2012

#101 – Don’tcare

Wow. You have a pretty lousy attitude. I’m all for constructive criticism, but you just come accross as petty.

No one is expected to agree with everything a contributor writes. However it does open things up for discussion.


104. Dr. Cheis - December 30, 2012

@101. dontcare That article also cites times times they’d let societies be destroyed to prevent interference.

Regarding the jump into the ocean, maybe it wasn’t a normal ocean they were jumping into, so the surface tension maybe was different and wouldn’t kill them? Yeah, let’s go with that.

105. crazydaystrom - December 30, 2012

Sorry Kayla, but I’ve been to Nibiru and I’ve walked through more than a couple of volcanoes there. The Spock shots could’ve been documentary footage, it was so accurate. Just sayin’…
*ducks and runs out the room*

*pokes head back in*
Great article as always. Thanks!


106. George Reddick - December 30, 2012

Red plants actually absorb visible light other than red, and since red light is relatively low in energy in comparison to green light, red plants might actually be more efficient, or absorb more energy, than green plants.

107. Son Of MJ - December 30, 2012

Great Article my favorite quote was

“SPOCK IS STANDING INSIDE OF THE VOLCANO. Am I supposed to believe that Spock’s nifty volcano suit can withstand more heat that a shuttlecraft? Who designed this incredible suit, and why don’t they make spacecraft out of it?!”

I nearly spit the soda I was drinking out of my mouth when I read that. And you are so right lol

thanks for a informative and intesting article on the science of the 9 min preview.

And super cool day job you have there by the way

108. LogicalLeopard - December 30, 2012

Wow…I didn’t expect for things to go so sour after a fun little article. Okay Kayla gets one fact wrong about the color of plants, and suddenly Neil DeGrasse Tyson is wandering the corridors of wherever he works weeping?

For every fan who believes JJ &CO doesn’t consider the fanbase with every decision, this is why. Because you have people going rabid over chlorophyll and buoyancy in a FICTIONAL tv/movie series in which peoples atoms are regularly disassembled and reassembled and whole planets are created woth torpedoes .

109. Enterprisingguy - December 30, 2012

97. CVN651701 – December 30, 2012

“There’s an Enterprise in the ocean right now… And I expect people 300 years ago said we would never be able to get 94,000 tons of steel and people to float.”


Correction…. ON the ocean, not IN the ocean. I don’t think that 300 years from now the laws of physics regarding surface tension and water displacement will change. For the same reason that a ship made of steel floats the Enterprise will resist being submerged. Even more so since it’s a closed environment. Try taking that battleship under water and see what it would take to do that as well as what it would take to resurface it. The same would apply to the Enterprise. No matter how advanced our tech becomes it will always come down to flooding it with water!

110. Reign1701A - December 30, 2012

I’m sorry…but the Enterprise has shields that can withstand hundreds of times the force of a nuclear blast and is structurally sound enough to escape the gravitational pull of quantum singularities…but water pressure would crush it?!. Orci was right when he said “the Enterprise isn’t some flimsy yacht” when people were complaining about it being built on Earth.

Some people just like to complain, I think.

111. The Original Spock's Brain - December 30, 2012

Kayla, you rock!

112. son of jello - December 30, 2012

100 Im not expressing a religious view Im pointing out an obvious religous view that exhists in todays space program a view that does not represent everyone on earth But dominates our path when we explore as it always has.
If there is to be a starfleet typ orginisation. Who are we going to be when we explore the universe. We are going to be living permanantly on another planet within the next 15-20 years and the way we conduct ourself on our own planet and the belife systems that dominate entire countrys and populations of 100 of millions of lives and how these belifes have an inability to accomodate the ideas of the other is going to make us look completley foolish as we go out and explore. As a race (humans) we have a pretty high opinion of ourselvs and our accomplishments and we dont like having the plot holes in our belifes pointed out to us (ask the dead how bably it went for them). I never met gallileo and I dont know how he thought but shorely he may have thought in a few hundred years with the universe being opend up to us and the truth of the universe being revealed to us we will overcome and outgrow such a simple idea as religion. But unfortunatly today you can get yourself killed and censured for contridicting a religion. And this is what we are going to take with us when we explore the galaxy. Who we are and how we present ourselvs when we travel into space is a conversation that all of humanty needs to have a conversation that should have started back in 1969. I brought up religion and you number 100 imediatly grouped me with a murderer and called me ignorent. The church must love you.

113. The Great Bird Lives - December 30, 2012

CVN Enterprise has been decommisioned a month ago, and is there for not in service. The next Enterprise aircraft carrier is going to be smaller, faster, and employs stealth technology, and carries only 12 planes, and various other support aircraft.

114. son of jello - December 30, 2012

Hi 113 The next Enterprise is going to be a Ford class carrier CVN 80 this was announced at the Enterprises de comissioning ceremony by the Secretary of the navy Ray Mabus. It will be over 300 meters long and carry 75+ aircraft it will have 2 nuclear reactors and travel at about 56kph.

115. The Great Bird Lives - December 30, 2012

I heard the next class would be smaller, lighter, and have stealth…(according to popular mechanics) I thought the age of Supercarriers had passed. Strange.

116. nx-2000 - December 30, 2012

On the other hand, you do have to realize that this is the TOS timeline we’re talking about. Even in the Prime Reality, Starfleet of Kirk’s era was known for a rather “loose” interpretation of the Prime Directive. Janeway said so herself – slower to invoke the Prime Directive, quicker to pull their Phasers.

117. nx-2000 - December 30, 2012

My previous comment being said, my compliments to the author of this piece. I’m glad to see writing from more professional scientists in the Trek community. =)

118. son of jello - December 30, 2012

115 no unfortunatly its going to be huge. But there was a strong argument to go to smaller and more numerous carriers as the ability to defend a large one is getting harder with new missle technology. and its a pretty big asset to loose in one go. 2 are currently being built the Gerald Ford and the John F Kennedy by Newport News Shipbuilding.

119. dontcare - December 30, 2012

@115. Popular Mechanics never had a clue, according to SecNav Ray Mabus, the next Enterprise, CVN 80, will be a Gerald R. Ford Class supercarrier.

The following article is surprisingly accurate (considering it’s wikipedian) and provides a decent overview of the class, at least for us civillians.

Note: the article says the new class carries 90 plus aircraft.

120. Jack - December 30, 2012

102. Pegasus. Er, I never said I wanted it for free online, nor was I asking for it. It’s not a trailer — it’s a 9-minute preview and it was part of the IMAX 3D screening of the hobbit. Essentially, we were paying to see the hobbit with that footage — like going to a movie because you know an particular animated short is before. I get how some people might be frustrated not to be able to see the thing — but it’s not a conspiracy to exclude people or to set up a hierarchy of fans. We can all see the footage in May.

121. Sebastian S. - December 30, 2012

# 67 USS Titanic~

I’ll raise you one more ridiculous thought: It’s all just science fantasy. Only one step above lightsabers and the force. Arguing over it’s relative plausibility is something we do at our own risk. ;-)

Transporters are not plausible (the energy used in breaking down atoms and ‘transmitting’ them would destroy them; it’d be easier to recreate the mass at the other end), warp drive is not possible either (again; the energy necessary to ‘warp’ space would exceed what is available in our galaxy; let alone a matter/antimatter engine).

As far as building large ships on earth? Well, they have artificial gravity on the Enterprise itself. Who’s to say that shipyards on earth haven’t mastered the reverse? Or can manipulate it or lower it at will. Besides, I’ve seen larger structures built on earth with no problem (the VAB at Cape Kennedy in Florida for example; a building so large it has it’s own weather!). And how would manipulating gravity complicate the construction of the ship? Hell, if anything gravity manipulation would make construction on earth a cinch. The average construction worker could be a superman!

The only trick would be getting a large vehicle like Enterprise into space and that could be done relatively easy with antigravity (which the Federation has clearly mastered). This is not really an issue; not even within a fantasy context…

122. Vultan - December 30, 2012


Even fantasy films usually follow some sort of internal logic, right? So, pushing the scientific discussion aside for a moment, I’d like to know why the Enterprise went all Nautilus in the first place?!

Hope it gets answered. Seems like a desperate move, in my opinion.
Are they hiding from an enemy in orbit? The Klingons?

123. Jack - December 30, 2012

122. Speculation. There was some mention of radiation in the atmosphere. And perhaps they wanted to keep shuttle sightings by the natives at a minimum. Perhaps that shuttle was flying pretty low… (I know). Or maybe they’re stargazers (volcanic discharge in the atmosphere aside) and would notice something suddenly orbiting the planet. Heck, we can notice satellites with the naked eye, even when we’re not really paying attention.

Or maybe they are hiding from someone else…

124. Jeyl - December 30, 2012

Question. How do submarines tackle salt water corrosion? Is it the type of metal that’s used for the outer hull? Does it get scrubbed and cleaned every so often?

125. Vultan - December 30, 2012


…like logic.


126. son of jello - December 30, 2012

Submarines are made of HY-80 an alloy made up of nickle,molydbenum and cromium. Some submarines are made of titanium, they are also covered in an a sound absorbing rubber compound. Yes and it is cleaned and remember that ships submarines fish etc are desined to live there life in the ocean and corrosion is taken into account during design (the ships i mean,I dont know about the fish).

127. LogicalLeopard - December 30, 2012

109 Enterprisingguy

The same would apply to the Enterprise. No matter how advanced our tech becomes it will always come down to flooding it with water


Or…..using all of the gravity distorting technology at their fingertips. This whole argument is kind of ridiculous. I can think of several ways the Enterprise could stay below, from rigging an artificial anchor with the tractor beam or deflector dish to rigging the hull with gravity plating. Others could come up with different solutions based on other episodes of Trek they’ve watched. But really, doubters are saying that they don’t think Scotty could come up with a way to keep the Enterprise underwater , which is laughable considering the fact that they totally accept all the other stuff he does.

128. LogicalLeopard - December 30, 2012

I never met gallileo and I dont know how he thought but shorely he may have thought in a few hundred years with the universe being opend up to us and the truth of the universe being revealed to us we will overcome and outgrow such a simple idea as religion.

*********************** never met him and you don’t know how he thought, but surley he must have thought this? If religion is a simple idea, it wouldn’t require us to “overcome” it. It is obviously not. And the thought that it would be embarrassing to alien cultures fails to consider the fact that our first alien contact, if it occurs, might be because they are coming to knock on our door and spread their gospel, as it were.

129. T'Cal - December 30, 2012

Religion? Politics? Nothing so deep. It’s a movie, boys. Lighten up.

130. Pensive's Wetness - December 30, 2012

Im still sticking to my theory that the JJ-Ent has to be in the water in order to avoid detecting from other ships… until we know where this planet is, political border-wise, that is. If it not along someone else’s border, then its just show boating by Kirk, i guess?

131. The Great Bird Lives - December 30, 2012


I think that with the reduction in defense spending, and the reliability of stealth drones, I suspect that the Ford Supercarrier you speak of is a pipe-dream at best. In case you havent noticed our defense budget has been slashed, and just like NASA’s Aries program, the Supercarrier is a thing of the past. Regardless of what you heard, or read. The new carriers are not only cheaper, and easier to build, they are destined to replace the supercarrier. The CVN 80 is what the Navy has in mind- but its far from reality. Not to mention the program involving the new class of carrier is more than likely classified. There’s just no way Obama’s gonna sanction the Supercarrier in today’s state of current affairs. Just listen to the people at NASA who were promised Aries, only to see it scrapped. TOO EXPENSIVE. JUST LIKE THE SUPERCARRIER>

132. dontcare - December 30, 2012

@131. The first ship in the class, namely the Gerald R. Ford, IS ALREADY IN SERVICE, this is not a “pipe dream” this is US Navy reality. It is, frankly, a pipe dream for you to say this isn’t happening. H-ll the article, right here on trekmovie, that talks about the decommissioning of Enterprise, specifically states that the ship will be replaced by CVN 80, named Enterprise, a Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, as announced by the Secretary of the Navy (SecNav). You can try to argue all you f-cking want but it will not change the reality that CVN 80 IS being built. The Gerald Ford carrier class construction project is to build 10 ships, Enterprise is number 3, not 1, not 2, but 3, the class itself is already in service. Oh and all of this came out of Obummer’s first round of spending 4 YEARS AGO, so it’s already paid for.

133. Star Trek Nemesis blows, is the point. - December 30, 2012

Is there ever a case in the Next Gen era where the Federation doesn’t try to save a primitive civilization from destruction? Off the top of my head, I don’t recall a scenario where Picard, Sisko or Janeway had to save a primitive civilization unknowingly facing such a problem. (The Inner Light clearly does not count.)

134. Jack - December 30, 2012

133. Off the top of my head: the one with Sarjenka, the one with Worf’s brother mentioned above.

In the Worf’s brother one — did our main characters (Picard) finally realize that it was better to help?

In TOS, weren’t they trying to destroy the asteroid about to destroy the planet with the “American Indian” culture — but another interfering, er, protecting, culture did it instead? I don’t remember the details.

Saving civilizations, and the consequences if not doing so, iis pretty important in Abrams Trek.

135. Red Dead Ryan - December 30, 2012

I seem to recall in one of the Q episodes that the Enterprise D was attempting to save a less advanced race from being wiped out by an asteroid.

136. Bill Peters - December 30, 2012

Actually Red Dead, Yes they tried to use a Tractor beam to change the Gravity around the moon, cause Q Suggested in his human form in that Episode that they change the Gravitational Constant of the Universe which they couldn’t do, that was the same Episode that we meet the Calamarian and the fact that Q do punish other Q.

Also I have to say I agree with you before Force fields, Shields, ect would make it so that the hole ship can go underwater, the USS Voyager went though Fuludic space, and the Delta Flyer went underwater, this isn’t impossible, I mean 100 years ago we were told man motorized Fight was Impossible and look where we are now? WE can come a long ways in a short period of time, most good Sci-Fi does stuff like this the A bomb, Computers, planes, ect were all at one time more Science Fiction then Science but we got there.

137. The Great Bird Lives - December 30, 2012


I’m sorry to read how heated over this subject you’ve become. But what you are talking about is NOT paid for. The money is being allocated over the next 20 years. These plans were put in place pre 9/11, and I’m sorry to say, but the our military is changing- becoming more streamlined. These exorbitant pre 9/11 military plans may be being promoted by the those who support it’s continuation, however when it comes time to foot the bill (And it has NOT been payed for YET.) The US is NOT going to continue to make these humongous bulky aircraft carriers, when you can build the smaller, more maneuverable carriers that will be able to handle the current threat. The Supercarrier is a dying breed. And if the next President decides to make the next Enterprise a Ford class (presuming the current plans will be scrubbed in 2013) then our national security status will have had to change drastically from it’s current status. The focus of my statement is based on our military’s future aircraft carrier Enterprise, and how the next class will have to meet the challenges of the future. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Super carrier was designed to meet the challenges that our country faced from WWI to 9/11. But the world is a different place, and our enemies don’t have aircraftcarriers or planes of their own. Why would we continue to build large, bulky, expensive behemoths with big bulls-eyes on them? The answer is: We will not continue the Supercarrier any longer, in spite of what’s on the drawing board. Somewhere in the offices of Newport News there are designers, and engineers with something totally different on their drawing boards.
That’s all i’m saying.

138. The Great Bird Lives - December 30, 2012

Meant to say ‘In’ Newport News…

139. Jack - December 30, 2012

I’m hoping they can let some of this stand without resorting to magic made-up magic technobabble magic science explanations. It doesn’t matter how the ship can be underwater (heck, artificial gravity, force-fields, shields, anti-gravity, transporters, phasers, and even inertial dampeners are entirely made-up sci-fi technology with absolutely (arguably) no possibility in current understanding, er, right?).

It doesn’t matter within the film ‘how’ they’re doing things. I don’t want to hear nonsense filler dialogue about how their reconfiguring the inertial dampeners. It does matter that the movie respects the limits set by its own technology, within reason.

140. Jack - December 30, 2012

Onion AV Club on Homeward Bound (ps. I love Zack Handlen’s Trek reviews).,63900/?mobile=true

141. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 30, 2012

” If religion is a simple idea, it wouldn’t require us to “overcome” it.

It’s not hard to overcome because its complicated, unless you consider first century philosophy complicated. It’s because it relies on fear of death, which is instinctual.

As for the Prime Directive, it seemed that TOS used the avoidance of cultural and technological contamination as its purpose. it was made clear that natural disasters were not covered by its non-interference mandate.

142. Phil - December 30, 2012

No issues with light wavelength causing the plants to be perceived as red, except for one problem, the plants in the water (and the water, for that matter) should also reflect red.

Still have issues with Enterprise underwater. She was designed to fly in space, not under the sea – two very seperate and unique environments…like flying into a volcano. The last movie showed her well supported during construction, it’s not hard to imagine her being tugboated into orbit supported in similar fashion for her final buildout. It’s not that I don’t think they could build a ship that could not transition from space to under the sea, I just would not expect it to look like NCC-1701.It would make some sense that her shuttles woulf have that capacity.

Yeah, if the PD would allow for action to save a primative society, I’m guessing it would involve doing it from far away. If you have already put your people among the locals, flown your 2000 foot plus long starship into the atmosphere, landed it in the sea and sank it, and are flying your shuttles all over to stop the volcano, it makes little sense for the first officer to be lecturing the Captain about violating the PD when it comes to saving the life of the first officer….

143. ProtoVulcan - December 30, 2012

Thanks, Kayla.

144. MJ - December 31, 2012

Perhaps it’s just Fall on this planet, and the color changes are much more bright then Earth’s.

145. NCC-73515 - December 31, 2012

The impact was dampened by the special sexy suits they were wearing ;)
…but did they have breathing devices?

146. Tony Whitehead - December 31, 2012

Question: Why is Big E underwater when tech exists to beam across a solar system? Answer: Because it looks cool coming up out of the agua.
I have changed my mind about the direction of the new Star Trek…it’s not Star Wars; it’s become the James Bond 007 franchise. Not that that is financially a bad thing, but let’s not kid ourselves and say that this is Star Trek. I will enjoy the film in theaters and watch it repeatedly on home video for what it has become, not what it could have been.
I, do however, reserve the right to completely reverse my opinion after viewing the finished project. There are a lot of talented artists working hard to suspend my disbelief right now and I respect the body of work this team has produced.

147. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - December 31, 2012

Everyone arguing that it would be possible (in a fictional future with fictional technologies) to engineer a vessel that looks like the Enterprise and is capable of landing on planets and diving under the sea ***are missing the point***. That argument cannot be won, you can make up anything.

The *point* is:

WHY would we do it? As possible as it may be, none of those technologies will be “free”, time and resource wise, nor necessarily *easy* to implement for a large starship. In the entire Star Trek canon, the ability to put an entire starship underwater has been required only once, here, in this opening to a film. And even here there seems to be no need for it, it was just done to be “different”.

It is not very *realistic*. We don’t usually waste energy on developing technology that we don’t see ourselves using when dealing with projects on the scale of the Enterprise.

Apparently in the future we are interested in making ships that can do anything, “just in case” there’s a need? I suppose in the third film we’ll discover the entire ship can transform into Optimus Prime? And it needs to because it travels back into the early 21st century and needs to get a gig in a Michael Bay film to raise enough money to pay for Spock & Uhura’s honeymoon?

148. Mark Lynch - December 31, 2012

Wow, hard crowd some of you people, and downright rude too!

Thanks for the article Kayla, as always it is appreciated from this chair.

149. Jack - December 31, 2012

“In the entire Star Trek canon, the ability to put an entire starship underwater has been required only once, here, in this opening to a film”

Voyager went underwater, didn’t it?

150. ST:EXP - December 31, 2012

I’m entirely confident that there is a vital plot point explaining why the Enterprise is hiding underwater vs. being in orbit, as to be seen once the movie comes out.

I saw the 9 minute preview last night at a top-of-the-line Toronto area IMAX 3D theatre, and it was mindblowing.

So crisp… the 3D was so absolutely perfect and immersive.

Perhaps naysayers of 3D saw it at poor theatres or something, I don’t know.

But it was so exciting and so *new* for Trek… I can’t say enough good things about it.

151. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - December 31, 2012

@149 (Jack)

No, it did not….the Delta Flyer did.

If you are instead referring to fluidic space, which it did enter, there is little known about the physics of that realm, and no reason to suspect they would be similar to those under water on a planet. Voyager was not designed to enter that realm (Starfleet did not even know it existed) and was taken there against its will by the Borg; fortunately it survived but could not function normally there.

152. Sebastian S. - December 31, 2012

# 147

“WHY would we do it?”

Or rather why NOT? ;-)

This is a fictional future (and multi-planetary culture) without the material/budgetary limitations and constraints of our current time and world. They’ve created a ship that goes into the unknown on a regular basis. So for that reason, they’ve built redundant abilities to prepare themselves as much as possible for what may or may not happen. I don’t know why so many people online are bursting blood vessels over the Enterprise being able to submerge. It’s a tough, multi-purposed spacecraft being tested to the outer range of it’s abilities. So what?

Even in current NASA technology, there are those rare instances where a spacecraft is asked to do something beyond it’s original purpose and has succeeded in doing so. An asteroid probe (NEAR) accomplished a soft landing on the asteroid Eros when it had no landing apparatus. I’d imagine Starfleet would build these kinds of abilities into things not only for all the reasons they do know, but for the reasons they DON’T know as well. In ST, we see Voyager navigating ‘fluidic space’ and no one raised an eyebrow….

This is not a big deal.

153. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - December 31, 2012

@152 (Sebastian S.)

There is no such thing as “without material/budgetary limitations and constraints”. There will always be resources required to achieve results. Energy, time, manpower, raw materials, etc. Replicators do not create matter out of nothingness. Things may not cost money as we know it but they cost something.

Not only this, but if a ship has a capability, guess what? You will need to routinely maintenance and test the systems supporting that capability, whether you are using it or not — which will use up crew hours that could be better spent elsewhere.

As for fluidic space, see previous post.

154. Moputo Jones - December 31, 2012

Ya, you’d think that alarm clocks by 2260 would be holographic projectors. And it also was a pleasure to see MJ comment on something other than Khan!

155. Pegasus - December 31, 2012

So, after complaining, I went and took my 2.5 hour trip to the 3D IMAX (after already seeing The Hobbit in AVX and discovering that only had the trailer at the beginning, which had been released for a week by that time) and paid my $20 for my ticket (are you f**ing kidding me??) and then sat down to watch this 9 minutes.

Let me start by saying the girl friend who came with me, who is a huge fan of Kirk and co from ST 4, 5, 6 – as well as First Contact, turned to me when they showed Spock getting on his lava suit (maybe 5 mins in?) and said: “Omg, it’s Spock! I thought this is X-men!” hahaha So, yeah. That’s pretty much it.

JJ Abrams’ direction is 2D-based and quite sloppy with the 3D. Having a shot in 3D (ie, the mother hunched over her child while the father’s eyes moisten in the back) where the character that takes up most of the frame is out of focus and the mother in the foreground is mostly cut off by the corner of the frame — the child itself INVISIBLE, is clumsy 3D and absolutely confusing. I have to say, it’s obviously a first attempt, and the direction did not fit so well.

I found the 9 minutes mostly disorienting. As someone who understood about 90% of the Dark Knight Rises on my first viewing, I understood less than 60% of what was said in this. I only knew, based on what I’ve read online. It is clumsy and frantically cut. What a strange, confusing experience. I was SO happy when the Hobbit started and some storytelling and pacing and BREATHING was allowed :)

The science… I think the shuttle craft was damaged when it was HIT by an explosing inside the volcano. I don’t think it was the ambient heat that was effecting both the suit and the shuttle. The shuttle was hit by one of those flaming balls we see raining down on the natives later. So that was okay for me.

More of today’s technology I noticed? yah, i saw a few of those Wallmart price scanners on consoles :P hahaha

156. dontcare - December 31, 2012

@147. Dude, there were a number of starships that launched from that same water world that Voyager and the Delta Flyer visited, emerging from the water. Janeway sent the Flyer down because (quote) “it would take at least a week to make the necessary modifications to Voyager”. Not because it wasn’t possible, just because it was faster to use the Flyer. The inhabitants of the water world most certainly had Warp drive, since the water world was NOT their native world.

On the Enterprise series, there are several times when you seen Xindi Aquatic starships that both launch from oceans, and contain Many, Many, tons of water, for the life support of the star faring cetaceans (whales).

Fluidic Space, as described by Seven of Nine, and Ms. Torres, on Voyager is said to be almost exactly like being underwater, and Voyager operated there just fine, figured I should tell you since you obviously did not watch the actual episode. Since they also RETURNED to fluidic space quite some time after Seven took them there during the “Scorpion” two parter.

@153. Sebastien is right, your not, get over yourself.

157. Brandon - December 31, 2012

Concerning the “realistic touch” of the floating gurney:

Like much of Abrams’ work in Trek, it’s too bad that Star Wars did it first.

158. dontcare - December 31, 2012

@157. Actually Trek did it a decade plus before Wars and the floating “Hansicle” (which is the only time such a thing is seen in Wars). In TOS, in the episode with the nutjob space probe (which was later ripped off for the first Trek film), the crew was seen using anti-gravity cargo handling devices (identified as such), handily beating out the Hansicle in Empire Strikes Back.

159. RetroWarbird - December 31, 2012

Magnetic corridors and ceilings would be great ways to have a gurney be suspended about halfway – at human waist-height.

Trek has done the “do we disobey the Prime Directive and stop this volcano from extincting this race” dilemma before, in TNG Pen Pals. And that was all with the 24th Century “well we can’t let them see our faces, so we’ll mind-wipe them and do it all from space” tactics favoured by that show.

Put Kirk in that situation and you know he’s going to be tackling it the same way he tackled, oh, the Organians, Landru, the Iotians, and everyone else. By simultaneously praising the importance of the Prime Directive and yet barely acknowledging it in his actions.

160. RetroWarbird - December 31, 2012

“Bones, let’s go assist these natives in person in disguises that are barely disguises and maybe fall in love with the locals … Spock, why don’t you go spelunking in that volcano and see if you can’t logic the problem away.”

161. Jack - December 31, 2012

157. And they showed it too in Star Trek TMP, in 1979.

162. Yanks - December 31, 2012

Nice article.

Not sure I agree with it all.

Who’s to say that Star Fleet officers don’t have training on how to enter the water from tall heights? Divers all over the world do it all the time. I don’t have a huge problem with this although it might have been prudent for both to have had a small parachute to slow the decent just before impact.

Agree about Big E going skinny dipping. No problems and Scotty is just being Scotty.

Volcano? Sure, hot. But technology should allow Spock to get down there. It also is obviously going to keep it from destroying the planet. This IS science fiction you know. At least there wasn’t super-wham-o-dine shields that allowed the shuttle to go down there.

Love all these articles trekmovie!!


163. Jack - December 31, 2012

Some images of the TOS and TMP antigrav stuff here:

164. Sebastian S. - December 31, 2012

# 163

Thanks Jack for helping to illustrate my point. To a technology with gravity manipulation (on large or small scales), having a starship built on earth or in space would be no different, really.

As for the submerged Enterprise? Again. Not a problem. Fluidic space was navigated in Voyager.

As for USS Titanic at post # 153

@152 (Sebastian S.)

“There is no such thing as “without material/budgetary limitations and constraints”. There will always be resources required to achieve results. Energy, time, manpower, raw materials, etc. Replicators do not create matter out of nothingness. Things may not cost money as we know it but they cost something.”

OK, poor choice of words on my part, but they have materials of planets and asteroids aplenty (a lot more than our current one and only planet’s resources). Still not a problem…

“Not only this, but if a ship has a capability, guess what? You will need to routinely maintenance and test the systems supporting that capability, whether you are using it or not — which will use up crew hours that could be better spent elsewhere.”

Well, gee how do you know they haven’t?!? These are fictional characters. Most of their ‘lives’ exist off-script.


As for fluidic space, see previous post.”

Yes, I read your previous post. Proves nothing. Yes, we didn’t know the properties and physics of fluidic space, but we do know it IS fluid of some sort, and we know the physics of fluids and vacuums so we can make a reasonable guess. Liquids don’t compress, and they are far heavier than vacuum, so those properties should remain unchained. Besides, what if a starship had to make an emergency oceanic landing? Who’s to say it wasn’t already equipped for that? You don’t know. Neither do I.

Let’s watch the movie, shall we? ;-)

165. MJ - December 31, 2012

To all the “brain surgeon’s” here who are still bitching about the Enterprise going underwater….

Think about how dumb you all sound that you take it for-granted that something as incredibly advanced as Warp Drive would be common place, but that a star-ship, which we know if made from Tri-titanium and other synthetic materials, and which is already designed to keep out vacuum and incredible stress of impulse thrusting and maneuvering, couldn’t even submerge to depths of less than that of 1940’s era submarines??? WTF???

Are you all f’ing crazy or what??? Duh !!!!!


166. Admiral Thrax - December 31, 2012

How many of us are just damned happy that 1.) we are seeing more Star Trek, and 2.) Still being surprised by it ;)

Happy New Year Anthony, my fellow lurkers, Bob Orci and visitors to this site. 2013 is going to be a great year.

Admiral Thrax (aka Flaming Nacelles Forever)
STO Mirror Empire

167. K-7 - December 31, 2012

#165 Agreed MJ. Case-closed on;the whole Enterprise underwater thing — of course that would be not big deal for a 23rd century starship. Case closed

#155 “Let me start by saying the girl friend who came with me…”

Wow, you are certainly having a better New Years than I. ;-)

168. Sebastian S. - December 31, 2012

# 165 MJ and # 167 K-7

For once I am in FULL agreement with both of you.
They can accept beaming, warp drive and other technically implausible to utterly impossible ideas, but the idea of a giant ship submerging like a WW2-era submarine is suddenly impossible!

Go figure.

169. Red Shirt Diaries - December 31, 2012

Sebastian S, MJ, K-7,

I agree 100% as well. Enough of the whining about the Big-E underwater.

It’s no big deal. Yes, case closed.

170. Vultan - December 31, 2012

I don’t really have a problem with the scientific reasons for the Enterprise being underwater (only the logic behind such a move), but it is actually a good thing for people to question the scientific merits of a movie, particularly one that falls in the SCIENCE fiction genre.

And like science, sci-fi’s about questions. If we don’t question it, we don’t learn from it—from people like Kayla.

(Good article, by the way. Nice to hear from a real volcano diver.)

171. Commodore Adams - December 31, 2012

@ 49. Rudy ‘Stretch’ Twigg

You seriously would not see that movie for that sole reason? Weirdo.

If ur joking, not particularly funny.

172. cd - December 31, 2012

39 – as far as sounds in space, engines and phasers and so on making sound, I always thought that could be RF or subspace disturbance caused by those to be converted to sound, so I never had a problem with it.

173. cd - December 31, 2012

As far as Enterprise being able to go under water, I don’t have a problem with it. As to why the whole ship, instead a shuttle, I don’t know. Maybe the shuttles are not built as tough, just built for space, apparently not for volcanoes. Maybe after this incident, someone will design an aqua shuttle. Hmmm…

174. cd - December 31, 2012

51 – “It’s an ACTION movie, folks. Leave your brain at the theater door.” Is there some reason we can’t have a smart action movie?


175. Jovan - January 1, 2013

Once again, Orci and Kurtzman clearly didn’t do their research. This is a problem in anything they write, actually. The defibrillator that takes 30 seconds to charge in MI3, for example.

I’ll probably like the movie overall, but already they’ve made more errors in the first 9 minutes of the movie than they did in the whole previous movie. Makes me a tad worried.

176. Mark Lynch - January 1, 2013

There was an anti gravity sled thing in the background of a scene in STTMP, thus pre-dating the Han Solo in Carbonite scene from SWESB.

177. Sebastian S. - January 1, 2013

# 176 ML~

They used antigravs in TOS (they affixed them to Nomad in “The Changeling” and the anitmatter bomb in “Obsession”). Manipulation of gravity is nothing new in Star Trek (even the ship’s adjustable artificial gravity is evidence of this). I don’t know why some fans had such an issue with ST seemingly ‘defying gravity’ again in ST09 (with the Riverside Iowa shipyard). In a culture with variable gravity? Such things would be a snap.

178. Ron - January 1, 2013

CVN 80 scheduled to start construction around 2018 but….

179. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 1, 2013

Ummm… How does Kirk and McCoy run so easily with Aqua-boosters attached to thier feet??!!

180. thorsten - January 1, 2013

Dear TMMW, it looks like Bones sports some sort of duck feet…

181. The Sinfonian - January 1, 2013

180 That’s an altered photograph. Why are you doing that? To troll?

182. Jack - January 1, 2013

175. What errors?

I’ve seen nothing here that’s really an error. Even the shuttle thing — sure, it makes it through reentry — but isn’t that a few seconds (and at the right angles and with heat shields on the front) vs. quite a bit longer around the volcano?

183. thorsten - January 1, 2013

haha, yes The Sinfonian, I’m a big bad troll.
Happy new year to you!

184. Ahmed - January 1, 2013

Happy New Years to all the fans, may all of you live long and prosper :)

185. Lt. Daniels - January 1, 2013

I’m thinking this a Gary Mitchell type of story in this movie with a bit of Wrath of Khan in it. Alice Eve plays Dr. Carol Marcus but looks more like Dr. Elizeth Dehner from Where No Man Has Gone Before. Mitchell is thought dead, but comes back to Earth for revenge with his super power. Dr. Marcus has the Genesis Device or some other device in this movie that Mitchell wants to use. Peter Weller I think is playing Dr. Arik Soong or someone like him in this movie. And if Khan is in Into Darkness it will be for a very short amount of time. Like how a young Schwarzenegger was in Terminator Salvation.

186. dontcare - January 1, 2013

Yahoo puts STID as the number 3 most anticipated movie of 2013.

187. Jamesir Bensonmum - January 1, 2013

To whom it may concern at (Anthony?):

When I click on the image of the Enterprise rising out of the water, the “enlarged image” i get is not the same one, but rather an image of that other ship crashing we saw in the trailer into the water.

I thought you may want to fix that.

188. Jamesir Bensonmum - January 1, 2013

I don’t care if people think “in real life” a starship couldn’t go underwater. In Star Trek they CAN go under water, as evidenced by the fact that Janeway said the Voyager could be modified in a weeks time to dive MILES DOWN underwater — and those modifications would be done by her crew stranded in the Delta Quadrant.

I suspect that if the Voyager could go miles underwater, the the Enterprise could be outfitted to go a few hundred meters under.

189. dontcare - January 1, 2013

@178. Yeah but at about 2 AM this morning Obama stated that he would not negotiate to reduce government spending, so unless the country goes completely bankrupt (which admittedly is a very real possibility) none of that will have an effect.

190. K-7 - January 1, 2013

@180. But since you “don’t care,” it’s nothing to be concerned about.

191. Lt. Daniels - January 1, 2013

The two hands on the glass like you saw in Wrath of Khan with Kirk and Spock. I think this time it’s Spock and Pike with Pike that is the one that is dying. Or it could be Spock and John Harrison with John Harrison the one that is dying.

192. dontcare - January 1, 2013

@190. For the last d_mn time, my name ONLY means that I don’t care who Cumberbatch is playing in the frikin movie.

193. Jack - January 1, 2013

I honestly don’t understand the original ‘they can’t build a ship on Earth’ argument. Why not? What, are you saying the thing would collapse under gravity? Why?

194. Phil - January 1, 2013

Well, if some people want to not think about what they want their ship to do, or not question it, then I suppose CASE CLOSED is a neat answer. Likewise, I don’t want to hear any more bitching about how SW is fantasy and ST is science based because it’s all fantasy now if you are acceptable with pulling new abilities out of your backside because it’ll be a cool shot to have Enterprise rising from the sea. Next movie, hide her in the volcano, while you are at it. Likewise, quit complaining about the brewery, because a ship designed to hang out under the sea would actually need all those tanks and pipes to manage ballast.

195. Red Dead Ryan - January 1, 2013

Yep, its definitely “case closed” with regards to the Enterprise going under water.

Anyone who continues to insist that the Enterprise, while built to withstand the extreme stresses of faster-than-light space travel and blackholes, cannot survive being underwater needs to be put in a mental institution.

196. Jack - January 1, 2013

195. Agreed!

I still wonder whether this outrage is more about this idea that JJ wasn’t a Trek fanatic and therefore, the thinking goes, he either a) has no idea that the TOS Enterprise didn’t go underwater, or that it didn’t have a massive engineering section full of pipes or that Kirk didn’t have blue eyes or that he was, in fact, a stack of books with legs (sez Gary Mitchell) or b) he knows all that and he’s just messing with our stuff, because he can.

Bob knows his Trek better than most of us here.

197. Jack - January 1, 2013

BTW, this is cool (model E, er, flying underwater).

198. Red Dead Ryan - January 1, 2013

Yeah, there were a few complaints about how J.J Abrams’ did things differently from the producers before him. But they have short memories. Some things just didn’t change as some here insist.

Pulse Phasers: A classic sore point amongst some fans here. Yet it was the Defiant from “Deep Space Nine” that was the first starship depicted as having phaser canons.

Starship going underwater: Voyager went into fluidic space. True, there presumably wasn’t much gravity, but still, it was a form of liquid substance. The ship survived. The Delta Flyer went under water on the water world.

Pipes: The original Enterprise had them. The “A” had them. The “D” not so much, but the “E” and the Defiant had plenty. But obviously not to the extent that the J.J. Enterprise has them.

Blueish-white torpedoes: The J.J Enterprise has photon torpedoes, they are not red. They share a similar color to the quantum torpedoes of the Enterprise E and the Defiant. Two different types of torpedoes, but the same colour, and they pretty much do the same thing anyway.

There’s probably more, but I can’t think of anything off the top of my head right now.

199. Phil - January 1, 2013

@195, 196. No, it’s because at one point in time Trek at least gave some lip service to adhearing to science, and some level of consistancy to what the capabilities of this very fictional ship can do. Shear stresses are very different from compressive forces – frankly, you can ignore that all you want. It’s been done, so in the next movie we can whip out the shrink rays, or fly her into the sun, or park the ship in a volcano, for that matter. Yeah, I’ll go see the movie, and probsbly enjoy it, but here is the problem it creates – remember when George Lucas decided that having R2D2 fly was a good idea? It turned into a WTF moment when the audience remember that a flying R2 unit would have solved a lot of problems in the previous movies. TNG had a similar problem with the Masks episode. Looked great, as long as you didn’t ask how the Enterprise could be turned into a Aztec temple.

Bottom line is the producers have made Enterprise into the Yellow Submarine. Hopefully you will all be so forgiving when they turn her into a Transformer in the next movie.

200. Jack - January 2, 2013

The “experts” talking about this online (one blogger is an electrical engineer inthe aerospace indusrty) might have general expertise, but it doesn’t mean their opinions here are expert — I still haven’t seen a convincing argument against this. They’re all some variation of “water pressure would crush her.. she would need propellers.. chemical thrusters wouldn’t work underwater..”. and, mainly, “Matt Jeffries designed her as a space ship.”

As for ‘it could have solved a bunch of problems in previous movies’ a la R2 flying. When would the E entering a body of water ever made a difference to a story? Even jf they’d had the budget and fx ability. In this case, where they have to save a damned planet, and do it quickly, they’ve figured out a way. And, besides, this is a new ship. And a different timeline.

201. K-7 - January 2, 2013

@192. You should change your name then, as this is going to happen time and time again. I.e., who knows what you don’t care about unless you specifically tell them?

202. LogicalLeopard - January 2, 2013

199. Phil – January 1, 2013
@195, 196. No, it’s because at one point in time Trek at least gave some lip service to adhearing to science, and some level of consistancy to what the capabilities of this very fictional ship can do.

*LOL* When was THAT??? Did it give lip service to adhering to science with the Genesis torpedo? How about keeping consistency with the warp factor numbers between Enterprise, TOS, and TNG? Those are two off of the top of my groggy head, but I”m sure that many people can come up with tons of examples.

I mean, seriously, I do NOT know how this argument even persists. Didn’t the Enterprise slingshot itself around the SUN? So, basically, it had to face the forces of sublight acceleration and the gravity pull of the sun. But it can’t go underwater? Shear stresses and compressive stresses are differenet, I get that. But COME ON! You take an alloy that ‘s stronger than anything we have currently, take the fact that it’s gotta be at least a foot thick, and put it underwater. It’s not that hard!

Also, as I have mentioned before, it’s utterly hilarious that the Enterprise being underwater is perceived as being impossible, but nobody questions Spock’s volcano suit.

I wonder if people did this in the 60’s. “Wha? A chicken dinner coming from the wall? There’s no WAY you can hit a button on the wall and get a hot chicken dinner, that’s scientifically impossible! Forget this nonsense, let’s watch Gunsmoke!” *gets up and physically turns the tv*

203. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 2, 2013

Yeah. My favorite part about R2 flying was that he used his rockets right after that spaceship capsized in AOTC caused him to plumeting a 1,000 ft and crash into that rubble.

I have major worries about that happening in STID.

204. Son Of MJ - January 2, 2013

wow not one mention of Star Trek in the Daily Variety’s write up of big 2013 movies coming this year.

Thats not cool they could have atleast given it a one line blurb like Jack Ryan got.

205. Robman00 - January 2, 2013

Um…the original Enterprise had “Blueish-white torpedoes”

Pulse Phasers…well yeah, Balance of Terror. Phasers firing in a spread pattern. Wrath of Khan? Those were pulse based instead of a steady stream.

Who cares what color the visuals for the weapons are or how the visuals look?

206. Jack - January 2, 2013

There’s a guy with a blog, Ray somebody, an electrical engineer with NASA (his PhD was on communications something something) who writes ‘bad science in movies’ reviews. There are blogs calling him a real-life Scotty, as in, ‘real life Scotty says Enterprise in water impossible.’

He makes a lot of interesting points in his reviews — but some of them (in Moon, it would be a lot cheaper to send replacement workers to the moon than to have a bunch of clones, and how could a company have a secret cloning program? And therefore the movie is only using cloning to provide an M Night Shamalayan twist) make a lot of assumptions (x couldn’t and wouldn’t happen’) and they don’t have a lot to do with science. Don’t get me wrong — we need more ‘this doesn’t make sense’ challenges to slightly sloppy storytelling (like how nobody on Fringe had noticed our heroes working out of their Harvard lab). But, sometimes, the story matters more.

And just because you have a PhD in one field — it doesn’t make you an expert on all science, or on movies.

207. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - January 2, 2013

@156 (dontcare) –

So they would have had to modify Voyager? It wasn’t *designed* to do that? That’s my whole point. There is no reason to design a starship to do that — and with all their other tech, there would not be a need to do it either. They had a smaller vessel they could do it with, the one time Voyager needed to submerge a space vehicle. And in this film, why the heck didn’t they just use a shuttlecraft…and why does it even have to be submerged?

For the third or fourth time now, it’s not a question of whether it is possible. It is a question of, IS IT BELIEVABLE we would WASTE our time engineering such a pointless capability into a craft whose primary function would only require it under extremely unlikely, incredible circumstances? No. Can I say “case closed” like all the rest of you guys?

Also, the Scorpion 2-parter *is* the episode where Seven takes them into fluidic space. And there is no such reason to think it would be “exactly like being underwater”. The biggest problems caused by being underwater for a submersible are due to GRAVITY, acting outward from the center of the earth. If something as ridiculous as “fluidic space” even exists, it is conceivable the gravitational effects of such a vast sea of fluid “floating” out in “space” might be completely different, more distributed, and less effective. There could be far less pressure from the fluid, and the only real force to contend with might be resistance opposing motion. At any rate, story-wise, they did not elect to fly into fluidic space, they were pulled in and happened to discover they could survive there. They didn’t sit on Earth thinking, “gee, we might need to enter a hypothetical realm full of fluid some day, we had better design Voyager to withstand it”.

Here, check this out:

208. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - January 2, 2013

PS – Maybe the Enterprise will fly over a sea creature as it departs, and we can all finally admit that Star Trek has jumped the shark. That or we can supersede “jump the shark” and “nuke the fridge” with “dive the ‘prise”.

209. Sunfell - January 2, 2013

Maybe one day someone will answer this: Wouldn’t dropping a member of an endangered species into a volcano be violating some major space directive?

“Woopsie! We toasted Spock! 95,433 Vulcans still living…”

210. BulletInTheFace - January 2, 2013

All of you saying Kirk’s Enterprise couldn’t go underwater, please rewatch “The Immunity Syndrome.” The ship traveled through a massive bag of fluid. Hence, it can travel underwater. Case closed.

211. MJ - January 2, 2013

Yea, case closed guys — of course its no big deal for the Enterprise to go in water. I thought we put this to bed last week — wish the hanger on’s malcontents would find some other JJ-Trek hate to hang their hats on.

C A S E C L O S E D ! ! ! ! !

212. Red Dead Ryan - January 2, 2013

This was an open and shut case. It was opened when we saw the Enterprise under water. We rational people deduced that yes, the Enterprise can survive under water, if the technical explanations of how starships work and are built are anything to go by. With all that said, the case is shut for good.

The book is closed. The debate is over. Just that simple. Time to move on.

213. Jamesir Bensonmum - January 3, 2013

207 USS Titanic —

How do you know that the Enterprise wasn’t modified SPECIFICALLY for this mission to sit underwater?

Janeway said they could modify the Voyager in a week to go MILES underwater — and they’re stranded in the Delta Quadrant. Perhaps the modifications to the Enterprise to go a few hundred meters down could be done at a Federation spacedock in only a couple of days — specifically for this particular mission.

214. Mark Lynch - January 3, 2013

I don’t care how the Enterprise gets to go underwater, the more pertinent question is why?

Wouldn’t you agree?

If the answer from the writers is not at worst feasible or at best logical, then colour me disappointed.

215. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - January 3, 2013

@210, 211, 212, 213 –

#214 (Mark Lynch) gets it.

And the explanation better not be obviously contrived simply to justify an action sequence & SFX shot that could just as easily have been made just as exciting in some other, more realistic, way. But we all know it will be. :p

Mark, how did you bold those words?

216. Mark Lynch - January 3, 2013


Glad I’m not the only one who thinks this!

To answer your question:
Quite a simple HTML trick, just put bold tags around the text you want, well, to be bold… :-)

I’d show you but I guess the word inbetween would just go bold on me!

I’ll try to say it in words instead, to start bolding use a left chevron/less than symbol, followed by a “b” (no quotation marks, it’s just for emphasis here) then a right chevron/greater than symbol
Type your word and then do the same again but precede the “b” with a “/”

Actually the below might display on the screen

your word

Or try this >>>

217. Mark Lynch - January 3, 2013

Guess it didn’t… lol

Hang on,

This might do it…

Your word

Let`s see that HTML get interpreted!

218. Mark Lynch - January 3, 2013

Well FFS…
Putting each symbol on a different line still went bold!
Okay lets do this then, look up the ascii symbols >

Ascii 60
Ascii 98
Ascii 62

Your word

Ascii 60
Ascii 47
Ascii 98
Ascii 62

I hate computers beating me! ;-)

219. Jamesir Bensonmum - January 3, 2013

214 and 215 —

Then I suppose we need to see the film first.

And, yeah — sometimes a plot point is made because of how it will look on the big screen. That’s not uncommon in film entertainment…

…Such as:
“it would be cool to have the Enterprise rise out of water. So let’s create an opening scene to the movie in which this happens”.

There is a reason it is in the opening scene of the film, and the first time we see the enterprise: It’s a beauty shot. It’s the reason in TMP that there was a plot point of having the Enterprise in spacedock — just so it could look good on the screen while Kirk, Scotty, and we movie-viewers fly around it.

220. USS Titanic NCC-1701 - January 3, 2013

@216 (Mark Lynch)

Thanks for the tip, never would have guessed that the comments would allow HTML.

@219 (Jamesir)

A fair point, but, I have to say I can far more easily accept “the Enterprise happens to be in space dock right now” without being taken out of the film and left questioning its believability, than I can certain other contrivances.

221. Phil - January 3, 2013

@214. Yeah, that question has come up – the Federation posseses the technology to achieve all the stated objectives in the segment from orbit. Perhaps the answer occurs outside the nine minute segment and it will all be clear come May.

Oh, and for all the belivers in magic Enterprise, if you leave the shuttle bay doors open and control the flooding in the nacelle and connecting dorsals she would probably function just fine underwater. For a ship twice the size of modern aircraft carriers, 60 to 100 thousand tons of ballast should not be a problem. Case closed. R2D2 can fly, Enterprise can sink.

222. Phil - January 3, 2013

@219. The first thought I had when I saw the image was ‘great, someone thought this would look cool on the big screen’. In the next movie someone will probably suggest flying Enterprise through the suns corona – that would look cool, too. . At this point, it is what it is, contrived or not the audience will decide. Flying R2D2 didn’t hurt the Star Wars flicks.

223. Robman007 - January 3, 2013

Eh, the Enterprise under water will be explained in the comic lead up. That is a no brainer. There will be some plot device that had the Enterprise hide in the water. Will be logical.

Besides, it really does not matter. It’s fiction. It’s fun. You can do ANYTHING in fiction.

224. dontcare - January 4, 2013

So the “fiscal cliff” deal hammered out in the last few days reportedly includes NO reduction of “Defense spending” so it looks as if all Military Procurement and construction prodjects that have already recieved their budget allocation will continue moving forward without so much as a hiccup.

On a totally different note, the people who don’t want to buy the TNG blurays to see the remastered versions don’t have too. It turns out that the Netfilx service is already showing TNG season 1 in its remastered form, it also shows TOS-R on Netflix (you can tell, easily).

225. Phil - January 4, 2013

@224. It includes no spending cuts anywhere, not that anyone really expected that to happen…

226. dontcare - January 4, 2013

@225. Ah but the guys up above arguing that the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier is a too expensive pipe dream, and that CVN 80 (the next real life Enterprise) will not be built, seem very much to have expected spending cuts. I was just pointing out how wrong they were, as confirmed by reality, instead of their fantasies.

227. Phil - January 4, 2013

@226. These ships will be built, despite the cost, because overseas bases will be closed and consolidated substantially in the following years. The Navy is developing mobile platforms that can be planted in international waters, and support these carrier strike forces and divisions of Marines. This allows us to continue our missions, and gets some of these first world countries who have been happy to outsource their defense spending to step up and take care of what they should have been doing years ago.

228. MJ - January 4, 2013

@227. Agreed. Plus there are too many jobs involved, and they have to keep trained workmen around and employed to build warships in the future — we can’t afford to lose this capability; the Chinese won’t be sitting idle in the coming years.

229. DJT - January 5, 2013

Just saw the preview. A little slow in the first minute, but after that…great.

Can’t wait for this summer.

230. Jamesir Bensonmum - January 7, 2013

Spending cuts (or at least a fight over spending cuts) will still happen soon enough.

They just decided not to include it in the fiscal cliff agreement.

231. Phil - January 7, 2013

@230. Not for at least two election cycles. The public has been sold a bill of goods that sticking it to the rich solves all our problems, and the voters drank the kool aid.. Snipping a carrier or a division doesn’t solve the problem at all, when the gorilla in the room continues to be entitlements…

232. Joseph - January 8, 2013

I always assumed in that voyager episode with the water planet that the problem was more due to the water pressure than the liquid itself, given that it had already been established in the series that the Delta Flyer was designed specifically for high pressure environments (in the episode it was introduced) and that they were doing an extreme depth dive (far, far deeper than anything ever attempted or, for that matter, even possible on Earth). While I’m sure Voyager’s hull could have handled something like that given all the other punishment the ship shrugged off in that series, I have to believe that some of the more delicate precision components (sensor arrays, transporter emitters, etc) couldn’t be built to the same tolerances and thus potentially taken damage from the environment and would therefore need to either be removed or armored before the ship could have attempted such a maneuver.
Of course the other possibility is that given all that punishment Voyager took, her hull may not have been quite as sea worthy as it once was. After all, even the best of engineers have to cut corners from time to time when faced with limited resources and a tight timetable, and sometimes damage to a vehicle or ship can have effects on the frame’s overal strength and stability that aren’t apparent until it’s stressed. Just figuring out where the potential weak spots were might have taken months.
Enterprise, on the other hand, is still practically brand new, had both the time and resources to do a complete rebuild if it were needed, and was staying pretty near the surface since light and officers are still able to reach the ship. Might be hell on the paint job and possibly result in some alien barnacles (the presence of which I’m sure would annoy Scotty to no end) but no reason the ship should be hurt by it.
Overall, great article!

233. David - January 28, 2013

In science, one must consider all things.

Would the fall injure or kill them?
On Earth, yeah, it probably would. On another planet, it depends mostly on the gravitational pull of the planet, somewhat on the density of the atmosphere and the salinity of the sea.

Scotty’s concern about corrosive salts in the sea?
Probably a bit of whining as he will have to do some work to purge lines and valves. But we don’t know what corrosive salts might be present on another planet. Obviously not too corrosive as it would be harmful to swim in for humans.

Finally the Volcano:
We do know from looking at vulcanism on other planets that volcanoes look vastly different. On Venus, with it’s denser atmosphere volcanoes are flattened out, mushed to the ground. Under less dense atmospheres, much higher sometimes throwing lava in to the upper atmosphere. We also cannot assume that lava on another planet would contain the same gases or react with it’s atmosphere in the same manner. A higher methane count in the lower atmosphere might flare up or cause some other sorts of plasma to form.

IMO, it’s not too far of a stretch to accept these things since there may even be elements we have never discovered (though very unlikely). But I think it allows for the effects…. besides…. It’s Hollywood right? You’d never consider Gone with the Wind to be a documentary on the Civil War. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.