# Star Trek -- the "I saw it" thread \*\*SPOILERS\*\* **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 7, 2009, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640 "2009-05-07T08:13:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/661 "2009-05-19T11:57:37Z")
> [@lee](#): > > In a bank I worked for, when using a number as part of a designation, we skipped numbers that lead to ambiguity, so there was no branch 10 since that was kind of like branch 01. So, just because there is a shuttle or branch 37 doesn’t mean there are branches or shuttles 1-36. Also, sometime they are number and designated both, so you could have exploratory shuttle 36 and medical shuttle 37. But you might not have a 36 as it could be 93, er, 9 with a backwards three, um. yeah. 😃 (I know what I meant to say…let’s just move along. Oh LOOK! LENSFLARE!) ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/662 "2009-05-19T12:43:08Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > Worst bit for me - Scotty in the liquid waste tube. Yes, I know it wasn’t waste, but I can’t remember what it was supposed to be. Sure it was cute having him transported into something, without having an obvious way out. I appreciate the little joke. But that stupid person-sized tube, that wended its way hither and yon for to noticable reason should have just been labeled PLOT DEVICE TUBE. It was just a coincidence that it was a clear tube, right? That wasn’t designed so that we can see passing engineers or anything. And then that trap door just before the cuisinart? The person-sized one that somehow didn’t flood the chamber when it was opened? Gah! Yeah, that was bad, but what was _far_ worse, for me, was what those pipes were labeled. “Inert Reactant.” Inert Reactant??? WT_ **F** _ is Inert Reactant? I can deal with the transwarp drive and the red matter and the accommodating black holes and the amazing coincidences and everything else people have complained about in this thread. But I can’t get past the Inert Reactant. What the fuck does that even mean? Other than that, loved the movie. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/663 "2009-05-19T12:46:28Z")
> [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > But you might not have a 36 as it could be 93, THere’s a pretty high loss rate on those suckers. Maybe the replacement shuttles have higher numbers. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/664 "2009-05-19T13:06:20Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > Worst bit for me - Scotty in the liquid waste tube. … But that stupid person-sized tube, that wended its way hither and yon for to noticable reason should have just been labeled PLOT DEVICE TUBE. It was just a coincidence that it was a clear tube, right? That wasn’t designed so that we can see passing engineers or anything. And then that trap door just before the cuisinart? The person-sized one that somehow didn’t flood the chamber when it was opened? Gah! You misunderstand. Scotty is now the Augustus Gloop of Star Trek! ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/665 "2009-05-19T13:10:06Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > [Here](http://www.merzo.net/) is a better one. Just look at the 10 metres :1 pixel page compare the Federation ships to the capital ships belonging to the competition. I don’t see the alt-Enterprise anywhere on that site. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/666 "2009-05-19T13:17:41Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Yeah, that was bad, but what was _far_ worse, for me, was what those pipes were labeled. “Inert Reactant.” Inert Reactant??? WT_ **F** _ is Inert Reactant? I took that to mean it was plain water either for the purposes of cooling, or for combining with the antimatter to power the warp drive. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/667 "2009-05-19T13:21:59Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I took that to mean it was plain water either for the purposes of cooling, or for combining with the antimatter to power the warp drive. Actually, I think it was beer. … they filmed in a Budwiser brewery. (hence, Uhura’s bar order.) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/668 "2009-05-19T14:00:11Z")
Yeah, I mean, really: the Federation’s entire vast array of alcoholic poisons to choose from, and you ask for “Bud Classic”? Ew. ---
**Author:** ![Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/669 "2009-05-19T14:13:04Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > You misunderstand. Scotty is now the Augustus Gloop of Star Trek! Exactly what I thought when I saw it. I just didn’t remember which kids got the tube treatment at the chocolate factory:p ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/670 "2009-05-19T15:03:52Z")
> [@Annie](#): > > Exactly what I thought when I saw it. I just didn’t remember which kids got the tube treatment at the chocolate factory:p I know my tubes containing people shooting to unknown peril… I am now watching the first season of Star Trek. I have learned from this that Kirk was indeed an ensign and then a midshipman at some point. Hmmm… Forgive me, but I think this movie would have been better if they had taken the core crew and showed them being second or third tier and saving the Enterprise from the actions of their superiors and then them getting the Enterprise (or Kirk getting it and getting to handpick his crew) as a “reward” for outstanding valor. I’m old fashioned that way. But it was still fun. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/671 "2009-05-19T16:29:14Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Yeah, that was bad, but what was _far_ worse, for me, was what those pipes were labeled. “Inert Reactant.” Inert Reactant??? WT_ **F** _ is Inert Reactant? > > I can deal with the transwarp drive and the red matter and the accommodating black holes and the amazing coincidences and everything else people have complained about in this thread. But I can’t get past the Inert Reactant. What the fuck does that even mean? > > Other than that, loved the movie. Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that. Maybe I blocked it out. In honor of Inert Reactant, I can now think of those things as the Oxymoron Tubes. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/672 "2009-05-19T16:33:14Z")
Searching for " ‘Inert+reactant’ ‘-star’ " brings up over a hundred hits on google, and all look very technical. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Inert+Reactant%22±star](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Inert+Reactant%22+-star) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/673 "2009-05-19T16:37:13Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I took that to mean it was plain water either for the purposes of cooling, or for combining with the antimatter to power the warp drive. It could also be the reaction mass for the impulse drives. They have to shoot something out to make the ship go without using the warp engines. I think if it were the reaction mass, which simply has to be heated and blown out the back, _inert reactant_ isn’t necessarily a stupid thing to call it. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/674 "2009-05-19T16:45:00Z")
If Enterprise used Hydrogen (And it might, 1701-D had huge Deuterium slush tanks used in propulsion) than the result of the reaction might be H2O…and Inert. I’m grasping at straws here, why would the ‘turbine’ be big and sharp-bladey and semi transparent? They don’t looke like that. At MOST there would be a small view port so as not to compromise the structure of the turbine. But of course, we don’t have Transparent Aluminum, so WhoTF are we to judge? ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/675 "2009-05-19T16:47:44Z")
Sigh. And being Star Trek, inert reactant might be something they looked into and got right. (I still like calling them Oxymoron Tubes.) (And for the record I enjoyed the movie, especially the way the main three nailed the characters.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/676 "2009-05-19T16:48:06Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Even its harshest critic will concede, I trust, that the new movie is better than _The Final Frontier_. Faint praise, indeed. Final Frontier? I recall there was some talk of making a movie by that name, but wiser heads prevailed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/677 "2009-05-19T16:55:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It could also be the reaction mass for the impulse drives. They have to shoot something out to make the ship go without using the warp engines. > > I think if it were the reaction mass, which simply has to be heated and blown out the back, _inert reactant_ isn’t necessarily a stupid thing to call it. I care less about what was in the tubes than the idiocy of having them running every which way in the mostly empty room. The original Enterprise was criticized for being too roomy but it had at least the feel of a craft where space was used efficiently. This one was ridiculous. It doesn’t even feel right. Anyhow forget the reaction mass. I doubt any feasible amount is going to be able to accelerate the ship to near light speeds, the way the impulse engines have been shown to be able to do. It is clearly some sort of sub-light space drive, (which allows hairpin turns) which is actually more believable then a reaction engine. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/678 "2009-05-19T16:57:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Final Frontier? I recall there was some talk of making a movie by that name, but wiser heads prevailed. Indeed, much as the rumors about re imaging that silly Battlestar Ponderosa TV show were just silly rumors. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/679 "2009-05-19T17:02:00Z")
> [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > But of course, we don’t have Transparent Aluminum, so WhoTF are we to judge? Well, there’s [ALON](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxynitride)… ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640/680 "2009-05-19T17:13:25Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I care less about what was in the tubes than the idiocy of having them running every which way in the mostly empty room. The original Enterprise was criticized for being too roomy but it had at least the feel of a craft where space was used efficiently. This one was ridiculous. It doesn’t even feel right. Doesn’t feel right? I’m going to guess you haven’t been in an actual power plant, then. The layout and tubes running every which way felt _exactly_ right for a plant environment. (naturally, since it was.) It was easy enough for me to recognize while watching the film which parts were filmed on location (generally, as Kirk and/or Scotty are dashing about), and which on a soundstage (closeups, mostly. and the Augustus Gloop tubes.) What didn’t feel right was (1) it was so damn _clean_ that it looked like a food grade facility, and (2) there was no one around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-the-i-saw-it-thread-spoilers/495640.md?page=35)