Michelle Steiner

In article <4e93f02b$0$19612$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.c om>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> That is when Tom Paris lost his teeth, turned into a reptile, made love
> to Captain Janeway (who had also turned into a reptile) and had children
> on a distant planet.

Captain Janeway travelled back in time to the early 21st century and became
a Regent in the Warehouse system. And put on a lot of weight in the
process.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

JKConey

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
news:4e93a968$0$20011$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraw eb.com...

About Warp. My understanding is that it is logarithmic, like earthquake
scales. Warp factor 4 is much more than 4 times warp factor 1. That is
how they can travel through space to get to destination so quickly.

With regards to windows:

In Québec, one reason older homes had their large windows in small
squares is that there was no manufacyurer capable of making large panes
of glass, so they made small ones and used wooden frames to make a large
windows form many small square glass panes.

I suspect that uneven glass (thicker on one side) may have been the
result of manufacturing techniques/limitations in the old days and they
simply got installed with the thicker end at the bottom. (logical since
it has to support the weight of the whole glass).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Yes flat glass changed with the invention of the FLOAT method.

http://myconeyislandmemories.com/sin...ios/index.html

Todd Allcock

At 10 Oct 2011 20:21:54 -0400 Wes Groleau wrote:

> On 10-10-2011 12:14, Davoud wrote:

> > *You recall from your own quantum physics classes that there is
> > insufficient energy in the Universe to accelerate an atom, much less a
> > starship, to c, and certainly not to "warp" speeds!

>
> Not only that, but if you believe the "Star Fleet Technical Manual"
> which says the warp factor N is effectively N²C then you must also

believe that earth to alpha centauri is a forty-day journey, and

> the next closest star is over a year away.
>
> (Unless you go to the speeds that make Scotty apoplectic,
> then the second trip is still over a year.)

I had the ST Technical Manual as a kid, and realized even at 9 or 10
years old that the "math" didn't work at all, or else the "five year
mission" would only allow for a handful of destinations.

Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical." The
whole point of Trek's use of vague measurements like "warp factors" or
"Stardates" was to NOT have to get the math or continuity correct! (Yet
despite that convenience, they were never very consistent about the
vastness of space. If the plot required, the crew could have a real-
time, no-delay video chat with their superiors at "Starfleet Command",
but in other episodes, it would "take weeks" for their radio message to
reach "the nearest Starbase," forcing the crew to act autonomously, and
ensuring that reinforcements couldn't arrive to save the day and short-
circuit the dramatic peril our heroes found themselves in.)


A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space was
made by the series "Space:1999", though. We were supposed to believe the
show's premise that the Moon was somehow propelled out oid its orbit by
an atomic explosion and was accelerated so insanely fast that it could
reach a different solar system every episode, yet when it reached one,
the Moon managed to stay in range of the planet it was whizzing by for
several days so our heroes had time to make several trips back and forth
in their sublight-speed "Eagle" shuttlecrafts as the plot required.
(When deciding if each new planet was a suitable place to abandon the
Moon and live on, the characters would often state they only had a "few
days" to make the decision before the planet was out of range forever.)
Conveniently for our wandering heroes a never-ending panorama of solar
systems containing inhabitable planets seemed to exist in the rough
straight line course of the unfortunate Moon (that also inexplicably
still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special effects"
shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock astronomical
photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)


Of course, setting Space:1999 on the Moon wasn't done for any specific
dramatic purpose or plot necessity as much as to capitalize on the
public's fascination with the still relatively recent Moon landings, as
well as to economize by reusing the moonscape miniatures and sets
leftover from Gerry Anderson's prior effort, "UFO". (I really dug the
silver miniskirts and purple wigs that made up the "uniforms" the women
on the moonbase wore on UFO. Much cooler than the utilitarian unisex
costumes on '99.)

Yet despite all the bad science, they were very entertaining. I could
forgive the stuff like that which was necessitated by the series format
more than the basic factual errors in utter crap like "Lost in Space",
that in an early episode had the characters racing to repair their
spacecraft to escape being burned by the searing *heat* of an approaching
comet!

(I was also disappointed/annoyed by the flaming trails on meteors in the
vacuum of space by an episode of the Doctor Who remake series a few years
ago, but at least the writer acknowledged the bad science in his "making
of" book afterwards and said they tried it both ways but used the flaming
meteors in the finished product because it looked "much cooler" that way.
"Who" was really never trying to be "science fiction" in any sense other
than the Flash Gordon-esque ray guns, robots, 'n monsters style anyhow.)

JF Mezei

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical."


It is.

You'll find that Zephram Cochrane will have been given the CD of 1701D
technical manual when he was a kid, managed to make it work on modern
computer and decided to actually build a warp drive based on the
schematics provided by Gene Rodenbury, and low and behold, it all worked !

Few people know that Gene Rodenbury travelled back in time from the 24th
century to the 20th century in order to sow the seeds for all that tech).

In fact, major inventions such as warp drive and transparent aluminium
all came from people time travelling from the future.


> A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space was
> made by the series "Space:1999", though.

I don't think they ever defined how much time had elapsed since the
previous episode. But judging from the fact that they always managed to
repair all the damage from the previous week,s episode, I would say that
many weeks if not months had elapsed between episodes.


> still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special effects"
> shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock astronomical
> photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)

Special effects for Space 1999 were actually very good for a TV show of
that vintage. We take today's CGI for granted, but back then, it was
truly special effects.

Read up on how, in the movie 2001, they managed to make the shot of the
pen floating in the aisle of the space plane. That will give you a very
good idea of how special effects were done back then.

Todd Allcock

At 11 Oct 2011 19:51:42 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical."
>
>
> It is.
>
> You'll find that Zephram Cochrane will have been given the CD of 1701D
> technical manual when he was a kid, managed to make it work on modern
> computer and decided to actually build a warp drive based on the
> schematics provided by Gene Rodenbury, and low and behold, it all
> worked !

Actually the Technical Manual claims to be something almost as silly.
It's supposedly, according to its introduction, a recently discovered
document accidentally recorded by a military computer, complete with a
transcript of a garbled distress call from a "UFO" caling itself the
Enterprise to its homebase, a "United Federation of Planets" and assumed
to be a hoax. (Referencing, of course, the episode where the Enterprise
finds itself in the 1960's and is forced to destroy an Air Force plane
investigating the Enterprise as a "UFO".)

Due to the "classified" nature of some of the document, the electrical
schematics of the equipment (like the communicators) have been replaced
with "20th century equivalents".


> Few people know that Gene Rodenbury travelled back in time from the 24th
> century to the 20th century in order to sow the seeds for all that tech).



Not necessary- the Enterprise itself traveled to our time period whenever
the set/costume budget was running low, so Gene could've bumped into his
"characters" several times as a plain old 20th century television writer.

> In fact, major inventions such as warp drive and transparent aluminium
> all came from people time travelling from the future.

That's a tough paradox to deal with. Once the past has them, the future
no longer needs to invent them, and *poof*- they no longer exist to be
dropped off in the past.


> > A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space
> > was made by the series "Space:1999", though.
>
> I don't think they ever defined how much time had elapsed since the
> previous episode. But judging from the fact that they always managed to
> repair all the damage from the previous week,s episode, I would say that
> many weeks if not months had elapsed between episodes.

You're kind of missing the point. Weeks, months or years would he
immaterial. Eons would be needed.

The Eagle shuttles portrayed in the show, were seemingly designed to
travel between the Earth and the Moon, and constantly had fuel/range
problems whenever necessary to enhance the drama. For the Moon to remain
in "Eagle range" of *any*
planet for the few days to a week that many episodes of the show
established as the timeline, the Moon would have to be traveling so
slowly it wouldn't reach the next planet in the characters' (or their
great grandchildrens'!) lifetimes.


> > still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special
> > effects" shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock
> > astronomical photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)
>
> Special effects for Space 1999 were actually very good for a TV show of
> that vintage. We take today's CGI for granted, but back then, it was
> truly special effects.

I prefer "real" special effects (miniatures, models, mattes, etc.) to
CGI. CGI looks far too "cartoony" to me. '99 had some real decent
miniature work for its day and venue (independent TV vs. network TV or
film), and Anderson cut his teeth on his earlier efforts like
Thunderbirds and UFO, but it still tended to look a bit weak when the
"moondust" kicked up, which betrayed the small size of the models and
gave it all a bit of a "Thunderbirds with live actors" feel.

Todd Allcock

At 11 Oct 2011 19:51:42 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical."
>
>
> It is.
>
> You'll find that Zephram Cochrane will have been given the CD of 1701D
> technical manual when he was a kid, managed to make it work on modern
> computer and decided to actually build a warp drive based on the
> schematics provided by Gene Rodenbury, and low and behold, it all
> worked !

Actually the Technical Manual claims to be something almost as silly.
It's supposedly, according to its introduction, a recently discovered
document accidentally recorded by a military computer, complete with a
transcript of a garbled distress call from a "UFO" caling itself the
Enterprise to its homebase, a "United Federation of Planets" and assumed
to be a hoax. (Referencing, of course, the episode where the Enterprise
finds itself in the 1960's and is forced to destroy an Air Force plane
investigating the Enterprise as a "UFO".)

Due to the "classified" nature of some of the document, the electrical
schematics of the equipment (like the communicators) have been replaced
with "20th century equivalents".


> Few people know that Gene Rodenbury travelled back in time from the 24th
> century to the 20th century in order to sow the seeds for all that tech).




Not necessary- the Enterprise itself traveled to our time period whenever
the set/costume budget was running low, so Gene could've bumped into his
"characters" several times as a plain old 20th century television writer.

> In fact, major inventions such as warp drive and transparent aluminium
> all came from people time travelling from the future.

That's a tough paradox to deal with. Once the past has them, the future
no longer needs to invent them, and *poof*- they no longer exist to be
dropped off in the past.


> > A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space
> > was made by the series "Space:1999", though.
>
> I don't think they ever defined how much time had elapsed since the
> previous episode. But judging from the fact that they always managed to
> repair all the damage from the previous week,s episode, I would say that
> many weeks if not months had elapsed between episodes.

You're kind of missing the point. Weeks, months or years would he
immaterial. Eons would be needed.

The Eagle shuttles portrayed in the show, were seemingly designed to
travel between the Earth and the Moon, and constantly had fuel/range
problems whenever necessary to enhance the drama. For the Moon to remain
in "Eagle range" of *any*
planet for the few days to a week that many episodes of the show
established as the timeline, the Moon would have to be traveling so
slowly it wouldn't reach the next planet in the characters' (or their
great grandchildrens'!) lifetimes.


> > still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special
> > effects" shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock
> > astronomical photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)
>
> Special effects for Space 1999 were actually very good for a TV show of
> that vintage. We take today's CGI for granted, but back then, it was
> truly special effects.

I prefer "real" special effects (miniatures, models, mattes, etc.) to
CGI. CGI looks far too "cartoony" to me. '99 had some real decent
miniature work for its day and venue (independent TV vs. network TV or
film), and Anderson cut his teeth on his earlier efforts like
Thunderbirds and UFO, but it still tended to look a bit weak when the
"moondust" kicked up, which betrayed the small size of the models and
gave it all a bit of a "Thunderbirds" feel.

Todd Allcock

At 11 Oct 2011 19:51:42 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical."
>
>
> It is.
>
> You'll find that Zephram Cochrane will have been given the CD of 1701D
> technical manual when he was a kid, managed to make it work on modern
> computer and decided to actually build a warp drive based on the
> schematics provided by Gene Rodenbury, and low and behold, it all
> worked !

Actually the Technical Manual claims to be something almost as silly.
It's supposedly, according to its introduction, a recently discovered
document accidentally recorded by a military computer, complete with a
transcript of a garbled distress call from a "UFO" caling itself the
Enterprise to its homebase, a "United Federation of Planets" and assumed
to be a hoax. (Referencing, of course, the episode where the Enterprise
finds itself in the 1960's and is forced to destroy an Air Force plane
investigating the Enterprise as a "UFO".)

Due to the "classified" nature of some of the document, the electrical
schematics of the equipment (like the communicators) have been replaced
with "20th century equivalents".


> Few people know that Gene Rodenbury travelled back in time from the 24th
> century to the 20th century in order to sow the seeds for all that tech).




Not necessary- the Enterprise itself traveled to our time period whenever
the set/costume budget was running low, so Gene could've bumped into his
"characters" several times as a plain old 20th century television writer.

> In fact, major inventions such as warp drive and transparent aluminium
> all came from people time travelling from the future.

That's a tough paradox to deal with. Once the past has them, the future
no longer needs to invent them, and *poof*- they no longer exist to be
dropped off in the past.


> > A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space
> > was made by the series "Space:1999", though.
>
> I don't think they ever defined how much time had elapsed since the
> previous episode. But judging from the fact that they always managed to
> repair all the damage from the previous week,s episode, I would say that
> many weeks if not months had elapsed between episodes.

You're kind of missing the point. Weeks, months or years would he
immaterial. Eons would be needed.

The Eagle shuttles portrayed in the show, were seemingly designed to
travel between the Earth and the Moon, and constantly had fuel/range
problems whenever necessary to enhance the drama. For the Moon to remain
in "Eagle range" of *any*
planet for the few days to a week that many episodes of the show
established as the timeline, the Moon would have to be traveling so
slowly it wouldn't reach the next planet in the characters' (or their
great grandchildrens'!) lifetimes.


> > still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special
> > effects" shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock
> > astronomical photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)
>
> Special effects for Space 1999 were actually very good for a TV show of
> that vintage. We take today's CGI for granted, but back then, it was
> truly special effects.

I prefer "real" special effects (miniatures, models, mattes, etc.) to
CGI. CGI looks far too "cartoony" to me. '99 had some real decent
miniature work for its day and venue (independent TV vs. network TV or
film), and Anderson cut his teeth on his earlier efforts like
Thunderbirds and UFO, but it still tended to look a bit weak when the
"moondust" kicked up, which betrayed the small size of the models and
gave it all a bit of a "Thunderbirds" feel.

Todd Allcock

At 11 Oct 2011 19:51:42 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical."
>
>
> It is.
>
> You'll find that Zephram Cochrane will have been given the CD of 1701D
> technical manual when he was a kid, managed to make it work on modern
> computer and decided to actually build a warp drive based on the
> schematics provided by Gene Rodenbury, and low and behold, it all
> worked !

Actually the Technical Manual claims to be something almost as silly.
It's supposedly, according to its introduction, a recently discovered
document accidentally recorded by a military computer, complete with a
transcript of a garbled distress call from a "UFO" caling itself the
Enterprise to its homebase, a "United Federation of Planets" and assumed
to be a hoax. (Referencing, of course, the episode where the Enterprise
finds itself in the 1960's and is forced to destroy an Air Force plane
investigating the Enterprise as a "UFO".)

Due to the "classified" nature of some of the document, the electrical
schematics of the equipment (like the communicators) have been replaced
with "20th century equivalents".


> Few people know that Gene Rodenbury travelled back in time from the 24th
> century to the 20th century in order to sow the seeds for all that tech).


Not necessary- the Enterprise itself traveled to our time period whenever
the set/costume budget was running low, so Gene could've bumped into his
"characters" several times as a plain old 20th century television writer.

> In fact, major inventions such as warp drive and transparent aluminium
> all came from people time travelling from the future.

That's a tough paradox to deal with. Once the past has them, the future
no longer needs to invent them, and *poof*- they no longer exist to be
dropped off in the past.


> > A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space
> > was made by the series "Space:1999", though.
>
> I don't think they ever defined how much time had elapsed since the
> previous episode. But judging from the fact that they always managed to
> repair all the damage from the previous week,s episode, I would say that
> many weeks if not months had elapsed between episodes.

You're kind of missing the point. Weeks, months or years would he
immaterial. Eons would be needed.

The Eagle shuttles portrayed in the show, were seemingly designed to
travel between the Earth and the Moon, and constantly had fuel/range
problems whenever necessary to enhance the drama. For the Moon to remain
in "Eagle range" of *any*
planet for the few days to a week that many episodes of the show
established as the timeline, the Moon would have to be traveling so
slowly it wouldn't reach the next planet in the characters' (or their
great grandchildrens'!) lifetimes.


> > still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special
> > effects" shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock
> > astronomical photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)
>
> Special effects for Space 1999 were actually very good for a TV show of
> that vintage. We take today's CGI for granted, but back then, it was
> truly special effects.

I prefer "real" special effects (miniatures, models, mattes, etc.) to
CGI. CGI looks far too "cartoony" to me. '99 had some real decent
miniature work for its day and venue (independent TV vs. network TV or
film), and Anderson cut his teeth on his earlier efforts like
Thunderbirds and UFO, but it still tended to look a bit weak when the
"moondust" kicked up, which betrayed the small size of the models and
gave it all a bit of a "Thunderbirds with live actors" feel.

Todd Allcock

Sorry for the multiple posts. Ancient newsreader with "stuck" outbox
loses battle with stubborn Usenet provider!

Todd Allcock

At 11 Oct 2011 19:51:42 -0400 JF Mezei wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Of course, we Trek geeks would argue the Manual isn't "canonical."
>
>
> It is.
>
> You'll find that Zephram Cochrane will have been given the CD of 1701D
> technical manual when he was a kid, managed to make it work on modern
> computer and decided to actually build a warp drive based on the
> schematics provided by Gene Rodenbury, and low and behold, it all
> worked !

Actually the Technical Manual claims to be something almost as silly.
It's supposedly, according to its introduction, a recently discovered
document accidentally recorded by a military computer, complete with a
transcript of a garbled distress call from a "UFO" caling itself the
Enterprise to its homebase, a "United Federation of Planets" and assumed
to be a hoax. (Referencing, of course, the episode where the Enterprise
finds itself in the 1960's and is forced to destroy an Air Force plane
investigating the Enterprise as a "UFO".)

Due to the "classified" nature of some of the document, the electrical
schematics of the equipment (like the communicators) have been replaced
with "20th century equivalents".


> Few people know that Gene Rodenbury travelled back in time from the 24th
> century to the 20th century in order to sow the seeds for all that tech).



Not necessary- the Enterprise itself traveled to our time period whenever
the set/costume budget was running low, so Gene could've bumped into his
"characters" several times as a plain old 20th century television writer.

> In fact, major inventions such as warp drive and transparent aluminium
> all came from people time travelling from the future.

That's a tough paradox to deal with. Once the past has them, the future
no longer needs to invent them, and *poof*- they no longer exist to be
dropped off in the past.


> > A much worse transgression on the realities of the vastness of space
> > was made by the series "Space:1999", though.
>
> I don't think they ever defined how much time had elapsed since the
> previous episode. But judging from the fact that they always managed to
> repair all the damage from the previous week,s episode, I would say that
> many weeks if not months had elapsed between episodes.

You're kind of missing the point. Weeks, months or years would he
immaterial. Eons would be needed.

The Eagle shuttles portrayed in the show, were seemingly designed to
travel between the Earth and the Moon, and constantly had fuel/range
problems whenever necessary to enhance the drama. For the Moon to remain
in "Eagle range" of *any*
planet for the few days to a week that many episodes of the show
established as the timeline, the Moon would have to be traveling so
slowly it wouldn't reach the next planet in the characters' (or their
great grandchildrens'!) lifetimes.


> > still had phases in the deep void of space, since the "special
> > effects" shots of the Moon drifting through space were usually stock
> > astronomical photos of the Moon in its first or last quarter!)
>
> Special effects for Space 1999 were actually very good for a TV show of
> that vintage. We take today's CGI for granted, but back then, it was
> truly special effects.

I prefer "real" special effects (miniatures, models, mattes, etc.) to
CGI. CGI looks far too "cartoony" to me. '99 had some real decent
miniature work for its day and venue (independent TV vs. network TV or
film), and Anderson cut his teeth on his earlier efforts like
Thunderbirds and UFO, but it still tended to look a bit weak when the
"moondust" kicked up, which betrayed the small size of the models and
gave it all a bit of a "Thunderbirds with live actors" feel.