Star Trek Movie. (Contains Spoilers)

[Omar B]

What always got/gets me is the fact that the flagship of the Federation always seems to get its *** kicked in battle, shields down, phasers down, come on it’s the flagship, surely it can take more of a beating that that??!! It should have some smaller escorts with it and it should be able to kick ***.
I’m not even going to touch on the fact that senior bridge officers are beaming down on dangerous missions, they did their time doing that ****, let the Junior officers do that dangerous stuff!!
Then you have a small ship like the Defiant, now that’s a cool realistic ship that buzzes around doing lots of damage. I’d much rather have fleets of Defiant’s then Enterprises.
Don’t even get me started on cloaking technology and treaties against it with the Romulians!!

Actually during the Dominion war (mostly covered in DS9) the federation started equipping more ships as war ships again rather than scientific vessels. Remember, Enterprise D was a Galaxy class ship meant for exploration. After that one was destroyed in ST generations the Enterprise E was a Sovereign class which was basically a gunship. But yeah, I get what you are saying, where are the small fighters watching it's back? The only small craft they had were the shuttles and those were basically mini-vans.

That's why Defiant was always my favorite ship. It's by federation standards over powered, over gunned, too small a crew. That ship is all kick-***.

That's why I like Stargate SG1. They treat space travel in a more realistic military fashion. and yes there are seat belts.

Oh, cool federation warships-
Defiant Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Defiant_class
Promethious Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Prometheus_class
Akira Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Akira_class
Sabre Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Saber_class
Sovereign Class - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sovereign_class

 

[elder999]

.....something else that comes to mind. With all our tech starting to point to unmanned drones, I see the manned "space fighter" as a bit of an anachronism. I see more of a futuristic battleship/missile frigate affair with long range unmanned sensor probes to extend sensor ranges. Being able to track and hold targets at extreme long range with beam weapons would be out IMO. Of course combat range will be limited by weapons, but I would think that long range would be the norm. Hell most of our current fighter aircraft are launching missiles at multiple targets over the horizon..

You'd be surprised at the real research that's being done in the direction of a "manned space fighter," as well as a few other things in like vein......

 

[Archangel M]

You'd be surprised at the real research that's being done in the direction of a "manned space fighter," as well as a few other things in like vein......

I'm betting its more of an "orbital fighter" than a true deep space combat craft. With orbital air transport on the boards I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Sukerkin]

Angel, probably the best depiction in literature of Sci-Fi space combat is found in the Honor Harrington series of books.

In my bones I'm a Naval Officer who never made it into the recrutiing office (thanks dad ) and was 50 years too late anyhow for the 'proper' era of sea warfare. The combat in the Harrington series is 'ships of the line' in space - broadsides, bow and stern chasers, armour, decoys, drones, 'shields' that are a consequence of the propulsion systems etc.

Wonderful stuff.

Unlike the re-imagining of Star Trek. Big thumbs down from this life long fan. Bad writing hidden by lots of noise, flash, quick cuts and short skirts. Nonsensical decisions made by characters and characters that act 'out of character' almost before they're established. Typical, hollow, Hollywood popcorn fodder. My missus loved it :shrugs:.

Even with the technology there was stuff I hated and things that were changed for no good reason ... but I shall not rant on what was wrong for despite all the flaws it was an enjoyable couple of hours. Karl Urban nailed Bones perfectly. Syler made a great Spock as I expected he would (other than all the unnecessary and against regulations snogging going on with Uhura). The 'new' Chekov and Sulu lacked the charisma and charm of the 'originals' and Kirk should be thrown into the Grand Canyon after that Stingray (destroy property, defy authority ... yeah I know, movie rules)!

All it did achieve is allow them to start from scratch with characters that are familiar but in an alternate universe (i.e. it wasn't just temporal shift which is how come you could have two Spocks). Hopefully things will improve and the next movie might have some plot and a moral centre.

 

[Omar B]

Oh, a David Weber fan I see. Good stuff man. BOLO!

 

[Archangel M]

Im a David Drake fan myself.

 

[jks9199]

Gordon Dickson also wrote some pretty good & realistic space combat. And, for that matter, future combat. He actually explains why, in a future with FTL travel, etc., the military is still fighting with weapons that aren't very different than what we've got today...

 

[girlbug2]

David Weber learned everything he knew about writing space operas from Lois McMaster Bujold. I highly recommend her books to any Weber fans.

Oh, ahem. This thread is about Star Trek. Loved it. I wish Michael Bey would take a lesson from JJ Abrams about how to build characters in a film that appear to have more than two dimensions. I might pay full movie price for Transformers if Abrams were directing.

 

[Omar B]

Hurt me girl! I'm a big fan of Bayhem, but then my criteria for judging a director might be different. With JJ the camera moves way too much (kinda like Greengrass in the Bourne movies) as well as bad lighting and lens flares everywhere. Bay might overload on action and concentrate less on characterization, but he's very much of the John Ford school where every frame of film looks good.

But hey, different strokes, I've heard a lot of people hate Bay for various reasons. I once had a date with this chick who's an NYU film student and we watched Transformers at my house and she was blown away by his style and knowledge of lighting. We ended up watching Bad Boys 2 after at her request.

But yeah, back to science military fiction. I'm a big fan of the Bolo series, I think those are great, also any sort of space battle that clsoely follows how a naval battle would work. But then, anything with military I love, I'm a huge Clancy nerd.

 

[astrobiologist]

Btw, the space jump that we saw executed in the film, that is a little less sci-fi and a little more science fact... Or at least it is coming in our future.

I almost interned for a company called Orbital Outfitters. They have a small venture called Space Diver which is aiming to beat the current HALO (high altitude - low oxygen) skydiving record, set in 1960, of 102,000 feet by jumping at 120,000 feet. Then they're working towards sub-orbital dives, and, after that, hopefully, LEO! (Low Earth Orbit). The idea is awesome! Sounds like fun! If we can properly do this it would provide an extra level of safety for travelers getting to orbit (if they need to abandon the launch ship they can jump out and return to the ground).

A guy named Eli Thompson, who hosted a discovery channel show called "Stunt Junkies", may be the first person to jump for Space Diver.

Check out: http://www.orbitaloutfitters.com/SpaceDiver.html

 

[Rich Parsons]

Btw, the space jump that we saw executed in the film, that is a little less sci-fi and a little more science fact... Or at least it is coming in our future.

I almost interned for a company called Orbital Outfitters. They have a small venture called Space Diver which is aiming to beat the current HALO (high altitude - low oxygen) skydiving record, set in 1960, of 102,000 feet by jumping at 120,000 feet. Then they're working towards sub-orbital dives, and, after that, hopefully, LEO! (Low Earth Orbit). The idea is awesome! Sounds like fun! If we can properly do this it would provide an extra level of safety for travelers getting to orbit (if they need to abandon the launch ship they can jump out and return to the ground).

A guy named Eli Thompson, who hosted a discovery channel show called "Stunt Junkies", may be the first person to jump for Space Diver.

Check out: http://www.orbitaloutfitters.com/SpaceDiver.html

Not that the idea is not cool because it is.

I just thought HALO stood for High Altitude - Low Opening so people would not see the planes and also would not see the chutes.

With HAHO is used for Spec Ops and other type missions where the noise of an opening chute would or could be a problem.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO_jump for both definitions. And as always use the links for real quotes and source verification.

 

[Archangel M]

HAHO (High Altitude High Opening) also allows the operator with an airfoil chute to "fly" a considerable distance to target. This allows the operator to be delivered a long (and confusing for the enemy) and surreptitious distance from the aircraft.

 

[Rich Parsons]

HAHO (High Altitude High Opening) also allows the operator with an airfoil chute to "fly" a considerable distance to target. This allows the operator to be delivered a long (and confusing for the enemy) and surreptitious distance from the aircraft.

I saw something on this on TLC or Discovery or, about the SEALs and their usage of this. As I cannot remember the name of the show or channel I jumped to WIKI where the resources quote some SEAL info and sites.

Of course it is not limited to SEALs, I just had that as my source.

 

[jks9199]

Military special forces make use of HAHO and HALO jumps for a variety of tactical and strategic purposes. That includes SEALs, Army Special Forces, and others.

The training is pretty intense; Discovery, National Geographic, or the Military Channel occasionally runs a kind of short series about the training; I think it's like 4 or 8 1-hour episodes, and follows one group through HALO training. One of the things they do is use what amouns to a giant silo with a HUGE fan to practice free-fall maneuvers. I WANT ONE!!! It looks like it's a ball! (Unless, of course, your career rides on successful developing the skills...)