Loading...
> >

Star Trek Builders Unite 2 "Renderings on the Edge of Forever"

1…4445464749

Comments

  • ThalekThalek Posts: 318
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:
    Thalek said:
    mdbruffy said:

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Congratulations! Whatever you did to put it there, don't do that again! [grin]

    I still have no freakin' idea how in the world it happened. All I know is, I used the scene file, saved it in the same folder I 've been saving it in, went to dinner, came back, went to use the scene file- and the whole darn folder was gone! That was Sunday evening- and I spent the last 2 days trying to find it.

    [wryly] You wouldn't happen to have a cat, would you? Mine has managed to do many interesting computer operations for me in the past, almost none of which I actually wanted.

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    Ptrope said:
    Sounds like the complement to my situation - the files were there, but because Windows had lost the index to them, it couldn't properly find them when I tried to open them - it just threw gibberish names on them that it couldn't read. That's the frustrating part - couldn't even rename them because the characters used aren't legal Windows characters for filenames.

    If yours were in the Recycle Bin, though, you should be able to read them - they shouldn't be overwritten until they're actually truly deleted. Did you properly recover them from the RB, or just drag them out of it? That might've caused a problem.

    I feel your pain! :(

    I use the program that found them to copy them to my Pictures folder. Once I checked and saw that all the files were there, I moved the folder back to the big folder it was in to begin with. Nothing was renamed- I mean everything still had their original names. But the scene files wouldn't work.
    On the semi-dimly lit bright side, the texture files do work- which is weird, You'd think if the scenes files were messed up, the rest of the folder would have been.

  • absolutezero_10_296fa03394absolutezero_10_296fa03394 Posts: 49
    edited December 1969

    Thalek said:
    TheCastellan said:

    Sadly.

    Keep in mind that NASA is a military agency, even says so right in the charter.

    Could you point that section out to me? It was my understanding that NASA was always a civilian organization. I did find a charter printed in 2010 that specifically states that military areas of interest will remain with the Department of Defense and that NASA is to deal with the civilian aspects of space research. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html However, I am having trouble finding a copy of the original 1958 act that formed NASA.

    For Thalek: A readable version of the original “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958,” Public Law 85–568 can be found here:

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980236048_1998393614.pdf

    (the original Act can be found on pages 101-114 (of 136 pages) within the pdf file)

    As shadowhawk1 and Thalek pointed out, NASA is a civilian agency. However, in Section 102(b) of the Act, it does stipulate that certain areas of military interest can be under the direction of the DOD if the President makes it so. Perhaps it is this allowance for DOD involvement within the Act that is the source of confusion as to whether or not NASA is a military agency.

    The Act has been amended and revised over the years, but the revision dated Jan. 3, 2012 (51 USC Sec. 20102) still holds that NASA is a civilian agency (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/51C201.txt).

    As for atmospheric entry/exit vehicles in Star Trek... I agree with mdbruffy. I think it safe to assume ships possessed structural integrity fields (SIF) even if not explicitly mentioned. Didn't the NX-01 have hull plating that could be polarized or de-polarized to absorb/deflect spatial stresses and phenomena? If so, doesn't this sound like a SIF in theory?

  • ThalekThalek Posts: 318
    edited December 1969

    MenehuneMagic said:
    Thalek said:
    TheCastellan said:

    Sadly.

    Keep in mind that NASA is a military agency, even says so right in the charter.

    Could you point that section out to me? It was my understanding that NASA was always a civilian organization. I did find a charter printed in 2010 that specifically states that military areas of interest will remain with the Department of Defense and that NASA is to deal with the civilian aspects of space research. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html However, I am having trouble finding a copy of the original 1958 act that formed NASA.

    For Thalek: A readable version of the original “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958,” Public Law 85–568 can be found here:

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980236048_1998393614.pdf

    (the original Act can be found on pages 101-114 (of 136 pages) within the pdf file)

    As shadowhawk1 and Thalek pointed out, NASA is a civilian agency. However, in Section 102(b) of the Act, it does stipulate that certain areas of military interest can be under the direction of the DOD if the President makes it so. Perhaps it is this allowance for DOD involvement within the Act that is the source of confusion as to whether or not NASA is a military agency.

    The Act has been amended and revised over the years, but the revision dated Jan. 3, 2012 (51 USC Sec. 20102) still holds that NASA is a civilian agency (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/51C201.txt).

    As for atmospheric entry/exit vehicles in Star Trek... I agree with mdbruffy. I think it safe to assume ships possessed structural integrity fields (SIF) even if not explicitly mentioned. Didn't the NX-01 have hull plating that could be polarized or de-polarized to absorb/deflect spatial stresses and phenomena? If so, doesn't this sound like a SIF in theory?

    Thanks for the links!

    I'm inclined to agree that something held the Enterprise together while she was in atmosphere. It's already established that their shields were down, so it wasn't that. Perhaps, like the Pupeteers' General Purpose hulls, there is a field running through the hull to make it more resilient than the metal would be in its natural state. That would certainly count as a "structural integrity field" in my book.

    (Has anyone ever wondered why amateur astronomers weren't reporting Enterprise left and right? We can see the International Space Station without much difficulty, and I seem to recall that it is smaller.)

    I remember reading an article in Analog Magazine many years ago, and they pointed out that the impulse engines are situated at exactly the right part of the ship for it to do endless rolls instead of proceeding straight ahead. Anyone who owned or saw the old Estes Flying Enterprise model rocket knows they really had to work at it to make it a stable bird. (And to give it a place to put the parachute for recovery!)

    Also, I've always wondered why the "Enterprise E" with three nacelles never burned through the stanchion for the third nacelle with the impulse drive exhaust.

  • RedfernRedfern Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    All this discussion of aerodynamics and how ungainly the Enterprise would be in a fluid medium (a gaseous atmosphere counts as a f
    "fluid" medium in this case) reminds me of a mind bogglingly amazing video I once saw.

    Some intrepid modelers built the ST:TMP Enterprise to rather exacting eternal dimensions and details; engineered a jet type (I think) propulsion system; affixed what appeared to be a fairly simple rudder mechanism where the shuttle bay doors would be; and immersed the device within an Olympic sized pool and "drove" it!

    Ah! Found it!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQEsG4eKIXs

    They actually seem to have some control over its "flight" path! How they did it I have no bloody idea, but it does demonstrate the TMP Enterprise IS, to some degree, aerodynamic.

    Sincerely,

    Bill

  • ThalekThalek Posts: 318
    edited December 1969

    Beautiful, isn't she? I remember thinking that if CGI hadn't come into existence, this would have been a good way to cut down on effects expenses instead of putting a ship on a stick.

    Note that the center of thrust is located fairly near the center of gravity, which is the shuttlebay. (I seem to recall that the center of gravity tested out as a bit above the shuttlebay, but with vectored thrust, you might be able to compensate a bit. I vaguely remember also seeing a clip, possibly by the same group, of how they made the aquatic starship, and showed other conversions as well.

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    Thalek said:
    Beautiful, isn't she? I remember thinking that if CGI hadn't come into existence, this would have been a good way to cut down on effects expenses instead of putting a ship on a stick.

    Note that the center of thrust is located fairly near the center of gravity, which is the shuttlebay. (I seem to recall that the center of gravity tested out as a bit above the shuttlebay, but with vectored thrust, you might be able to compensate a bit. I vaguely remember also seeing a clip, possibly by the same group, of how they made the aquatic starship, and showed other conversions as well.

    There's also a clip of the Space Battleship Yamato- same group. They even got the guns to turn.

  • blubeetle3_c656fcc6f5blubeetle3_c656fcc6f5 Posts: 137
    edited December 1969

    My next W.I.P.

    Any and all comments are welcomed.

    picardwip.jpg
    812 x 748 - 136K
  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    blubeetle3 said:
    My next W.I.P.

    Any and all comments are welcomed.

    The good Captain needs a shave. :-)

  • blubeetle3_c656fcc6f5blubeetle3_c656fcc6f5 Posts: 137
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:
    blubeetle3 said:
    My next W.I.P.

    Any and all comments are welcomed.

    The good Captain needs a shave. :-)

    Just a stand-in texture. Sometimes, the standard M4 texture just messes you up when trying to create a morph.

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    It lives! You can't keep a good docking berth down. I still have to play with the lighting.

    Return-of-the-Docking-Berth.jpg
    1279 x 867 - 196K
  • ThalekThalek Posts: 318
    edited December 1969

    Congratulations, Bruffy!

    Not bad, BlueBeetle!

  • TheCastellanTheCastellan Posts: 709
    edited December 1969

    Well, NASA answers to department of defense, meaning we'll never see half the stuff they see. I try not to say anything, well, not on any forums with a Trek theme (the Trek geeks at TrekBBS forums are REALLY hostile if one asks unpopular/unconventional questions....and they hate ANY alternative ideas or ways of thinking...and they'll get in your face about it....one guy even said people like Eric Van Danikin, author of "Chariots of the Gods" be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for creating and circulated his work....which are just questions, not direct answers) because some people get SPITTING mad when I say anything remotely mad about NASA, especially the shuttle program and one item that always makes me doubtful of their intentions is the Brookings Report, speciifically page # 215 if I remember correctly, I don't have a printed copy on my desk, here at the moment. But it pretty much states, and this is in the actual report that if alien life or evidence of alien life (ie , ruins, etc) that it needs to be kept quiet and through rigorous conditioning before any announcements are made to the public, if any.....since mankind's various institutions will crumble. Hell....Author C. Clark's 2001 film in the press conference regarding the newly discovered moon monolith practically says the Brookings Report page by page. Even SETI's policy is if they in fact discover a legitimate alien signal, they shall keep it secret from the public and then contact the authorities and then it is up to the government to decide if we are 'worthy' of knowing. This is not made up stuff.....I pretty much refer to it as a twisted, corrupt, self induced take of Trek's own overrated Prime Directive. Before anyone goes with the tinfoil hat jokes or goes "lol!" every fourth of fifth word, it's from my own research and looking at this, I just don't understand why even have a space program if there's going to be need for the government to think if we are worthy of the truth, not to mention the government and military being 'worthy' of the truth and all the technology they make, while us normal peons get stuck with all the primitive crap.

    I have my questions, they might be unpopular questions or unpopular ways of thinking, but that's how I feel about the whole thing. Especially since I have been passionately looking for answers and the ultimate truths since I was a 12 year old kid in early 1991 that first began asking these sorts of questions.

    So, sorry if my couple of paragraphs upsets anyone, but I feel that I need to make my feelings said regarding my frustrations regarding NASA, and JPL. :)

  • MotoTsumeMotoTsume Posts: 520
    edited January 2013

    quick render :)

    Captain Away!

    captain-away-sml.jpg
    1500 x 864 - 157K
    Post edited by MotoTsume on
  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 2,195
    edited December 1969

    TheCastellan said:
    Well, NASA answers to department of defense, meaning we'll never see half the stuff they see. I try not to say anything, well, not on any forums with a Trek theme (the Trek geeks at TrekBBS forums are REALLY hostile if one asks unpopular/unconventional questions....and they hate ANY alternative ideas or ways of thinking...and they'll get in your face about it....one guy even said people like Eric Van Danikin, author of "Chariots of the Gods" be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for creating and circulated his work....which are just questions, not direct answers) because some people get SPITTING mad when I say anything remotely mad about NASA, especially the shuttle program and one item that always makes me doubtful of their intentions is the Brookings Report, speciifically page # 215 if I remember correctly, I don't have a printed copy on my desk, here at the moment. But it pretty much states, and this is in the actual report that if alien life or evidence of alien life (ie , ruins, etc) that it needs to be kept quiet and through rigorous conditioning before any announcements are made to the public, if any.....since mankind's various institutions will crumble. Hell....Author C. Clark's 2001 film in the press conference regarding the newly discovered moon monolith practically says the Brookings Report page by page. Even SETI's policy is if they in fact discover a legitimate alien signal, they shall keep it secret from the public and then contact the authorities and then it is up to the government to decide if we are 'worthy' of knowing. This is not made up stuff.....I pretty much refer to it as a twisted, corrupt, self induced take of Trek's own overrated Prime Directive. Before anyone goes with the tinfoil hat jokes or goes "lol!" every fourth of fifth word, it's from my own research and looking at this, I just don't understand why even have a space program if there's going to be need for the government to think if we are worthy of the truth, not to mention the government and military being 'worthy' of the truth and all the technology they make, while us normal peons get stuck with all the primitive crap.

    I have my questions, they might be unpopular questions or unpopular ways of thinking, but that's how I feel about the whole thing. Especially since I have been passionately looking for answers and the ultimate truths since I was a 12 year old kid in early 1991 that first began asking these sorts of questions.

    So, sorry if my couple of paragraphs upsets anyone, but I feel that I need to make my feelings said regarding my frustrations regarding NASA, and JPL. :)

    Look, you didn't upset me about your crack about NASA, but it wasn't correct that is what I was saying. And you just continued the incorrectness with this statement, NASA does not answer to the DOD UNLESS the payload or mission is DOD sponsored.

    As far as alien life goes, if they paraded little green or grey men out today it wouldn't change my life as I know it much if any. As far as the whole "Chariots of the Gods" thing goes, man kind is pretty arrogant if we believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe. As far as the whole miss-allocation of technology, I have absolutely no doubt that it happens. The only thing I see out of line with anything you have posted in the last couple of posts is the fact that you want to say that an organization that goes out of its way to avoid being militarized answers to the military, and it is well documented to that fact.

    I can understand the reason that others are hostile towards your statements, and it really has nothing to do with the theme of them. The way you state some things comes across as a conspiracy theory and hen presented wit the fact that both I and Thalek provided, you took it as us being upset at your suggestion when in fact we were merely pointing out the correct facts and asking you for supporting documentation of your facts.

    If you can provide me with documented factual evidence that states without a doubt that NASA answers to the DOD, I will publicly apologize to you right here in this forum. I am in a line of work where I have to be able to see touch and feel what I am doing in order to do my job, someone simply telling me something doesn't carry much weight in my world, nothing personal but that is just the way I am.

  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 2,195
    edited December 1969

    Blue Beetle, that is an amazing likeness of JLP, is there plans on sharing him with the rest of us?

    Bruffy congrats on a partial recovery of your files. Hope you don't have to reconstruct or lose to much of it if any at all.

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    shadowhawk1 said:
    Blue Beetle, that is an amazing likeness of JLP, is there plans on sharing him with the rest of us?

    Bruffy congrats on a partial recovery of your files. Hope you don't have to reconstruct or lose to much of it if any at all.

    The dock exists once more. All I need to do is turn off some shadows and I'm good to go again.

  • Ryuu@AMcCFRyuu@AMcCF Posts: 668
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:
    It lives! You can't keep a good docking berth down. I still have to play with the lighting.
    Hey Md, that's a great render of her! All the previous renders were too dark for me to see much detail. Were you ever able to actually model the "guts" of the ship this time, or is that still your workaround?


    BTW, I can picture the meeting:

    Admiral Nagura: Kirk! What the hell happened?!?
    Captain Kirk: Bugs!
    Nagura: BUGS!?! Bugs don't do damage like THAT!!
    Kirk: They do when they're a hundred feet long and have an appetite for tritanium!
    Nagura: H-h-how?!? Wh-where?!?
    Kirk: We were charting asteroids at LV-426 per your orders. Only they're not asteroids. We got too close to one, and "chomp!"
    Nagura: .....
    Kirk: What??
    Nagura: Ripley told us not to go there...
    Kirk: WHAT!?! YOU SONAVABITCH!!!

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,462
    edited December 1969

    shadowhawk1 said:
    TheCastellan said:
    Well, NASA answers to department of defense, meaning we'll never see half the stuff they see. I try not to say anything, well, not on any forums with a Trek theme (the Trek geeks at TrekBBS forums are REALLY hostile if one asks unpopular/unconventional questions....and they hate ANY alternative ideas or ways of thinking...and they'll get in your face about it....one guy even said people like Eric Van Danikin, author of "Chariots of the Gods" be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for creating and circulated his work....which are just questions, not direct answers) because some people get SPITTING mad when I say anything remotely mad about NASA, especially the shuttle program and one item that always makes me doubtful of their intentions is the Brookings Report, speciifically page # 215 if I remember correctly, I don't have a printed copy on my desk, here at the moment. But it pretty much states, and this is in the actual report that if alien life or evidence of alien life (ie , ruins, etc) that it needs to be kept quiet and through rigorous conditioning before any announcements are made to the public, if any.....since mankind's various institutions will crumble. Hell....Author C. Clark's 2001 film in the press conference regarding the newly discovered moon monolith practically says the Brookings Report page by page. Even SETI's policy is if they in fact discover a legitimate alien signal, they shall keep it secret from the public and then contact the authorities and then it is up to the government to decide if we are 'worthy' of knowing. This is not made up stuff.....I pretty much refer to it as a twisted, corrupt, self induced take of Trek's own overrated Prime Directive. Before anyone goes with the tinfoil hat jokes or goes "lol!" every fourth of fifth word, it's from my own research and looking at this, I just don't understand why even have a space program if there's going to be need for the government to think if we are worthy of the truth, not to mention the government and military being 'worthy' of the truth and all the technology they make, while us normal peons get stuck with all the primitive crap.

    I have my questions, they might be unpopular questions or unpopular ways of thinking, but that's how I feel about the whole thing. Especially since I have been passionately looking for answers and the ultimate truths since I was a 12 year old kid in early 1991 that first began asking these sorts of questions.

    So, sorry if my couple of paragraphs upsets anyone, but I feel that I need to make my feelings said regarding my frustrations regarding NASA, and JPL. :)

    Look, you didn't upset me about your crack about NASA, but it wasn't correct that is what I was saying. And you just continued the incorrectness with this statement, NASA does not answer to the DOD UNLESS the payload or mission is DOD sponsored.

    As far as alien life goes, if they paraded little green or grey men out today it wouldn't change my life as I know it much if any. As far as the whole "Chariots of the Gods" thing goes, man kind is pretty arrogant if we believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe. As far as the whole miss-allocation of technology, I have absolutely no doubt that it happens. The only thing I see out of line with anything you have posted in the last couple of posts is the fact that you want to say that an organization that goes out of its way to avoid being militarized answers to the military, and it is well documented to that fact.

    I can understand the reason that others are hostile towards your statements, and it really has nothing to do with the theme of them. The way you state some things comes across as a conspiracy theory and hen presented wit the fact that both I and Thalek provided, you took it as us being upset at your suggestion when in fact we were merely pointing out the correct facts and asking you for supporting documentation of your facts.

    If you can provide me with documented factual evidence that states without a doubt that NASA answers to the DOD, I will publicly apologize to you right here in this forum. I am in a line of work where I have to be able to see touch and feel what I am doing in order to do my job, someone simply telling me something doesn't carry much weight in my world, nothing personal but that is just the way I am.

    NASA does answer to the Government though, so if the DOD wants NASA to launch something, it tends to happen..

  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 2,195
    edited December 1969

    Yes NASA does answer to the US Government but on the civilian side of the house unless it is running a DOD mission like I stated, I am not trying to dispute that. I am HOWEVER saying that the majority of the missions performed by NASA are from the civilian side and therefore NOT controlled by the DOD! If NASA were a Military organization it would not be run by the Vice President of the United States, it would be run by the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would be completely staffed by military personnel.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,462
    edited December 1969

    shadowhawk1 said:
    Yes NASA does answer to the US Government but on the civilian side of the house unless it is running a DOD mission like I stated, I am not trying to dispute that. I am HOWEVER saying that the majority of the missions performed by NASA are from the civilian side and therefore NOT controlled by the DOD! If NASA were a Military organization it would not be run by the Vice President of the United States, it would be run by the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would be completely staffed by military personnel.

    so essentailly NASA reports directly to the White House... as does the DOD..
    (well congress gets involved but only because they handle the money).

  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 2,195
    edited December 1969

    Are you really not getting this or do you believe that there is a secret agent behind every rock? As I have said and will say ONE MORE TIME! The only time the DOD has any control of a NASA mission is when the payload is a spy satellite or some other military package or experiment. Any other time the operation is directly controlled by the civilian leaders. Yes the DOD can control missions but they DO NOT RUN NASA!

    If you do not believe me, read the charter and do your research before making wild claims. Now can we please get back to Star Trek in all its glory?

  • fixmypcmikefixmypcmike Posts: 19,583
    edited December 1969

    Please remember that this is not an appropriate forum for political debate.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 376
    edited December 1969

    Damn, time sure didn't stand still. Can you believe Mr. Spock is turning 82 this year (March)?

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    Ryuu@AMcCF said:
    mdbruffy said:
    It lives! You can't keep a good docking berth down. I still have to play with the lighting.
    Hey Md, that's a great render of her! All the previous renders were too dark for me to see much detail. Were you ever able to actually model the "guts" of the ship this time, or is that still your workaround?


    BTW, I can picture the meeting:

    Admiral Nagura: Kirk! What the hell happened?!?
    Captain Kirk: Bugs!
    Nagura: BUGS!?! Bugs don't do damage like THAT!!
    Kirk: They do when they're a hundred feet long and have an appetite for tritanium!
    Nagura: H-h-how?!? Wh-where?!?
    Kirk: We were charting asteroids at LV-426 per your orders. Only they're not asteroids. We got too close to one, and "chomp!"
    Nagura: .....
    Kirk: What??
    Nagura: Ripley told us not to go there...
    Kirk: WHAT!?! YOU SONAVABITCH!!!

    LOL!!!
    "What you see is what you get". This one was a test for the dock. The Enterprise you see is as she is in the file- no postwork this time.

  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 2,195
    edited December 1969

    fixmypcmike said:
    Please remember that this is not an appropriate forum for political debate.

    You are correct Mike, I will let it go for the benefit of the group.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,462
    edited December 1969

    fixmypcmike said:
    Please remember that this is not an appropriate forum for political debate.

    sorry... won't let it happen again.

  • SpottedKittySpottedKitty Posts: 7,232
    edited December 1969

    Thalek said:
    I remember reading an article in Analog Magazine many years ago, and they pointed out that the impulse engines are situated at exactly the right part of the ship for it to do endless rolls instead of proceeding straight ahead.

    Heh, it's the Enterprise-C I've always wondered about. The tips of the nacelles are so close to the saucer, turning on the Bussard scoops should have given everyone in the back of the saucer that warm toasty glow-in--the-dark feeling... ;-)
  • LycanthropeXLycanthropeX Posts: 2,287
    edited December 1969

    I never really watched Voyage much when it first aired, recently I have been watching the first season online. Is it just me or is Voyager basically the "Save Harry Kim" show? seems like every episode Harry Kim gets into some sort of trouble and everyone else has to save him

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    LycanthropeX said:
    I never really watched Voyage much when it first aired, recently I have been watching the first season online. Is it just me or is Voyager basically the "Save Harry Kim" show? seems like every episode Harry Kim gets into some sort of trouble and everyone else has to save him

    In most respects, Voyager was like NG and DS9- It took a season for the show to really find it's way. Being the rookie of the crew, I guess they assumed Harry would get into trouble more than the others. But it really wasn't as often as it seemed.
    Just like the case of Wesley on NG. The haters say he saved the ship every other episode. Not true. I think he actually saved the crew once- but he was involved in the main storyline of several episodes, so it seemed more often that it was- same with Harry.

This discussion has been closed.