Tyralak

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That about sums it up.

True. Warp Drive would be an advantage when dealing with areas that have no Hyperspace lanes. However, they would need to have other advantages besides just that if they were going to make a dent in the GE. Bringing knowledge of NDE weaponry like Phasers could be a plus, however most likely they would join the rebellion, not the other way around.

Welcome back, old buddy!

You realize the irony in that statement, don't you? This is something that's been rattling around in my head for a while, and at the risk of dragging Star Wars into a thread that really is strictly a Star Trek matter. I also want to make clear that the following isn't a dig at Brian or Curtis. I have the utmost respect for their work. I'm simply shedding light on what appears to be a double standard by some in the VS community. What you described is exactly what we're expected to do with the ICS. Now, I haven't changed my position. At least until Lucasfilm outright contradicts those firepower figures in a TCW episode or a subsequent movie, I still accept them. But this is the issue. We are expected to accept the ships generate X amount of power and have X amount of firepower based on extrapolation of acceleration. The lack of secondary effects from that kind of acceleration? Not important. The lack of any visual support for multi gigaton beam weapons? Not important. Mystery reactors that beat E=MC2 like a redheaded stepchild and somehow generate stellar level power with very limited fuel sources and without obliterating the ship from the inside out? Not important. Ships that can supposedly take stellar level energy bolts but can get creamed by a slow moving asteroid? Not important. It's just something we have to keep in mind. In any of these series, contradictions abound. It's not simply a matter of finding ways for such and such franchise to come out on top, but all explanations have to be explored, preconceptions challenged and angles examined. Khas is thinking outside the box, and that's extremely important. He brought up an interesting point of view and a direction that may not have been considered before.

It's sort a form of "molecular Judo" using the target's own stored energy against itself. I would clarify tough, it's not the the dense rocks can't be disintegrated, simply at that level of power output, they are heated and not disintegrated. Which is why when people shoot at a rock with the intention of heating it up, they turn the power way down. The interesting thing is, dense metals being less affected isn't limited to Trek weapons. Really any beam weapon would have a more difficult time destroying a denser material, whether the damage is done with heat or molecular disintegration.

No, the deflector isn't more powerful, its just different. There's a very long and annoying thread on the subject here. http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/259-Galaxy-class-starship-main-defector-dish-as-a-weapon Unless you're just assuming hyperbole, there's no reason to think he wasn't correct. In fact, it was stated in that same scene, that they had done extensive scans on the moon. Mostly to determine if there were life signs. Archer was well aware of the size and composition of that mountain. If it were an exaggeration, he wouldn't have been off by much.

In the episode, it was explained that destabilizing the asteroid by firing on it would cause it to collapse on the ship.

Its staggering but it makes . There has to be an explanation as to how just over a kiloton of energy could obliterate a mountain the size of mt McKinley. It explains an awful lot about phasers.

Now this should be made into a feature length film.

Two wrongs don't make a right. *shudder*

Where does it say that the technical manuals were removed?

Actually, this is the main reason to watch Firefly.

Like a boss.

How did I miss this? Classic!

Very nice work. The Moldy Crow especially. What sort of engineering degree are you pursuing?

Badly. Very badly.

Sounds good. Send it to me too if you don't mind.

Welcome to the board I've never actually seen the show, but I find all the hype over Bronies amusing.

I would love to be able to posrep you for that fine picture. Alas, there is no reputation system....

Well, there's the issue of licensing. CBS can't create a TV series based in the alternate timeline because Paramount owns the rights to the motion pictures. CBS can, however, create whatever they please in the Prime Universe. Barring CBS and Paramount actually agreeing on something, the only new TV shows we will see will be set in the Prime Universe. CBS has been making noises as of late regarding a new show. Quite likely to be set in the 25th century, in the same time as Star Trek Online.

I've had this discussion with several people, and I'll explain why it doesn't fit in the category of a "reboot". In Hollywood, when they make a reboot of a show or movie, they do several things. 1. They change and usually re-interpret the original show/movie. 2. They start over as if the previous work never existed, and they just now thought of this whole idea. This is not the case with ST XI. It's part of the overall continuity of Trek. They didn't replace anything in the existing canon. It's a parallel universe which is inexorably linked to the Prime Universe. In the Prime Universe, Romulus was destroyed, and Spock disappeared into the black hole. Any new TV shows or movies set in the Prime Universe would include this fact. Star Trek Online, which is considered "soft canon" by CBS (the story lines, not the player interaction.) has the Hobus event and the disappearance of Spock as part of the story line. It also explains why the Hobus event happened and who was responsible. Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy, for Pete's sake) is now living in the Alternate Universe, and is part of the stories in that universe. If CBS and Paramount could ever get together on anything, there is the possibility of crossover episodes like what happened with the Mirror Universe. Next, we have the fact that this sort of storyline isn't new to Trek. They've been doing things like this since TOS, and even more radical things in the novels. Time travel and alternate universes are par for the course with Trek. Paramount also includes this movie in the numbered films as ST XI. They obviously view it as part of the same franchise. It also maintains continuity with ENT, the same as the Prime Universe, since the split happened after ENT. A reboot would never do any of these things. This is clearly an expansion of Trek, not a replacement. For example, contrast this selection of Hollywood reboots with ST XI. Spiderman Total Recall Halloween (the Rob Zombie piece of shit) Friday the 13th A Nightmare on Elm Street Man of Steel Fright Night James Bond (the latest ones) What do all of these have in common? They ignore the previous body of work, a and re-imagine the series from the ground up. There is no connection whatsoever to what came before. ST XI is nothing like that. It expands on the Trek universe, it doesn't replace it. In fact, they went to great pains to integrate the story. Remember: Reboot replaces, spinoffs/alternate universes expand.

Let me see if I can scare it up for you. I'll do some hunting.