Spacedock in Discovery

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:15 am

There's no evidence anything like that exists in Prime. Starbase 74 was our largest previously-observed space construction, IIRC, and there was no indication of such monstrous scale otherwise.

So yes, I find the notion that, in 28 years, they either heavily modified Spacedock before completion or completed it then rebuilt most of it to be strange in the extreme.

Indeed, not to turn your argument around, but even rebuilds like the TMP refit are exceedingly rare. Starships usually don't change appearance that much, but instead look largely unchanged for decades. The notion that they'd just blow hundreds or thousands of ships worth of material in a Spacedock rebuild yet leave most ships alone for decades is odd.

Of course, assuming the reverse (i.e. that they rebuild the crap out of everything after a couple of years) is about the only way to have Discovery's rendition of NCC-1701 work . . .

Image

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Khas » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:57 am

Actually, there IS precedent for something that big in the Prime Timeline. Introducing... the Federation central library at Memory Alpha:
Enterprise at Memory Alpha.png
Even if we assume that the Memory Alpha planetoid is "only" the size of Ceres, that structure is still several hundred kilometers across.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:59 pm

"Trek Remastered producer Mike Okuda tells TrekMovie:

'Based on the size and spacing of the windows, I’d estimate that each of the domes must be similar to the Superdome.'"

That it has visible windows at all, not to mention the clean lines, supports the smaller size, unless you wanna argue for 20km glittering cities around the rims.

Put simply, even if you accept that version, the fact is that it's internally contradictory.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:28 pm

2046 wrote:There's no evidence anything like that exists in Prime. Starbase 74 was our largest previously-observed space construction, IIRC, and there was no indication of such monstrous scale otherwise.

So yes, I find the notion that, in 28 years, they either heavily modified Spacedock before completion or completed it then rebuilt most of it to be strange in the extreme.
But you missed the point of Starbase Yorktown: it is something that is very possible in the Prime Timeline since it is, as far as we know, the Kelvin Timeline uses the same technology, with some exceptions, as in the Prime. The only thing that changed is the motivation for building a megastructure on that scale.
2046 wrote:Indeed, not to turn your argument around, but even rebuilds like the TMP refit are exceedingly rare. Starships usually don't change appearance that much, but instead look largely unchanged for decades. The notion that they'd just blow hundreds or thousands of ships worth of material in a Spacedock rebuild yet leave most ships alone for decades is odd.

Of course, assuming the reverse (i.e. that they rebuild the crap out of everything after a couple of years) is about the only way to have Discovery's rendition of NCC-1701 work . . .
That gets to another, perhaps too subtle, point. The Motion Picture is the first major visual and technological reboot for Star Trek, at least as far as what we now call the Prime Timeline is concerned. Discovery is the the second one. Arguably Star Trek: Enterprise is a partial one, and according to ST:DSC's showrunners, is a major influence, which is why you see the "NX Nacelles" for the Enterprise. But to be honest, given the radical changes made between the TOS Enterprise and the TMP refit, the DSC Enterprise actually makes a helluva lot more sense as you can see that being much more easily refitted into the TMP one from a structural standpoint.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:49 pm

2046 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:59 pm
"Trek Remastered producer Mike Okuda tells TrekMovie:

'Based on the size and spacing of the windows, I’d estimate that each of the domes must be similar to the Superdome.'"

That it has visible windows at all, not to mention the clean lines, supports the smaller size, unless you wanna argue for 20km glittering cities around the rims.

Put simply, even if you accept that version, the fact is that it's internally contradictory.
Even in this high-res image, you can barely see any windows at all. Of course, you can see city lights easily from a few hundred miles up. And what does it say about the Death Star that we can see windows so easily on it:

Image

So is the Death Star about ten miles or so wide now?
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:30 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:But you missed the point of Starbase Yorktown: it is something that is very possible in the Prime Timeline since it is, as far as we know, the Kelvin Timeline uses the same technology, with some exceptions, as in the Prime.
Oy.

No. The Kelvin universe isn't remotely connected. Even the planets are in the wrong place. Or is moving star systems a la the T'Kon now a Federation capability?

The answer's no, and further it's a dreadful mistake to confound the two universes.

That said, there are many things that are "very possible". (Rome could've conquered the entire planet, for instance, with steam-powered trains moving troops across the Empire by 200 CE.). But there are only a few things that truly fit. A huge artificial planetoid-like station, named after Yorktown for no apparent reason, built for ridiculous reasons and on the periphery, is preposterous.
That gets to another, perhaps too subtle, point. The Motion Picture is the first major visual and technological reboot for Star Trek, at least as far as what we now call the Prime Timeline is concerned. Discovery is the the second one.


Nope. Chronologically-based changes, like that of TMP or TNG, are not reboots, especially when they respect what came before. The TNG-ENT productions were very clear in pretty faithfully depicting the TOS and TMP eras when needed.

Meanwhile, Discovery can't even get phasers right.
Arguably Star Trek: Enterprise is a partial one
Nope. It was no Masao's Starfleet Museum piece, sure, and I have problems with it based on the writing staff having a weak sense of continuity, but it wasn't a reboot any more than TNG.
the DSC Enterprise actually makes a helluva lot more sense as you can see that being much more easily refitted into the TMP one from a structural standpoint.


Why would that matter? These guys supposedly rebuild Spacedock-size stations out of boredom, right? By that logic Discovery itself could be the Enterprise-A.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:36 am

Mike DiCenso wrote: So is the Death Star about ten miles or so wide now?
1. You're smarter than your present arguments.
2. It goes without saying… or so I thought… that city lights are visible. That's lights in aggregate merged through haze and distance, not individual windows.

The Death Star's glitter is similar, and the battlestation is very clearly and repeatedly shown to be much larger than ten miles, ergo your suggestion otherwise was a pointless and absurd 'rebuttal'.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 359 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:33 am

2046 wrote:"Trek Remastered producer Mike Okuda tells TrekMovie:

'Based on the size and spacing of the windows, I’d estimate that each of the domes must be similar to the Superdome.'"

That it has visible windows at all, not to mention the clean lines, supports the smaller size, unless you wanna argue for 20km glittering cities around the rims.

Put simply, even if you accept that version, the fact is that it's internally contradictory.
One thing is clear, the object on which it is built is a sphere. And for rocky celestial bodies to be spherical they must be at least 400 km in diameter. Additionally, although Okuda's statement may suggest where to look, it is not technically canon.


Really the argument comes down to this: is one willing to put aside minor visual alterations and maintain the prime universe (as intended). Or will one insist that it is an alternate universe because of such minor reimaginings (...and a couple of glass vliewscreens).

I will go with maintaining prime status for DIS. Because I've never thought of the on screen images as always literal. And since doing so would involve putting up with some hefty nonsense anyway, I see no reason for this new series to be held to such a standard for visual consistency. Anyway, what they're doing is light-years better than the old 60's look.

...Except for the Discovery, that thing is hideous.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:20 pm

I know about the sizes of spherical things. I was busting that out onto the unsuspecting opposition* back in 2004, leading to a bemused blog post of mine in 2006 when the IAU planet definition popularized the point.

(* They were trying to claim a natural sphere with differentiated crust was two kilometers wide.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... his.52951/ )

I also know design intent isn't canon, and that the windows are barely visible. But, they are.

Put simply, like Discovery's visuals *and* story, the interpretation of the remaster scene doesn't fit the known Trek universe. It's better to stick with the original version or else presume the wee planetoid was modified, which would've been trivially easy for 23rd Century tech.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... inuity.htm

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 359 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:36 pm

I am aware you know of these facts, I am simply pointing them out in this instance. Because as far as this one event is concerned there are no facts suggesting that MA is anything other than a mega-structure. However, I agree that in the face of the greater narrative it is unlikely.

But, again, looking at this case alone there is no solid counter evidence, in contrast there exists a body of visual evidence for mega-structure status.


On a different note... actually, Discoveries inconsistancies probably deserves its own thread.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:13 pm

2046 wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:25 am
I like how you declare me to be on a hateful, Saxton-like crusade of not wanting to acknowledge things, when my entire reason for further explaining the obvious differences and their meaning in the thread is that the obvious differences and their meaning were being willfully ignored.
No that is all you, Robert. You've been on this anti-DISC thing for a while now along with the anti-Kelvin kick. You've also had a history lately of picking odd fights with people, now that Mr. Oragahn isn't posting lately, you've now re-focused.
Were the Spacedock issue an isolated incident in a show that was not obviously a reboot -- a show that calls itself a "visual reboot", and which has clearly tossed out existing design philosophy before -- then, hey, sure, you could argue I am being a dick, overzealous, or some combo thereof

But it's Discovery, for crying out loud . . . they're intentionally redesigning everything and explicitly saying so. How the hell is that controversial and evidence of a crusading hater?

But I digress.
But that's how you're coming across here, whether it's your intention or not. I'll go into it more later. This was a quick view of Spacedock in DISC, shown as an easter egg for the vigilant fans of the station under construction. We didn't get a super-detailed CGI model, just something that was easily recognizable and could be seen to be under construction. It's close enough that people can figure out ways it can be exactly like it will in the movies 28 years later, if they want or they can except that it's been redesigned some as part of the visual reboot.
All I said in the initial post was that it looks different, which it does, and pointed out the absurdity of the argument type commonly made by those trolling types who reject the reboot nature of the show that it would be readily rebuilt a mere twenty-odd years later at the cost of thousands of starships of material. (I stand amused that this has come to pass, by the way.)
It's hardly an absurdity if you want to use that as an explanation. You just keep rejecting the evidence of such a capability.
Your response was that it was the "same exact design", which was obviously not correct and needlessly opposing what I said. After I naturally replied, this was later amended to "largely the same design", with remaining differences again chalked up to it being incomplete.


That's a surprisingly dishonest out of context thing you've done here. Let me restore it and maybe you can see what you're doing:

"It is pretty much the same exact design, the only discrepancies can be easily explained away by the fact that the station appears to be about 75 to 85% complete at this point. "

Nowhere did I say it was the precisely exact design, the differences are acknowledged right from the get-go and an explanation as to why and how there can be differences is made. You rejected that. You handwaved away the explanation and even in a surprising turn denounced anyone putting forth an explanation as "I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."

You claim not to be filled with hate or on a crusade, but given statements like that and the mostly likely tone behind it, it's not a hard conclusion to come to.

While less obviously wrong, this still sidestepped the point that only a major and costly reconstruction of the basic structure could possibly produce the TMP-era Prime Spacedock . . . that is to say, it was handwaving the differences. You're smarter than that, so I posted a better visual aid. You again handwaved it as incompleteness, dismissing the rest as already addressed, which I viewed to be quite incorrect.
Thus, now employing a fan-made digital model of the Prime Spacedock and demonstrating that it was close to the real thing (but for differences I noted and which you noted again for whatever reason, as if I had not already pointed them out), I went over in greater detail the differences.
Close by what standard? There's enough deviation there to make it somewhat questionable as a tool. I provided a better one with a photograph of the actual model used in the movies.
Your response to this is very strange. I can't imagine why you posted a lot of non-canon Spacedock versions, for instance. I suppose you're suggesting I should've built a perfect CG model myself, but since the effort I have already put in is dismissed as evidence of a hateful crusade, one wonders why I should trouble myself to achieve such splendid visual precision if even near-perfect sketches are so readily discarded.
There's nothing strange in it, Robert. It boils down to if you use a non-canon source, one that has imperfections, clearly, then why can't I to make my points? The fact is that you're going down the same route that Saxton did by claiming this isn't Our Prime Spacedock because it has differences in much the same manner as Saxton did back in 2006.
To then attack the visual hiccups in Prime canon, even to the point of employing the Cardboard Fallacy, is also amusing, especially insofar as an imperfect LCARS representation of the model that appears in the very same episode. Most people recognize that for what it was, which is the very same thing I am doing in regards to the Discovery station.
But by your own logic and the way you seem to be taking any discrepancies, is that is proof that any difference means it's not the Prime. You've even subtly dropped that in this and other threads. It's amusing that you don't want to deal with evidence counter to your narrative, especially after all the years you spent arguing against this very sort of thing by Warsies.
At last, you finally argue that it's the same because the producers supposedly say so. I'm not aware of them having said anything about Spacedock one way or the other, but in any case that does at least correctly encapsulate your argument. It's the same design by fiat and faith, and damn one's eyes. If they offend, pluck them out, eh?


That is another out of context assigning to me. You claim I call you hateful and on a crusade, but that is a truthful observation. You've been trying to do this sort of thing before by claiming Spock Prime is not from the Prime universe and it is clear you are not doing so tongue in cheek when you go through point by point trying to disprove Prime Spock the 2009 movie is not from Prime Star Trek.
Meanwhile, visually and otherwise, Star Trek: Discovery is a reboot, and this is obviously not Prime Spacedock. The facts of a reboot do not interfere with or rewrite the facts of the Prime canon. It is mythical to that canon as surely as Kahless forging the first bat'leth from a lock of his hair is mythical . . . impossible as such a thing would be in Discovery, what with the hairless Klingons and all . . .
"Star Trek: Discovery is a reboot, and this is obviously not Prime Spacedock"

But it is supposed to be the Prime Spacedock. Being a literalist about things creates problems as well you know from years of debating with Saxtonites. To turn the example you gave about, the Kahless of TOS would not be in-line at all with the one of TNG:

Image

Image

There's no getting around it here, even if you claim that the Excalibans drew from the memories of Kirk and Spock solely and this image of Kahless was what Kirk imagined him to look like despite what the later TNG episode "Rightful Heir" along with the much later ST:ENT shows us about Kahless and Klingons and what the Federation would have known about them.

So, to go down your path, we can just say that every time an inconsistency or change is made, we the audience are doing a Sliders-like slipping from one parallel Trek universe to another rather than just except that changes are going to happen to upgrade the series. For Star Wars, heck, let's do the same thing. There's the The Star Wars universe we all first fell in love with in 1977 and then there's that other universe of the Special Editions and then the Prequels and now the Disney universes that are parallel to but not the same one we were first introduced to.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:55 am

The hell? You're misremembering my point about Oragahn and wrongly applying it to me.

And who's picking the fight, here? (I'd already had the thought about you but was too polite to say it.) But, to pare down my previous explanation, the fact is your dismissive and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious, upon which you then pile insult, is the only reason this conversation is ongoing.

As you kept refusing to acknowledge things, did I say that you were being willfully blind or a crusading loon or whatever? No, I said I must not have explained it adequately. That phrasing implies a certain faith in you. Hell, one of my worst insults to you in this thread was that you're smarter than the arguments you're making.
I had to moderate that nonsense, so yes I remember it all too well, Robert. There is a definite pattern. I don't know what it is lately, but sometimes you and to a similar extent Oragahn have taken on that is a bit disturbing and I had to lock the thread because you two wouldn't stop what you were doing which was no longer about debating anymore just scoring points. To put in the terms you just used, I'm shocked and I hold you in high regard that what you are doing sometimes just is off-putting.
Oh yeah, though, I am *totally* being the crusade-y badguy.
You've been on this kick against New Trek for a while. I understand you don't like the Kelvin Timeline or Discovery and that's all right, but trying to prove that Old Spock was not from the Prime universe because of some inconstancy without it being tongue-in-cheek is a little "crusade-y".
But it's Discovery, for crying out loud . . . they're intentionally redesigning everything and explicitly saying so. How the hell is that controversial and evidence of a crusading hater?
It isn't. But you took any change they made to mean that it is not the Prime timeline and your OP was geared as an insult to anyone who might explain it away.
To you, maybe, since evidently I am insulting your favorite thing.


By that I presume you mean Discovery. I like it. I don't love it. The series clearly has its faults and I'm not happy right now with what was done with Captain Lorca nor with Burnham saving Mirror Georgiou. But oddly few have actually touched on them, rather are arguing about minute things.
Some of us noticed it wasn't right, right away. Sorry you missed it, and refused to accept it when shown, but that's a whole big bag of not-my-problem.


Right and you made a big thing out of it. There wasn't enough difference to care about and you brushed off any idea that the station still under construction could be a factor or that it could be changed. Again, your OP pretty much backhands anyone making such a claim and you even went so far to misconstrue my own statements about it.
YBecause the evidence isn't.It makes more sense to assume a second space facility than to ignore the problems with this one and the senseless rebuild. Would that be suitably non-minimalist for you?


But it is there. The Kelvin and Prime Timelines for TOS are spun right out of the same technologies, the same number of planets, resources, etc. That the Prime Timeline doesn't have a reason (that we know of) to have a starbase like Yorktown isn't proof against it. It's the other way around. The application of the technologies to produce bigger ships and stations in response to the Narada incursion and later the destruction of Vulcan is a huge motivator. They didn't suddenly get super advanced tech, they just went in a different direction with what they already had.

And a second Spacedock would make sense, really. Why just have one to service starships? We saw multiple large space stations as part of the Utopia Planitia shipyards in VOY's "Relativity" along with a swarm of the lattice drydocks. All of which were keeping position within a hundred km of each other. That's what DISC is doing when they dropped the Spacedock easter egg, they are showing a vast infrastructure that was only hinted at previously and now is realized.
Bullshit. You said it was the same exact design, the *only* discrepancies being explained by incompleteness, or "remaining differences {not again but the first time} being chalked up to it being incomplete", which is exactly what I said of what you said.
And I say bullshit back to you. Pretty much the same exact design meaning the same layout we saw in ST3, the other TOS movies, and the later TNG-era starbases. That the angle of this or that isn't exactly the same or the top is a bit wider or smaller doesn't change that. And given the station is still under construction is a factor.
Who's the crusader now? You're so damned butthurt that I insulted Discovery you're literally trying to create claims of dishonesty out of thin air.
You are being that way because you wanted to make the claim that this isn't Prime because Spacedock isn't exactly precisely the same even though at a glance it is easily recognizable as such.

You also seem to be bringing a lot of your Twitter frustrations over here as well, too.
That was from my first message in the thread! I simply didn't realize you aspired to be an STDJW at the time.
I wasn't being anti-chronological. You took it as such. The fact that you are trying to head off with your OP any distention or other explanation says a great deal.
Hell, maybe you can join the psychotroll Sothis and sneakily follow me around Twitter talking to everyone I talk to and disagreeing with everything I say without so much as an @ tag out of courtesy.
Okay.
Dude, the STDJWs are threatening and doxxing people who don't think Discovery is just the bee's knees. They're the Talifan all over again, and just as nonsensical in their beliefs. I'm sorry you took my making fun of them personally, but if you want to be one of them you deserve the time on the fainting couch.
That's terrible, I guess, if that's happening to you. But why drag that here? It's not necessary and it has nothing to do with anything at all for the topic by having an OP that deliberately insults people like that? No one is doxxing you, no one is censoring you, no one is banning you here.
Uh, any standards.
You tossed up a bunch of garbage, not a 3-D model that could be identically posed.
Nonsense. I know you're smarter than this. Come on, the model has enough differences that when you posed it can throw off the comparison. I showed you in turn a photo of the actual freaking physical model built by none other than the ILM staff and used it to illustrate the points I made.
Because I used a pre-existing model to get the same angle for comparison, much as I had already done an overlay. You just posted pictures of crap models and discussed their relative merits to obfuscate the actual situation.


No I did not. The line drawing illustration is actually extremely well done. The point being that using even modestly inaccurate models or drawings can throw off the comparisons being made. But regardless, your overlay only showed helped my case because it showed that portions of the station in DISC were still under construction and thus my original point was still valid about how you can indeed use the construction angle to explain some, if not all the discrepancies away.
And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge what you don't wanna hear, then insulting the person saying it.

Show me on the doll where the mean Trekkie hurt your Discovery-love and made it okay for you to repeatedly insult him, Mike.
You are going down the same route. You may not realize it, but you are. Saxton plugged his ears and didn't want to acknowledge that Lucas and Lucasfilm at the time had a different vision about the construction of the Death Star, from who started designing and building it, to how the Empire picked it up and continued with it.

This is you right now. The insults won't change that, Robert.
"Seem to", to you. The problem with your straw man is that I don't consider "any discrepancies" as proof. Hell, did I not just post Bernd's awesome overview of the situation?
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You haven't given me a reason so far to doubt my assessment.
You've even subtly dropped that in this and other threads. It's amusing that you don't want to deal with evidence counter to your narrative, especially after all the years you spent arguing against this very sort of thing by Warsies.

Ah, now I am *subtly* up to nefarious and self-contradictory things? So I am not mistaken, or smarter than what I am saying, or even disagreeing because you've failed to explain adequately . . . nosirree, I am dishonest and trying to hide it, willing to be every bit the Saxton and Warsie-esque to achieve my insidious goal of . . . what? What's my angle, Mike?

Again, whose crusade is this, Mike? It sure doesn't smell like mine.
As explained previously. You don't want New Trek. So you've been picking at it. Old Spock wasn't "Our Spock", whatever that means, because of some discrepancies and now you're trying to use the visual reboot aspect of DISC to make the claim this isn't Prime.
That is another out of context assigning to me.


Again, bullshit.

"this is, as you ironically point out, is a show that is based around visually rebooting things, but has made it clear this is a visual reboot, and like it or not, set in the Prime Timeline. The showrunners and staff have been honest by and large about that since day one."

You don't whip that out in the middle of your apologetics unless it applies in some way. But if you wish to abandon the claim . . . oh wait, here it comes again;:
"Star Trek: Discovery is a reboot, and this is obviously not Prime Spacedock"

But it is supposed to be the Prime Spacedock.

See? Same thing. But where does it end? Was one of the ships from the pilot "supposed to be" a Miranda despite looking nothing like one?

So I guess instead of your fallacious assumption you should bust out a quote specifically about the new Spacedock. I'll wait.
It ends where you end it. There is a ship that has some elements of a Miranda, but it is not even generally the same enough that we could do the same for it the way we clearly can with Spacedock. This is not a huge reimagining ala the Klingon ships that we cannot tell at all what it is.

Where you went down the rabbit hole was fallaciously assuming that at some point there could be no upgrades or alterations to make it like what was seen in the movies. Your claim is that it would cost too much in the way of resources and then you railed against me for having pointed out that the Federation does have that capability, if they wanted to pull something like that off. You also in turn ignored a valid point that there was just as much time between DISC and ST3 (28 years) to do so.

Heck. by your reasoning the U.S. navy would never have done anything like this with the USS Midway:

Image

Clearly it would cost too much and would have been better to build a brand new carrier instead of those major refits. The same thing happens with major shipyards in real life, just look at the multiple changes in the last hundred years for Harland and Wolff. Because that is largely the role that Spacedock serves is as shipyard or nexus for such operations. So why wouldn't you make changes to a major shipyard and drydock facility if the need demanded it?
You can debate why Kirk imagined him that way but that's what it was.
If TOS was the only Star Trek we'd ever had, that might be so. However, TMP, TNG, and ST:ENT changed all of that in context. Retconned it, if you will. Why would Kirk imagine Kahless that way when he already knew, thanks to Jonathan Archer a 100 years ago, that wasn't true? Why would Spock not point out that Kahless looked wrong given Vulcan history with having had plenty of pre-Federation contact with the Klingons? If the Excalibans weren't sloppy with their mind reading, they could have seen in Spock's mind an accurate portrayl of Kahless.
Drop it, Mike. Just back away. You need to calm down and take a breather and decide if you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way.
Likewise, drop it. You took to fighting with Mr. Oragahn over planetary shielding when you made your points and could have walked away from it at any time. Also, you need to let go your feud with those people on Twitter and not to bring any of that here. I'm sorry to hear that you had that happen to you, but you came in here swinging away with your OP by declaring anyone who had an explanation to be such a fanatic.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5775
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:00 am

I have to give a big apology to 2046 here. I accidentally somehow edited over his original post thinking it was just a regularly quoted one. One of the dangers of the moderator tool board and being in a hurry.

So again, deep apologies. I don't know if there is any way to restore the original post here.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:49 am

If I harbored the ill will toward you that you seemingly harbor toward me, choosing to read evil into your motivations and find dishonesty out of thin air, I wouldn't accept your apology but would instead note the utter sliminess of deleting my post but for the parts you chose to strip from context and reply to. After all, I would say, to then leave yours up and feign apology rather than delete your response if you really had made such a boo-boo is certainly not the move of an honest man.

Alternately, if I were being slightly less accusatory and accepted that it was an accident, I could simply point out that had you taken the breather I suggested, such a rage-induced slip on your own hateful, crusading spittle that you've been projecting about wouldn't have happened.

As it stands, I accept you made a boo-boo in haste, and although I suspect my point about spittle isn't far off (figuratively, of course), I suggest we pause and correct the anomaly.

Here's how we fix that. I will reconstruct my exact response below, then you delete and repost your response after, then I will reply.

This pause will also give you an opportunity to reconsider your response, which, taking just a quick glance at what you wrote, I strongly suggest.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:20 pm

But for some stuff at the end and any last-minute changes prior to posting I may have forgotten, this should be the message you replied to:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:13 pm
You've also had a history lately of picking odd fights with people,


The hell? You're misremembering my point about Oragahn and wrongly applying it to me.

And who's picking the fight, here? (I'd already had the thought about you but was too polite to say it.) But, to pare down my previous explanation, the fact is your dismissive and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious, upon which you then pile insult, is the only reason this conversation is ongoing.

As you kept refusing to acknowledge things, did I say that you were being willfully blind or a crusading loon or whatever? No, I said I must not have explained it adequately. That phrasing implies a certain faith in you. Hell, one of my worst insults to you in this thread was that you're smarter than the arguments you're making.

Oh yeah, though, I am *totally* being the crusade-y badguy.
Were the Spacedock issue an isolated incident in a show that was not obviously a reboot -- a show that calls itself a "visual reboot", and which has clearly tossed out existing design philosophy before -- then, hey, sure, you could argue I am being a dick, overzealous, or some combo thereof

But it's Discovery, for crying out loud . . . they're intentionally redesigning everything and explicitly saying so. How the hell is that controversial and evidence of a crusading hater?

But I digress.
But that's how you're coming across here, whether it's your intention or not.


To you, maybe, since evidently I am insulting your favorite thing.
We didn't get a super-detailed CGI model, just something that was easily recognizable and could be seen to be under construction.


Some of us noticed it wasn't right, right away. Sorry you missed it, and refused to accept it when shown, but that's a whole big bag of not-my-problem.
You just keep rejecting the evidence of such a capability.


Because the evidence isn't.

It makes more sense to assume a second space facility than to ignore the problems with this one and the senseless rebuild. Would that be suitably non-minimalist for you?
Your response was that it was the "same exact design", which was obviously not correct and needlessly opposing what I said. After I naturally replied, this was later amended to "largely the same design", with remaining differences again chalked up to it being incomplete.


That's a surprisingly dishonest out of context thing you've done here.


Bullshit.
Let me restore it and maybe you can see what you're doing:

"It is pretty much the same exact design, the only discrepancies can be easily explained away by the fact that the station appears to be about 75 to 85% complete at this point. "

Nowhere did I say it was the precisely exact design, the differences are acknowledged right from the get-go and an explanation as to why and how there can be differences is made.
Bullshit. You said it was the same exact design, the *only* discrepancies being explained by incompleteness, or "remaining differences {not again but the first time} being chalked up to it being incomplete", which is exactly what I said of what you said.

Who's the crusader now? You're so damned butthurt that I insulted Discovery you're literally trying to create claims of dishonesty out of thin air.

Ooh, and check the anti-chronological BS you pull next:
You rejected that. You handwaved away the explanation and even in a surprising turn denounced anyone putting forth an explanation as "I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material."


That was from my first message in the thread! I simply didn't realize you aspired to be an STDJW at the time.

Hell, maybe you can join the psychotroll Sothis and sneakily follow me around Twitter talking to everyone I talk to and disagreeing with everything I say without so much as an @ tag out of courtesy.
You claim not to be filled with hate or on a crusade, but given statements like that and the mostly likely tone behind it, it's not a hard conclusion to come to.


Dude, the STDJWs are threatening and doxxing people who don't think Discovery is just the bee's knees. They're the Talifan all over again, and just as nonsensical in their beliefs. I'm sorry you took my making fun of them personally, but if you want to be one of them you deserve the time on the fainting couch.
Thus, now employing a fan-made digital model of the Prime Spacedock and demonstrating that it was close to the real thing (but for differences I noted and which you noted again for whatever reason, as if I had not already pointed them out), I went over in greater detail the differences.
Close by what standard?


Uh, any standards.
I provided a better one with a photograph of the actual model used in the movies.


You tossed up a bunch of garbage, not a 3-D model that could be identically posed.
Your response to this is very strange. I can't imagine why you posted a lot of non-canon Spacedock versions, for instance. I suppose you're suggesting I should've built a perfect CG model myself, but since the effort I have already put in is dismissed as evidence of a hateful crusade, one wonders why I should trouble myself to achieve such splendid visual precision if even near-perfect sketches are so readily discarded.
There's nothing strange in it, Robert. It boils down to if you use a non-canon source, one that has imperfections, clearly, then why can't I to make my points?


Because I used a pre-existing model to get the same angle for comparison, much as I had already done an overlay. You just posted pictures of crap models and discussed their relative merits to obfuscate the actual situation.
The fact is that you're going down the same route that Saxton did by claiming this isn't Our Prime Spacedock because it has differences in much the same manner as Saxton did back in 2006.


And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge what you don't wanna hear, then insulting the person saying it.

Show me on the doll where the mean Trekkie hurt your Discovery-love and made it okay for you to repeatedly insult him, Mike.
To then attack the visual hiccups in Prime canon, even to the point of employing the Cardboard Fallacy, is also amusing, especially insofar as an imperfect LCARS representation of the model that appears in the very same episode. Most people recognize that for what it was, which is the very same thing I am doing in regards to the Discovery station.
But by your own logic and the way you seem to be taking any discrepancies, is that is proof that any difference means it's not the Prime.


"Seem to", to you. The problem with your straw man is that I don't consider "any discrepancies" as proof. Hell, did I not just post Bernd's awesome overview of the situation?
You've even subtly dropped that in this and other threads. It's amusing that you don't want to deal with evidence counter to your narrative, especially after all the years you spent arguing against this very sort of thing by Warsies.


Ah, now I am *subtly* up to nefarious and self-contradictory things? So I am not mistaken, or smarter than what I am saying, or even disagreeing because you've failed to explain adequately . . . nosirree, I am dishonest and trying to hide it, willing to be every bit the Saxton and Warsie-esque to achieve my insidious goal of . . . what? What's my angle, Mike?

Again, whose crusade is this, Mike? It sure doesn't smell like mine.
That is another out of context assigning to me.


Again, bullshit. You said:

"this is, as you ironically point out, is a show that is based around visually rebooting things, but has made it clear this is a visual reboot, and like it or not, set in the Prime Timeline. The showrunners and staff have been honest by and large about that since day one."

You don't whip that out in the middle of your apologetics unless it applies in some way. But if you wish to abandon the claim . . . oh wait, here it comes again:
"Star Trek: Discovery is a reboot, and this is obviously not Prime Spacedock"

But it is supposed to be the Prime Spacedock.


See? Same thing. But where does it end? Was one of the ships from the pilot "supposed to be" a Miranda despite looking nothing like one?

So I guess instead of your fallacious assumption you should bust out a quote specifically about the new Spacedock. I'll wait.
There's no getting around it here, even if you claim that the Excalibans drew from the memories of Kirk and Spock solely and this image of Kahless was what Kirk imagined him to look like despite what the later TNG episode "Rightful Heir" along with the much later ST:ENT shows us about Kahless and Klingons and what the Federation would have known about them.


You know, you start talking fast (i.e. spewing in run-on sentences) when you're being willfully full of it.

That said, *of course* the Excalbians pulled it from Kirk's imagination. That's literally what they say in the show! Spock notes they "were able to create images of Surak and Lincoln after scanning our minds and using their fellow creatures as source matter."

You can debate why Kirk imagined him that way but that's what it was.

{Edit: Picture Julius Caesar of Italy in your mind. Do you imagine a modern Italian, so often darker of complexion and with brown hair? Well, that's not right, and the captain of CVN-65 may not have known this. Of course, Kirk put Kahless in a mid-23rd Century outfit, which is akin to imagining Caesar in a modern business suit, but whatever, let's damn TOS because the streets must flow with the blood of
non-believers in Discovery!

It's sad that after all the Trek defense you and I have had to do over the years in the face of vapid attacks and misrepresentations, you'd put me in the position of having to defend it against you because Discovery's failures require you to attack it, and thus me.}

Drop it, Mike. Just back away. You need to calm down and take a breather and decide if you really wanna keep embarrassing yourself this way.

Post Reply