This is topic Hermes/Saladin/Ptolemy in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1257.html

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
An observation regarding the schematics of the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes seen in STII:

I was recently watching TWOK and I happened to have my Star Fleet Technical Manual out. When those schematics came onscreen in the background, I noticed something. It appears that to produce that "computer-screen" effect, they just backlit the panel with a projection of a transparency of the actual manual page. You can verify this by comparing the book page with the screen. (If you don't have either the book or the film, there are some decent screenshots, and page scans at The Neutral Zone.)

So what?

Well, it means that now not only the designs are canonical, but so is all the other information on the page. (Specifically, the Class name and type, and the specs for the ships.)

So now, instead of three unknown TOS-era ship designs, we have canonical confirmation for the Hermes-class scout, Saladin-Class destroyer, and the Ptolemy-class tug/transport.

Also (not that it's important) has anyone noticed that this same display was seen on the bridge in STIII as well?
 


Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
Hey, very interesting.

But I'm sure that they just used the Ptolemy and the Saladin.

If you look on these 2 pages, you'll see that it is the Saladin.

http://titan.spaceports.com/~nzcabac/Federation/Other/Hermes_SaladinClass03.htm
http://titan.spaceports.com/~nzcabac/Federation/Other/Hermes_SaladinClass03a.htm
 


Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :
 
Could somebody post the manual for reference?
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I was always under the impression that the Hermes and the Saladin classes were identical, and apart from mission specifics, there were no other differences.

Diagrams of ships as filler in displays is an iffy subject as far as "official-ness" is concerned. Yes, I agree that the diagrams are canon, but as far as we know no ships of those classes were ever built, as none were ever seen on screen or referred to in dialogue.
 


Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
Could somebody post the manual for reference?

Klick on the UFP-Logo on the sites I posted.

quote:
I was always under the impression that the Hermes and the Saladin classes were identical, and apart from mission specifics, there were no other differences.

The Saladin has more phasers and the Hermes has no photon torpedos.

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Looks like the designs, and the registries NCC-500 and NCC-3801 are there, so those can be considered canon. But the names "Saladin" and "Ptolemy" are actually cut off...
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
The external arrangement of the Hermes and Saladin classes are identical except for the aforementioned weapons discrepancies. It is possible, however (though only conjecture) that their internal layout could be different, much as with the "transport containers" for the Ptolemy.

As for the names, while TSN is correct about them not being on the ships themselves, the displays in the upper left corners read:

CLASS I DESTROYER
Saladin-Class Starships

CLASS I SCOUT
Hermes-Class Starships

CLASS I TRANSPORT/TUG
Ptolemy-Class Starships

While only the book and not the panels explicitly indicate the shown vessel to be the actual prototype of the class, I think it's fairly obvious. I am certainly prepared to accept the registries NCC-500, NCC-585, and NCC-3801 as those of the USS Saladin, USS Hermes, and USS Ptolemy, respectively.
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Well I'll be damned! LOL. I was hoping that there will someday be cannon proof that there were other types of starships in the TOS era other than the Connie type 1. Little did I know that we had proof for nearly 16 years! Cool. Can you think about how cool those ships would look if they got the same type of refit that the Enterprise got?

The Mighty Monkey of Mim. I'd also like to say welcome to this fine forum establishment. Geeks are free to be geeks and trekkies don't get looked at strangely when they reveal some obscure fact about Trek, B5, Star Wars, or any other kind of sci-fi. LOL. Welcome!
 


Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Ask and ye shall receive... ummm... eventually...

Here are the pages of the Saladin, Hermes, and Ptolemy class ships from Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual.

Hermes Class Scout
Ptolemy Class Transport
Saladin Class Destroyer
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Hell. I could have givin ya those. If only I could find the little scanner card that is supposed to go into my computer.....
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"As for the names, while TSN is correct about them not being on the ships themselves, the displays in the upper left corners read..."

That not what I said. I said the names were cut off. The very words you are referring to were not onscreen, because the displays were round. The names "Saladin" and "Ptolemy" are just barely missing, but they are missing.
 


Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
The big question: Is it a Hermes or a Saladin? Or both? Or none?

And as for the refitted versions:
The Ptolemy looks ugly, IMNSHO: http://titan.spaceports.com/~nzcabac/Federation/Other/PtolemyClass04.htm
 


Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Oh, wait a minute: I see it now.

It is for sure a SALADIN.

Note the lettering above the fore view and top view. If you look at the book, you'll see that only the Saladin has those letters there (they point to the photorps).
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
I have to disagree with the refitted Ptolemy. I actually kind of like it!
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Thanks, MIB, for the welcome.

I want everyone to know that I am what some people call a 'canon freak.'I go very much by what we see onscreen. But, I do have to say, in this case TSN, I think we can dispense with the hullabaloo over some letters being cut-off. Most of the display is still there, and we are all aware (or should be ) of what the dispaly says.
 


Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
 
How can you call a beauiful classic design like that ugly?
 
Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't know about anybody else, but I am including them in my canon ship section. Ten years ago I don't think I would have said these design are pretty, but today they definately have more appeal than some of the ships we've seen.
 
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
No kidding. Those designs are a hell of alot better than ships like the Freedom, Nigiria, and *shudders* the Challenger.
 
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
You mean "Niagara"?

I like the Saladin, though I think the Ptolemy could've been worked out a little better.

The Saladin is exactly the same as the Freedom except it uses Connie parts instead of Galaxy. I didn't like either of those at first, but they're both growin' on me.
 


Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
 
If youwant schematics of these refitted classes, check out "Ships of the Starfleet" or my own "Starfleet Dynamics".

If you want them to appear of screen -you may have a long wait.

Also - don't forget that a Scout-class vessel (Columbia?) was mentioned during overheard subspace traffic during STMP.
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
How do I check out your own starfleet dynamics? I'm pretty sure that Ships of Stafleet doesn't have any diagrams of the Saladin refit class.
 
Posted by Captain Stark (Member # 70) on :
 
Another thing about the Franz Joseph Tech Manual is that two of the scouts listed were mentioned by name and registry (the Revere and the Columbia IIRC) in the radio chatter at the begining of ST:TMP. Someone told me the dreadnought USS Entente was also mentioned in the radio chatter but I haven't been able to catch this.

With the DVDs of TWOK and TSFS can anyone post clearer images of the screens with the FJTM ships?

Thanks
 


Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
 
Freedom- and Challenger-class starships! There are pictures of those? Where? I've been looking for them for ages!
 
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
 
Check out this page for pictures of the Freedom and Challenger et al

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359.htm

Personally, I like most of these ships.
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
So far, the following information has been taken directly from the Tech. Manual for various films:

1. Scout U.S.S. Columbia, NCC-621
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by akb1979:
Freedom- and Challenger-class starships! There are pictures of those? Where? I've been looking for them for ages!


Go to Mr. Christopher's link. Read them and weep. Weep really hard.

The truth is that I really wouldn't mind the Niagara or Challenger at all if it weren't for the fact that the warp engines are so disproportionately large. If Okuda simply scalled down the warp engines a little bit, I would have liked both designs very much!

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Sorry about the double post, I accidentally hit the 'add reply' before I was done.

The following info has been taken directly from the Tech Manual for the various films:

1. Scout U.S.S. Columbia, NCC-621
(Mentioned in Epsilon IX radio chatter in TMP.
The Manual calls this Cygnus-class, but
that's not in the film.)

2. Scout U.S.S. Revere, NCC-595
(Also mentioned in TMP radio chatter. Manual
calls it a Hermes-class, but it isn't said in
the film to be of that class.)

3. Dreadnought U.S.S. Entente, NCC-2120
(This too was heard in the Epsilon IX radio
chatter in TMP. The thing is, it's very faint
and you can only hear it if you listen very
closely. It's sort of behind the rest of the
chatter, like background noise for the
background noise! Also, you may not be able
to hear it if you have the 'Special, Longer
Version' of the film, as I think some have said
it was later dubbed out. The Manual calls it
Federation-class, and a design is pictured, but
sadly, none of that is in the film. )

4. The aforementioned TWOK display ships:
a. Saladin-class destroyer U.S.S. Saladin,
NCC-500
b. Hermes-class scout U.S.S. Hermes, NCC-585
c. Ptolemy-class transport/tug U.S.S. Ptolemy,
NCC-3801
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Has the Ptolemy class actually been seen on screen? So far only screen caps of the Saladin have been posted.
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Personally, I think nothing should be written down about this. Yes, we know that it is an exact copy of the sheets from the manual, BUT, since we can't see it clearly, for all we know, the production crew slightly edited a number or a name here and there to possibly make an injoke (I.E. USS Alka-Celsior). Therefore, to be quite honest, the only think we can really get for sure out of those things is that those design's existed, but registries, names, etc. I believe all cannot be considered canon (unless someone has a DAMNED good close up of that monitor)
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
4. The aforementioned TWOK display ships:
a. Saladin-class destroyer U.S.S. Saladin,
NCC-500
b. Hermes-class scout U.S.S. Hermes, NCC-585
c. Ptolemy-class transport/tug U.S.S. Ptolemy,
NCC-3801

As Harry wrote, it's the Saladin on these displays. So the Hermes NCC-585 is still non-canon.
 


Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Also, I forgot to add, I also listed Revere, Columbia, and Entente on my list, and I know for a fact they said 2120 on there (I listened to that damn thing SO much...). I don't know if the copy I currently own has it or not (it's the widescreen version).

I can check TWOK right now, see if I can get anything good from it.

hmmm...anyone notice how effing BIG the Kobayashi Maru is for only being a fuel carrier? 147,000+ Metric Tonnes. Yet it's only 237m in length and 111m wide. What's the tonnage on the Enterprise?

Also, the Hermes is there. The 1st screen is the top view of the Saladin, the 2nd screen is the side and front of Saladin, the 3rd screen is top of the Hermes, 4th screen is side and front of Hermes, 5th screen is top of Ptolemy, and then it ends.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: The359 ]

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: The359 ]
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
You do that. It would be soooo sweet if we can find proof that the dreadnought is cannon....
 
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
 
Matt: Yes, well, we could just say that she's carrying heavy fuel and that tonnage is fully loaded.
 
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
 
The USS Enterprise is close to a million tons. ("Mudd's Women")

As for the USS Entente, the ship has been removed from the dialogue of the Epsilon 9 exterior shots. I first noticed this in 1991 with the release of the widescreen version of The Motion Picture on video. In the place of this dialogue, there is added dialogue for the Columbia and Revere. I think this is the version that Mr. Okuda has. In his ship list, he lists every starship mentioned by name. A notable exception is the USS Entente. This starship is omitted from the list.
 


Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
Franz Joseph gives the displacement of Enterprise as around 200,000 tons. The 147,000 for Kobayashi Maru seems about right based on that figure. Of course, if you believe the DS9 Tech Manual, ships in the 24th century are about 10 times more dense (weight per unit volume). My calculations show that with a weight of 200,000 tons, Enterprise is slightly less dense than water, which is similar to the density of surface ships.
 
Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :
 
Somebody wanted to see the screencaps, so here they are in all their glory:

http://w1.314.telia.com/~u31412332/startrek/ships2.htm
 


Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
the 3rd screen is top of the Hermes, 4th screen is side and front of Hermes

Do you have screenshots of them?
 


Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :
 
The front and side shot were the only ones shown, I cant seem to remember any other shots. These are the only ones Ive got.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
AARRGGHH!!!

Searching for any info on the as of now close-to-canon Hermes, Saladin, Ptolemy, Cygnus and Federation classes is giving me a headache! Are there any Fandom-wizards around here? Technophyle perhaps?

Here's what I understand of it:

The Hermes class scout is introduced in 2224 (I personally would put that a little later, with the Constitution being the first class to use the familiar Constitution parts).

A batch of these Hermes ships is rebuilt to Cygnus class scouts in 2245, which supposedly looks like this:

The Saladin Class of destroyers is also built in 2245 (but they seem to have nothing to do with the Hermes production??). Supposedly these ships were "TMP'ed" in 2269.

The Federation class dreadnought was produced in small numbers from 2255. Supposedly upgraded TMP-style in 2275.

The Ptolemy is a tug/tranporter and was supposedly launched from 2224 (what is up with this date!?). Supposedly updated to something called the Moncrief class (a TMP version of the Ptolemy) as early as 2267.

But since Fandom and Co. are as always notoriously non-canon, I did all this work for nothing .

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]
 


Posted by Eclipse (Member # 472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MIB:
Can you think about how cool those ships would look if they got the same type of refit that the Enterprise got?

There are/were a few games in which the E-nil-rifit look was applied to those classesm including the Federation class dreadnought. Nice.
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Harry. Where did you get that pic?? That ship is butt ugly.

You know. I once made a small simple kitbash of a TMPed Saladin. It looked very cool!
 


Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
I don't know if anyone has twigged yet but we have seen a refit saladin/hermes.
Most likely somewhere in DS9 "A Time to Stand"

Not clicked yet? there is a diagram of it in the DS9 Tech manual.
 


Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
Many of the diagrams seen in the Tech Manual were never seen on screen nor were models ever built for them. They were simply made up.

I think the last scratchbuilds we got in DS9 where the Curry Class and the Yeager Class kit bashes.

The effects people simply didn't have the time or money to build new stuff.
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Hm... Both the Saladin and Hermes top views were shown, after all. Look at Fitz's links back on the first page of this thread. That top view is the Saladin. You can tell from the length of the word "destroyer" at the top of the display. In pIn'a Sov's more recent link, the top view he lists as the Saladin is actually the Hermes, as evidenced by the shorter word "scout" at the top.
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
There are still a few unidentified ships in the background of the season 6 opening shot.
some or at least one of them could be a Frankie-fleet ship. Infact I'm convinced that one of them is the Runabout style proto-voyager.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
quote:
Many of the diagrams seen in the Tech Manual were never seen on screen nor were models ever built for them.

Well, three of the six were seen: the Curry, the Yeager, and the Centaur.

quote:
They were simply made up.

I realize that I've posted this before, but not everyone might have read it. All of the diagrams WERE possibly based on models the VFX crew built for "A Time to Stand," whether they were used or not. Okuda confirms this, and I had previously suggested to anyone with Drexler's email address that they ask him about it.
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reverend:
I don't know if anyone has twigged yet but we have seen a refit saladin/hermes.
Most likely somewhere in DS9 "A Time to Stand"

Not clicked yet? there is a diagram of it in the DS9 Tech manual.



I think I know which ship your refering to. No, it was never seen in DS9. As a matter of fact, it's not the same ship at all.
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
The Constitution-class variant from the DS9 Technical Manual has nothing to do with the Hermes or Saladin. The vessel has 2 warp nacelles. (Look at the stats. )

We don't yet know if all of the VFX models were used in an episode or not, but they may very well have been, as there are still some blurs in the background we can't see clearly. (Indeed, we may never truly know.) But it's almost a sure bet that all the designs in the Manual have their roots in actual production models and/or other materials, and weren't just 'made up.' Okuda, as said, has confirmed this.
 


Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
It is quite possible that if these kitbashed really resulted from an overnighter between numerous volunteers, the VFX crew would then have felt obligated to use all the models in actual filming. However, several of them might have turned out unfilmable, either because of poor quality of assembly, or because their awkward design cast undesirable shadows or made motion-control mounting impossible or simply looked ugly.

To avoid embarrassing anybody, the VFX crew then would have included the less appealing ships in the very distant background, where their faults would not show. Most probably, all such ships would have been clustered in the one shot in "ATtS", for reasons of practicability.

Timo Saloniemi
 


Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Also, in response to Harry's post about the Saladin, Hermes and Federation:

The original source to all these designs would seem to be Franz Joseph's SF Tech Manual, but this included no dates. Dating was apparently added by the RPG that featured these designs (Perhaps Star Fleet Battles, which originally used non-Gregorian years, though). This dating (as adjusted to Gregorian dates by fans like Jimmy Dixon) suggested the Constitutions were indeed among the first ships to be built to this design - but in the 2220s, not in the 2240s. Saladin and Hermes were full contemporaries, and IIRC Ptolemy came two years later. Okudaic history of course disagrees on the Constitution dating. Another RPG, by FASA, added more "family members" in the 2240s, including the single-nacelled Larson destroyer (which, imaginatively enough, has the nacelle on the top...).

Various sources later added sub-classes and refit/successor designs to these ships. The picture is one interpretation of what Cygnus could have looked like, but it seems to show a truncated saucer (there's a sector missing from the aft side) - such a saucer was the trademark of the Amerind scout, another fanfic invention to use that funny-looking nacelle design. There's also the Cochise destroyer, the latter-day Saladin. These designs had their written origins in Todd Guenther's excellent "Ships of the Star Fleet", but the graphic interpretations come from a variety of sources and often contradict each other.

All in all, there are far too many fan-created Hermes, Saladin, Federation and Ptolemy adaptations to keep track on. Personally, I think we could commonly settle for these original "semi-canon" four, and only accept those of the derivatives that we personally find attractive. Otherwise, we'd have a Starfleet in the TOS movie era that had more ships than the modern Dominion and Borg fleets combined!

Timo Saloniemi
 


Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
See, I thought someone had posted something from TPTB that stated just the opposite, that some of those models were never built.

Maybe I'm I'm thinking of the Wolf 359 ships discussion...
 


Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Timo, all these ships are CGI, why would they need motion control mounting?
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
The fact that the DS9 tech stats say that the ship has 2 nacelles does not discount it as being a saladin/ptomley refit, the refit may well have required this for some technobable reason like...oh...the TOS nacelles were capable of generating a two lobed warpfield but at a high cost in energy but the Refit nacelles could only handle one lobe but with a much higher energy efficency and a higher warp factor, so 2 nacelles were better than one

this is how I think the nacelles would be configured

http://flareupload.hypermart.net/files/Consti~3.jpg

and just for fun, a dreadnought refit too

http://flareupload.hypermart.net/files/Entente_refit.jpg
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
the359: Why do you say they are all CGI? Has this been established? As I recall, I think the Centaur was a physical model, so these ships may be as well.
 
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Can you make the nacelles on the saladin refit right side up again?
 
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Well, DS9 and VGR hadn't used physical models for 2 - 3 years for almost anything (unless it was stock footage). The Centaur was not a physical model.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Then I stand corrected. My apologies.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Um...I'm pretty certain it was. I'm also pretty certain that a good deal of DS9 stuff, even towards the end, was models. I remember someone involved talking about how the other Defiant class ships in A Call To Arms were just off the shelf models.
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
I'd say the centaur was definatly a physical model.
You only have to look at it to see, CGs look distinctly different.

and no, I can't put them on the right way, its just a quick cut & paste to illustrate the configuration, there are no un obstructed colour frontviews of a connie nacelle for me to steal.
 


Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
I don't think the Centaur was a physical model... You can tell in the effects - it's not CRISP enough... look at the ships between TUC and FC... Even the big EE doesn't look clean enough. It's supposed to have SHARP lines, that is because for the purpose of the moving pictures, the CGI doesn't need to be rendered at as high a resolution, but see CGI stills of the EE - like that pic from the front of the 2001 TNG calendar... NICE!
 
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reverend:
The fact that the DS9 tech stats say that the ship has 2 nacelles does not discount it as being a saladin/ptomley refit, the refit may well have required this for some technobable reason like...oh...the TOS nacelles were capable of generating a two lobed warpfield but at a high cost in energy but the Refit nacelles could only handle one lobe but with a much higher energy efficency and a higher warp factor, so 2 nacelles were better than one


You know. That actually makes some sense to me. Is that sad or what?
 


Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
WOW! Someone who agrees with me!
*breaks open a bottle of shampagin*

But to be honest I think that i'm full of shit...they really just look like the same class. Which is good enough for me.
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Shampagin?
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
either its a cheep altairian knock off or the labeling guy was drinking too much of his own product.

 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I think it's safe to say the Centaur was a physical model simply because of the obvious fact that it is a literal kitbash...
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
The way I've interpreted the comments on DS9's special effects, is that they used models primarily except where they had too many ships in the screen, and that's when they started adding the CGI ships.

For example, the big fleet at the end of "Call to Arms" -- there were a number of models in this shot, and then they filled in the background with CG ships like the Akira and the Steamrunner.

The scene with the Centaur, OTOH, was a relatively straightforward sequence. They would have used a model. Especially because they did some fairly up-close shots of both ships -- they don't do that with CGI's unless it's a very good model. But with a decent kitbash they wouldn't have to worry about the quality -- because it was the same as most other models.
 


Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
If this was a physical model, where is it now? You think asking Okuda might reveal anything? It could be hanging around the Paramount lot for all we know.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Who knows? It's probably sitting in a storage room somewhere, moldering away!

IIRC, the Fact Files got ahold of it somehow, and that's how they got the registry when nobody else had it.

Either that, or they just made it up. (But of course we KNOW they never make ANYTHING up! )
 


Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
The other question is, why would the CGI people go to the trouble of rendering an entire model like the Centaur for a few brief sequences like that? One of the drawbacks of CGI is that it takes a certain amount of time to put a decent, screen-worthy model together, no matter how long it's going to be used.

With the physical models, they can use the kitbashes made of existing parts and throw them together for a few brief uses, and that's it. For the brief-appearance ships (like the Centaur), it's a whole lot simpler to use physical kitbashes.
 


Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
Well, here's another question...

What did they kitbash the Centaur from? Did they use cheap models you can buy from the store? A totally new mold for all the parts? Or did they actually rip up the Excelsior model to use the saucer?
 


Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
 
Its highly probable that the FX guys used some ERTL Reliant and Excelsior models to create the Centaur. Just grab the main hull from the Excelsior and the rollbar/weapons pod assembly from the Reliant and presto! You've got a Centaur. The parts scale out perfectly according to the Mark I eyeball. And, they're cheap and easily had, a huge plus if the DS9 guys had a deadline to keep. I built such a model for myself (using the Ent-B saucer, though) and again, it scaled out very well.

BTW, the warp engines are just two Excelsior lower nacelle halves turned sideways. If you cut along the attachment points, knock out those sections, and then light the model, you can replicate precisely where the Centaur's nacelles glow.

Robert
 


Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Actually, I believe that the Centaur nacelles were not just standard Excelsior models. For one thing, both sides of the nacelles had the blue glow.

The AMT/ERTL kit idea does make a lot of sense, and even more so when you start looking at some of the other models... for instance the Intrepid/Constitution kitbash. Frighteningly, that spec might actually be accurate if you consider the different component parts. There's the Danube nacelle pylons, the Constitution-refit nacelles, and an Intrepid saucer. (No clue about the secondary hull.) But those three components are all in close proportion to the DS9:TM schematic. (*shudder*)
 


Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
I'm also voting for the physical model theory. In fact, all the new ships we saw inDS9 were ERTL kitbashes. The Yeager Class that we see orbiting the station every now and again is a kitbash of the Voyager and Maquis Ship models from Monogram and the Shelly Class is a rearrange of the Excelsior parts with some Connie refit nacelles thrown on. Both ships work out perfectly when you consider the scale problems with the models they would've used to make the ships.

Similarly, the little green tug seen in the same ep as the Shelley was a kitbash of various Models (Voyager, Rommie Warbird, etc.)
 


Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
 
MinutiaeMan,

I think what they did was use two lower nacelle halves for each Centaur warp nacelle. If you perform the cutouts like I described and then back the opening with Lightsheet, you've got your glowing Centaur nacelle. Somewhere, there is a warp drive-less Excelsior model (sigh). I'm with you on the other kitbashes - someone hit them with an ugly stick! Someone needs to tell the FX guys to back away from the model parts before they hurt someone!

Robert
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
WOAH, YOU GUYS!!!

You've turned a simple thread I started about obscure ships from a computer display in TWOK and turned it into A MONSTROUS KITBASH BASHING FRENZY!!!

What can I say? We're trekkies! (Sorry for anyone offended by that term.)

But seriously, just what does everyone have against those DS9 ships? Personally, I like them.
I was getting tired of seeing more and more 'new tech' ships like the Nova and Sovereign, and any one of those Tech Manual ships is better than the Holoship! (C'mon, let's see somebody try and defend the Holoship!) I just wish we could get official names for them, other than those cheap 'something/something-class variant' monikers from the manual.

Okay, I'm done.
 


Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
 
Monkey Man: I like them too.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I would guess the Curry's nacelles were Miranda, not C-II. The pylons look like Miranda ones, and we already know they were using one for the Centaur...
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
I agree.
& I'd really like to see some decient photos of the miniatures, since we still don't know how the curry's primary & secondary hulls connect.
Now that I think about it, I was watching "A Time to stand" the other day & there were two curry-types. Can anyone get a screen cap? it was on the far left of the screen, I'm fairly certain it was a sideview.
 
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Actually Monkey, if I had to chosse between a Yeager and a holoship, I'd choose the holoship. However build the Yeager model obviously does not a have much preception when it comes to the size of different ships.
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
I'd take the Holoship too. At least it's a well-thought-out design with a logical purpose and layout.

(Though I must say that the tri-nacelle Excelsior kitbash -- aka the Medusa -- is starting to grow on me.)
 


Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
I like all the new ships seen in DS9 too. The discussion was simply about how the models were contructed.

I do not, however, like the other ones in the Tech Manual. The Medusa has not grown on me even one tiny little bit since I first saw it
 


Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
I say we have MinutiaeMan commited for starting to like the Medusa. All in favor???
 
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
*raises hand*


 


Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
Aye
 
Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :
 
Nay.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
NAY!!! BLASPHEMORS!!!

The tri-nacelled excelsior is cool!
 


Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MIB:
I say we have MinutiaeMan commited for starting to like the Medusa. All in favor???

Thanks, but I've already been committed once...

[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: MinutiaeMan ]
 


Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by targetemployee:
The USS Enterprise is close to a million tons. ("Mudd's Women")

Scott's line was not meant to be taken literally. It was a hyperbolic statement meant to explain his frustration at the situation they were in, not be proof of the Enterprise's overall mass.

Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop.
 
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop.

What? It's a good ship.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Sorry, it's pet peeve of mine about the Canonistas. Every line of dialog in every show MUST be taken literally, along with every graphic, every display, ever set piece, even if the material was never intended as such.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
And, jeeze.. was THIS an old thread to bring back.

Sorry guys, I was looking for some info and this popped up in the browser. I should have paid more attention.
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
*Waits for the necro post image to be posted...*

Well, untill the new movie comes out, there will probably be a shortage of tech threads, and trek threads in general.
 
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
 
 -
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 




True Resurrection: The thread may be dead for up to one year per caster level and suffers no loss of level or Constitution from being revived. Not even true resurrection can raise a thread which was locked by a mod.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
That is so version 3.5
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
My handbook and DM's guide are still version 3 B)
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
My room-mate bitches constantly that they're destroyed the game with this new version- everyone is calling it "Roll-Playing"- referring to the lack of any needed role-playng, as long as the dice/stats are kind.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
I think people should just play whatever version they want to play regardless of what's current. I mean, there are people who still play 2nd ed.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
My handbook and DM's guide are still version 3 B)

Nigga, PLEEEAZE!! Not only do I still have my 2nd Edition shit. but I inherited my dad's 1st edition old-school hotness. AND dice.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
My handbook and DM's guide are still version 3 B)

Nigga, PLEEEAZE!! Not only do I still have my 2nd Edition shit. but I inherited my dad's 1st edition old-school hotness. AND dice.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
I think people should just play whatever version they want to play regardless of what's current. I mean, there are people who still play 2nd ed.

Dont make me get all THACO on your ass!
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
Scott's line was not meant to be taken literally. It was a hyperbolic statement meant to explain his frustration at the situation they were in, not be proof of the Enterprise's overall mass.

Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop.

quote:
More from Vanguard:
Sorry, it's pet peeve of mine about the Canonistas. Every line of dialog in every show MUST be taken literally, along with every graphic, every display, ever set piece, even if the material was never intended as such.

"Almost a million gross tons of vessel, depending on a hunk of crystal the size of my fist."

You can whine and name-call and straw man all you like, but the above statement does not follow the usual patterns for hyperbole.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
It's Scotty, dammit, he's always hyperbolic.
 
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
 
If McCoy had said that line, I could easily see him being hyperbolic.

McCoy: "Almost a million gross tons of vessel, depending on a hunk of crystal the size of my fist.'

Scotty: "Doctor McCoy, the Enterprise is a wee more than a million gross tons..."

McCoy: "Whatever! Dammnit Scotty, I'm a doctor, not an engineer!"
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
First he claims that the Bonaventure is first starship with warp drive and now he claims the Enterprise is a million tons. How did he become Chief Engineer? And where's my GURPS rule book?
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
C'mon, there's an easy answer: If Scotty always multiplied his repair estimates by four, then it's obvious that he did the same for the mass figure too. And 190,000 times 4 equals 760,000... which is close enough to fit under the definition of "almost a million."

Problem solved! [Razz]
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I've got the GURPS rule book- Scotty has several disadvantages:
Alcoholism -15 points
Obisity- -5 points
Clumsy -5 points

Those 20 points all go to boosting his Engineering Skill
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
MinutieaMan, I like that. I do. [Smile]

But, honestly, I still see the scene as it if was an exhasperated Scotty saying "This is rediculous!" more than any technically-oriented statement.

When I tell my daughters "I told you a thousand times to clean this room!", I haven't ACTUALLY told them a thousand times. It's a statement of exhasperation.

Besides, the 'million tons' figure would make the Enterprise nearly a solid chunk of very heavy metals. Physically, it's impratical if not outright impossible.

Unlike 'new Trek' and Okuda running the technology, TOS never really delved into the 'technobabble' all that much.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Or exasperation.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Canonistas and spellinistas! There's enough for a revolution here!

Daniel Butler... you win the internet! [Smile]
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
WOOHOO YAY! [Smile] ))
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Yes, but it includes the right-wing sites, the nazi crazies and all those she-male sites that you'll have a hard tme explaining ownership of to your mom.
Plus, you have to run the entire thing from your home computer.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
But, honestly, I still see the scene as it if was an exhasperated Scotty saying "This is rediculous!" more than any technically-oriented statement.

When I tell my daughters "I told you a thousand times to clean this room!", I haven't ACTUALLY told them a thousand times. It's a statement of exhasperation.

Scotty's statement neither follows the pattern of, nor is in the tone of, such an exasperated statement. Nobody responds to it as such. And so on.

The reality is that you're using a claim of exasperated exaggeration without evidence in order to attempt to contradict the evidence of the show itself.

This would be akin to me saying you're really a canonista yourself, and all this badmouthing of it on your part is mere parody. Sure I have no evidence for that, but I can go on and on with it just like you do . . . for instance, who would be so silly as to actually say 'canonista' and mean it? Obviously you're joking, and thus you really believe the nearly-a-million-tonne figure. (See how simple it is to ignore the facts?)

Further, you're suggesting . . . literally, really . . . that he's multiplied the number by a factor of four. After all, your preferred value is about 200,000 tonnes . . . the value he states is nearly a million, putting the difference somewhere between four and five times.

When you make exasperated statements with inflated numbers, is that what you do? Did you actually tell your daughters to clean 250 times before stating 1000?

No. That's not how it works. You picked an unreasonably high figure . . . not one within the same general order of magnitude.

quote:
Besides, the 'million tons' figure would make the Enterprise nearly a solid chunk of very heavy metals. Physically, it's impratical if not outright impossible.
It's entirely possible, and even likely. While you want a ship to be light for the purposes of moving it, you're going to want it well-protected and well-built for the purposes of not getting blown to bits.

When Rick Sternbach was figuring the mass of Voyager, he based it on the density of the Apollo capsule, which was basically a tin can.

Your value for the Constitution Class would make it 75% as dense as Apollo. Do you really think that they made a frontline starship not even as dense as a 20th Century tin can?

Your value is also 90% as dense as water. In other words, the Enterprise would float. Do you really think Kirk's Enterprise would float?

(And no, don't try to retort that the Bird of Prey from ST4 floated. That small section of bridge module stayed above water for some time, but the tail sank most immediately, and given that the depth of the SF Bay averages 14 feet (going as deep as 360 near the Golden Gate), it hardly follows that the ship was floating. More likely its ass was simply sunk into the bottom of the bay.)

quote:
Unlike 'new Trek' and Okuda running the technology, TOS never really delved into the 'technobabble' all that much.
Hence all those advisors from Rand and such. Sure.

Anyway, thanks for helping me update my discussion of the 190,000 tonne fallacy.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
The Original Series had scientific advisors to keep the show from feeling like the crap sci-fi shows of the previous few decades. It was NEVER about being 'hard sci-fi', ever. The 190,000 figure came from all four of TOS's guides, which all CAME AFTER the final size of the ship.

(The mass was dervied from aircraft carriers of roughly the same size.. and actually made HEAVIER to account for 'super materials'.)

Also, you know, considering that a full third of the secondary hull is expressly HOLLOW on the Enterprise, and how the rest of the ship is actually VERY roomy, where the Apollo was decidedly NOT. I mean, look at the bridge itself, it's HUGE and nearly mostly just air for the crew to breathe.

Apollo didn't even allow for the three men to move all that much. They were literally crawling over one another.

I think Rick started with a foolish assumption, and you're continuing the assumption in order to... win debates with Warsies because you MUST have as big as numbers as possible?
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
...this is the only discussion I've ever read here on Flare that made me want to respond with "it's just a TV show, give it a rest."

Seriously. It's heavy. It's big. It would hurt if you kicked it. Is it really necessary to argue over the tonnage? It violates physics by moving faster than light anyway.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
I made the mistake of looking at the man's site... I may have lost INT. [Razz]

You're right in that it's "just a TV show". But since I'm doing all sorts of tech-stuff , I want to be consistant, and the 190,000MT makes more sense to me.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Well normally I'm all for rationalization and figuring out ways to smooth over plot holes and technological inconsistencies...but this just seems a bit too....picky lol. I mean can't you just say Scotty was using some other form of 'ton'? Maybe he was shortening from isoton.
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
...for like 14 seconds as i scrolled up, i thought Guardian 2000's post was E's...

o.O sorry sure for insulting you as such...
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
No, if G2k's post was E's it would look like this:

"The, Enterprise, is a, million, tonnes. I, know this, because Scotty, is a miracle, worker and, therefore, cannot be, lying. You are all, wrong and uneducated, in this, subject"

[Wink] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
quote:
I mean can't you just say Scotty was using some other form of 'ton'? Maybe he was shortening from isoton.
Like I said, the line just doesn't seem to be meant as literal, and he certainly didn't need to report to the CAPTAIN on the mass of the ship. So I'm going to say Scotty was being himself, and not worry about it.

Remember, this is the same bit of text that had the POWER SOURCE for the ships be LITHIUM crystals.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
It was NEVER about being 'hard sci-fi', ever.

Who said it was supposed to be that? Not I, certainly.

quote:
The 190,000 figure came from all four of TOS's guides, which all CAME AFTER the final size of the ship.
First I've heard of such. Please go on.

quote:
Also, you know, considering that a full third of the secondary hull is expressly HOLLOW on the Enterprise,
First I've heard of such. Where is that from?

quote:
I think Rick started with a foolish assumption, and you're continuing the assumption in order to... win debates with Warsies because you MUST have as big as numbers as possible?
This started because of your general attack on the mental processes of those who accepted the evidence of the show to describe the show.

Now, you're making a specific attack on my honesty, and doing so in a silly way.

(Do you not comprehend that for any given engine power, to make a ship faster I would *want* it lighter? Especially against lumbering ISDs? I'm just sayin', before making needless and childish character attacks, at least try to not make them stupid, too.)

quote:
he certainly didn't need to report to the CAPTAIN on the mass of the ship
Why in the world would you try to spin the statement into Scotty reporting the mass of the ship?

He was making a point about how dire their predicament was, akin to me saying 'I have to run a 4000 pound car on a bit of fuel the size of a thimble', or 'a damaged drive belt as thick as a pencil', or some other such thing.

(4000 pounds is the average weight of a US automobile. It is also two (non-metric) tons.)

You're saying that what one would actually say is that 'I have to run my ten ton car on a bit of fuel the size of a thimble' out of calmly-spoken exasperated exaggeration. Moreover, you state that all who disagree are wrong-headed canonistas.

And when called on those peculiar points of view, you claim that such a statement about a ten ton car is actually a report to the audience about the car's weight, not a statement making the point of how screwed one might be. And then you try to start flaming the guy who called you on it.

Your thinking, sir, is entirely silly.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
quote:
Who said it was supposed to be that? Not I, certainly.
Your entire web site, basically?

quote:
First I've heard of such. Please go on.
The writer's guides are available from Majel's marketing site. Pretty cheaply as well. But the writer's guide, when it describes the Enterprise, gives rough dimensions (about 1000 feet long) and it's weight. It was being compared to an aircraft carrier.

quote:
First I've heard of such. Where is that from?
The hangar deck ring a bell?

Seriously, for the amount of attention you throw at SFX shots, and all the 'frame by frame' measuring and everything on your site, you seem incredibly unfamiliar with Star Trek itself.

But, we're done. No more replies from me to you.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Why did you have to turn this into a childish ad hominem thing, Vanguard? It's an argument about the mass of a ship, not whose cock is bigger (i.e., interpretation of canon is more accurate).
 
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
Stop it, you two. Now. Or this'll be locked up, and that'd be a shame.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
quote:
First I've heard of such. Where is that from?
The hangar deck ring a bell?
Ah, sorry, the exaggeration of "one-third" and implied stating of "expressly" confused me.

quote:
But, we're done.
Very good. And again, thanks for your assistance with my page.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Why did you have to turn this into a childish ad hominem thing, Vanguard? It's an argument about the mass of a ship, not whose cock is bigger (i.e., interpretation of canon is more accurate).

You have to realize, I don't really care about canon all too much. But I do care about believability and consistancy (which, ironically, is why I don't care about canon).

Besides, the guy wrote an article on his web-page about how obviously stupid I was, and how everyone that every mentioned the signed-off on 190K MT figure was some sort of moron .. or maybe a Warsie in disguise.. I dunno. And now he's gleefully pordding the bear here about how I 'helped' him with his site.

You're right that I shouldn't have 'done the urinal contest thing' here, and I didn't mean to. I was just annoyed.
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
you know.... ever since i clip arted that Mobuck pic of the Hadron things [If teh balls touch we die], when ever i even see the word 'cock' typed, i giggle...
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Why did you have to turn this into a childish ad hominem thing, Vanguard? It's an argument about the mass of a ship, not whose cock is bigger (i.e., interpretation of canon is more accurate).

Ye, but who's cock is more massive?

Really, in spite of common sense, the ship really could be super-massive: If the exotic containment elements of the antimatter were super-dense (Neutronium or something close) and if the nacelles each contained it's own intermix chamber, along with various super-dense antimatter storage devices, it's possible Kirk's Enterprise was such a cow.
Certainly it's more dense than a scaled-u[ Apollo capsule or an aircraft carrier.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
You know, and just touching upon this, I still have to disagree. The only areas that could be that dense, to justify the huge mass, would be the nacelles.

But, like I said, we KNOW that at least 1/3 of the secondary hull is pretty much hollow, and that the bridge, corridors, and all that are VERY spacious and room.

Plus, exotic materials, even at high density, are limited to physics. I would doubt that substantial parts of the ship would be made of heavy elements. In fact, we know that the 'fuel stores' of the Enterprise, for both matter and antimatter, are close to the lightest mass of all, short of vaccum... deuterium.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I dont know about that "secondary hull is hollow and spacious" bit: do we ever see anything except the hangar bay in the secondary hull?
I dont think so- It would make no sense for the saucer to be so crammed and the secondary hull so roomy.
As to dense materials, how 'bout the hull?!
The TOS E did not have S.I.F. fields for support and managed to dip into the atmosphere on occasion- that could indicate exotic materials construction in it's spaceframe and nacelle pylons if nothing else.
Probably wherever the conduits channel warp and impulse power as well.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Deuterium isn't the 'lightest mass of all, short of vacuum.' In fact, what you meant to say was the least dense. And it isn't. Protium would be less dense. Free electrons, less dense still. Two or three atoms of protium in a confined area, less dense still. You get the picture.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Er...it's established that at least someone out there uses "neutronium fuel" in Trek.
Kobayashi Maru, enyone?
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Daniel, but those aren't what we would call 'remotely stable matter', nothing you could power a starship with. But hydrogren massing ALMOST the same as Helium, but in M/AM would be pretty light.

As for what we see in the secondary hull.. certainly by the TMP version we know that at least 1/6 of it is taken up by an arborium! It really does seem that the TOS and TMP Enterprises were designed with similar thinking to a modern aircraft carrier... which is exactly what Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry was going for.

Moving on...

Jason, it's 'neutronic' fuel carrier... which is, actually, another way of referring to heavy hydrogen. 'Neutronic' means 'heavy matter', as in there is an extra neutron present, causing some radioactivity.

Trek is surprisingly consistant on this matter.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Ugh.. man I wish I could edit my posts here more easily.

I meant that the design being based on an aircraft carrier as far as overal crew, mass, equipment, and so on would go... not that a secondary hull has a park in it. [Smile]
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
If you wonder how he eats and breathes and other science facts, repeat to your self, "its just a show, I should really just relax".
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Er, Vanguard. Protium is simple hydrogen. It's...quite stable, I assure you. It's what we would call "the most common element in the universe."
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Mars, you're not helping.

Remember, I do do this for fun, really... my site is ABOUT Star Trek's starship technology, so, as I said, I want to keep consistant into itself, and use what material I can from the shows and fandom over the years.

I don't mind if someone is going to disagree on the tech stuff. I mind if they're being prats about it, and insisting on 'rightthink'. [Smile]
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
And by the way, why have you decided the arboretum obviously occupies 1/6 of the Ent-D and the hangar deck obviously occupies 1/3 of the secondary hull of the Ent-nil?
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Er, Vanguard. Protium is simple hydrogen. It's...quite stable, I assure you. It's what we would call "the most common element in the universe."

yeah yeah... I paid more attention to the 'free electrons' bit. [Razz]
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
quote:
And by the way, why have you decided the arboretum obviously occupies 1/6 of the Ent-D and the hangar deck obviously occupies 1/3 of the secondary hull of the Ent-nil?
The Hangar Deck is shown in TOS and TMP as going pretty far into the ship. (The writer's guide tech diagrams show it about as such.)

The TMP Aboreum is VISIBLE as being over two-decks high and taking up a large chunk of the front underside of the secondary hull.

Point being, really, is that most of the ship is pretty airy and roomy, unlike the Apollo or even the Space Shuttle. Heck, it's more roomy even than the Nimitz class. It's possible that 'trititanium' used for the ship's bulkheads and skin are more dense than the name would suggest, true, but stretching up the figure THAT much seems problematic.
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
Sorry, I was trying to lighten up the mood. In any case, the teaser for ST IX shows the Enterprise being constructed (or at least partially constructed)on the ground. So I ask how easy or difficult would it be to launch a 1000000 ton ship into space?
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
If you wonder how he eats and breathes and other science facts, repeat to your self, "its just a show, I should really just relax".

What I wouldn't do for a MST3K of STV.
Really, any of the movies deserve it.
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
Well they have Riff Trax, which features MST3K alumni doing riffs of mainstream movies. They have one for Star Trek V.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Where may I purchase said Riff trax?
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
Why here my good sir.

http://www.rifftrax.com/
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
The writers guides aren't canon you know...
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Ah, but you assume I REALLY care about what's 'canon'. That's your first mistake. [Smile]

In any event, of course, you do realize, that the writer's guides are by definition 'canon' for any series that they're being used. They're actually more 'canon' than what shows up on screen.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
So...you just get to make up what you want and everyone else is wrong? Canon is what makes us all *agree* on things. Otherwise everybody's own interpretation is equally valid and that doesn't make sense for a consistent universe watched by so many people.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
No, 'canon' is what writers in the series have to adhere to when expanding on the official fiction. 'Canon' was never something for the fandom.

And you know what? The handlers of Trek, all the way back to the first season of the original series, absolutely sucked at it. That's why we have these discussions.

So, for MY purposes, yes, I get to use what I like, discard what I don't, and that's pretty much it. So long as I explain my rationale and try to be internally consistant, I'm golden.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
quote:
Noun

Singular
canon


Plural
canons

canon (plural canons)

1. A generally accepted principle.

The trial must proceed according to the canons of law.

2. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field.

(A date for this quote is being sought): "the durable canon of American short fiction" — William Styron

3. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic.

the entire Shakespeare canon

4. A eucharistic prayer, particularly, the Roman Canon.
5. A religious law or body of law decreed by the church.

We must proceed according to canon law.

6. An ecclesiastical title.
7. A piece of music in which the same melody is played by different voices, but beginning at different times.

Pachelbel’s Canon has become very popular.

8. (fandom) The works considered factual or official, usually within a specific franchise, which defines events, characters, etc. that are considered to have existence within the fictional universe.

Note well nos. 2, 3, and 8.

About your last point - then you can hardly expect anybody to agree with you, can you?
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Well, I no longer expect you to.

I think we're done here. Nothing constructive can flow from this anymore.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
You're very self-righteous and confrontational about your Trek beliefs. That puts me off.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Okay... so now I'm a heretic?
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
Oh god...for Pete's sake, it's a TV show, not a religion. Let everyone have their own views on what they personally consider canon.

Why don't we drop our phasers at the door, and forget about all this, and let this thread fall down on the thread list, to be necroed someday a year or two from now?
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Vanguard: Since when does self-righteous and confrontational equal heretic?? It equals jackass. I don't care what you think about Trek. I care that you think everyone else is wrong and you want to yell at them when they ask you why you're right.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
I don't mind if someone is going to disagree on the tech stuff. I mind if they're being prats about it, and insisting on 'rightthink'. [Smile]

But don't you see? You walked in here 'prattily' making fun of "targetemployee" who simply quoted the canon figure -- "Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop". Then when someone joked that it was a good ship, you went on all by yourself, continuing the attack on those who might dare disagree, noting the "pet peeve of mine about the Canonistas. Every line of dialog in every show MUST be taken literally {...}". Hence my initial response about straw men and name-calling.

What you claim to resist, you have become.

This is not an attack on my part, mind you, but a hopefully-helpful observation. I have fallen into the same trap at times (probably lots of times).

It is clear that you have argued with people over canon quite a bit. I have, too (which is why I know that the writer's bibles are not canon "by definition"). As a result, I get potshots taken at me by every fandom-loving person who comes across the site or my posts. Tack that on to the potshots from every kid who thinks a Star Destroyer is cooler than any Enterprise and that it is evil to believe otherwise, and you can imagine that I have become a far less patient individual.

But that's one of the exact effects that one ought to wish to avoid. We've all gotta watch that resisting->becoming thing.

quote:
Besides, the guy wrote an article on his web-page about how obviously stupid I was {...}
My Volumetrics page, written in 2003, and its The 190,000 Tonne Fallacy section, written in 2005, are not about you.

However, you did help me expand the section, and I thanked you accordingly. That expansion, however, is also not about you.

You may be a "jackass" (I'm one too, fear not), but that can change. It should be possible for us to have great fun, given our mutual interests of Trek tech and canon issues and wild disagreements thereon. Care to try again? Or do you prefer the hostility?
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Look, to me a 'Canonista' isn't someone who worships the canon, but someone who worships his view of canon as a weapon against fellow fans. You have to subscribe to his 'rightthink' or you're really not a fan and should just shut up. And that's clearly what you and Daniel did.

I disagree in this case with the assertion of 'canon' about the mass, for several reasons. One, it's not the writer's guide's numbers. It's from Scotty who is prone to exaggeration. It's in a line of dialog that includes several OTHER major errors in it. Simple enough, nae?

And, almost all of the time, it doesn't even matter. But since I am working on 'tech' stuff, I have to use the most consistant of sources, and this line of dialog is the outlier. So I toss it.

It is impossible to take all of Trek as a literal canon. You simply cannot do it, and that's without adding the novels, comics, and so on. There's just way too much in conflict. I personally think it's a fool's errand to try to declare the 'one true Canon' and then expect to be able to 'bully' other fans into it as if it were a religious view.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Vanguard I repeat: Since when does self-righteous and confrontational equal heretic?? It equals jackass. I don't care what you think about Trek. I care that you think everyone else is wrong and you want to yell at them when they ask you why you're right.

See what I did there? I pointed out that you're using your worship of your own personal 'canon' as a weapon against other fans, and we're not really fans if we don't subscribe to your 'rightthink.' Vanguard unbellyfeel irony.
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
I see what you did there, you continue to insist to personally insult me not REALLY because I'm "pushing my view of canon" as a canonista.. but because I'm not agreeing with you on yours.

And, yes, you implied I was a heretic because, as you put it, I was 'offputting on my Trek beliefs' as if it were a religion.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
That's not what heretic means. You're off-putting because you're insisting you're right and being an ass about it.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
And that's my schtick!
Get your own act, why dontcha.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
Look, to me a 'Canonista' isn't someone who worships the canon, but someone who worships his view of canon as a weapon against fellow fans. You have to subscribe to his 'rightthink' or you're really not a fan and should just shut up. And that's clearly what you and Daniel did.

I only waded into the thread after your weaponization of your anti-canon views.

But whatever . . . I tried the olive branch last post.

quote:

I disagree in this case with the assertion of 'canon' about the mass, for several reasons. One, it's not the writer's guide's numbers.

It supercedes the writer's guide numbers, by definition. A writer's guide is a vague blueprint of characters and setting, nothing more. It is not intended as a constraint, but a guide. Hence the name "guide".

And as we see in this instance along with so many others, the writer's guide figure was ignored.

This occurred in a script based on a story by Gene Roddenberry, with teleplay by Roddenberry, John D.F. Black, and Stephen Kandel, and which Roddenberry wanted to charge Desilu for "polishing".

So the contradicts-the-writer's-guide argument is trash.

quote:
It's from Scotty who is prone to exaggeration.
This is also a trash argument. I have provided the clip . . . there is no evidence in favor of exaggeration on his part.

We've seen the crystals, for instance . . . they're about fist-sized.

But please, feel free to find us scenes (sufficient in number to produce a pattern of behavior as you are suggesting) where Scotty calmly exaggerates the hell out of something. Please also note that a counterargument could be made that Scotty was prone to calm understatement . . . remember the "wee bit of trouble" he got into on Argelius?

quote:
It's in a line of dialog that includes several OTHER major errors in it.


Like what? The use of the term "lithium"? That was hardly an error at the time . . . dilithium became the term only later, to escape the shortcomings of using a known element. Many simply assume that, in-universe, an unspoken "di-" occurs, like calling gasoline "gas". In any case, a conscious choice was made.

However, there was no later similar change to the mass of the ship.

Elsewhere, you've argued that the figure would make the ship too dense for you to accept. Beyond the fact that this is mere personal incredulity and is thus to be ignored, there is the fact that you've also claimed this would make the ship "nearly a solid chunk of very heavy metals".

This, too, is wrong. The ship would be half as dense as solid iron, and about as dense as the much lower density titanium. Many denser metals exist, including lead, copper, cobalt, nickel, platinum, plutonium, silver, gold, tungsten, uranium, and others less common. The range of metals mentioned extends up to over twice the density of iron, and over four times the density of titanium. That doesn't even begin to consider the extraordinary elements available to Trek species.

Solid iron a mile thick was considered very good armor in the 23rd Century. And while no starship could hope to match that level of protection, must you insist that they are papier-mâché through and through?

quote:
Simple enough, nae?
Your argument is simple.

It is, however, entirely too simple, because it ignores the writing process, creates exaggeration where none exists, and attempts to condemn via guilt by association with a claimed error that, while being a bad choice later changed, was not in fact erroneous at the time of production. Last but not least, it ignores the context of Trek (and real) engineering.

You can go on believing whatever figure you wish in your own little personal happy-place canon, but you're going to have to learn not to freak out whenever fans of the show quote facts from the show. It is what it is, and no amount of whining changes that.

Good day. You're finished, and I'm through with you.
 
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Never before have two people argued so passionately over shit that does not exist.


Except for religion, of course
 
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
 
Oh, Jason, I've known you long enough to know that statement isn't true. [Smile]
 
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
Christ, I go away for two weeks and this happens. Not any more.
 


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3