OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Ryan, I acknowledge that it is my opinion. BUT, my opinion is based upon logic and principles of science and engineering. These are the only valid principles of determining truth (no comments, Omega).
Since my logic and application of engineering and scientific principles are flawless in this regard, then I am right. Until somebody can come up with something better, then I will continue to be right. Of course, that won't happen. Because I'm right.
Don't you see? It's all so logical.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
quote:...my opinion is based upon logic and principles of science and engineering. These are the only valid principles of determining truth ... Since my logic and application of engineering and scientific principles are flawless in this regard, then I am right. Until somebody can come up with something better, then I will continue to be right.
If only that weren't so long and ungainly, I'd have a perfect silly quote to use as a .sig
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Get on Dan's ass about that. Not mine. he has my entire article that will eventually get put up on his website and explains it all (or most of it).
But let me ask you, Jeff. What possible difference could there be between an otherwise exact same design that would neccessitate up-slanted nacelles on one and down-slanted nacelles on the other?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Since my logic is flawless, I am right. Until somebody comes along with something better, I will continue to be right. Of course, that won't happen. Because I'm right.
How does that suit you, Tom? I've always wanted to be somebody's .sig.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
I hate to break this to you, but there isn't a whole lot in Star Trek that is bound to solid engineering and physics principles. How would you explain the rationale behind using very thin structures to connect the two hulls on ships like the Constitution-class and Ambassador-class? How would you explain the rationale behind using very thin structures to support the massive nacelles on ships like the Sovereign-class? How would you explain the rationale behind putting the impulse engines is the same weapons angle as the warp engines on the Intrepid-class?
You're inferring logical where there was none when these ships were designed by Jefferies, Probert, Sternbach, Eaves/Drexler/Zimmerman. For the most part, they went with something that looked good onscreen and then the details were fleshed out. Then the "science" of Star Trek was created to fill out how all of the fancy sci-fi stuff could work.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
man, for god's sake...IT'S A FREAKIN' SHOW!
Maybe some of you is right, maybe Enterprise did "stole" the design from Akira, but so what, ENTERPRISE IS STILL KICK ASS LOOKING!
This is not designing a piece of work that's gonna be used in real life, so it doesn't matter if the "ENGINEERING" fits or not, and just out of curiosity, which one of you is an "engineer", you guys sure used the word "engineering", technical design alot, which is ironic, cuz I'm becoming an electrical engineer, and even I don't use that word that often.
And nothing is perfect, continunity of the show therefore doesn't have to be perfect at all time!
AGAIN, IT'S A FREAKIN' SHOW!
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
posted
But, for the most part, the "science" of Star Trek is made up. Parts of it may be grounded in some fashion on true physics and engineering and the like, however, most of it is not. You cannot say that something violates engineering or physics principles when it's obvious in their universe it is perfectly acceptable. In short, you cannot proclaim yourself to be right on something that is largely fiction.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not getting work up, I'm merely stating the fact that some of you are getting worked up.
And the prove is that this topic has 5 pages of reply.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
posted
Just a quick note on all this stuff about starship designs and functionality or the forms, while Okuda and Co. tried to explain the E-D's form as behind some ideal subspace shape, this goes in direct opposition to Andy Probert's thoughts when he designed that ship. I'm paraphrasing, but he said that he "assumed that the technology was a given at this point and people would design starships that they thought were esthetically pleasing", hence all those compound curves and ovoid shapes.
That's an alternate viewpoint on the lineage of design. If you accept that "as long as it has warp engines it goes zoom", then you can buy older ships with shapes that seem to belong later, cause it's more style than function.
Just another POV.
[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Timelord
Ex-Member
posted
Well, Hobbes just posted a conversation he had with Doug Drexler in the Enterprise Design topic that proves what I have been suggesting all along. The producers made a conscious decision to basically copy the Akira design because they new the fans liked the Akira. So they pandered to what they thought would be popular instead of taking a chance and being original. It's fun to be right all the time....
IP: Logged
posted
Personally, I don't have any issue with the show having transporters. They're part of Star Trek lore, and I see no evidence to suggest that they couldn't have had them in 2151. As for the original impetus for having them on TOS, budget, that remains an issue, but there's also time constraints. Ever see Crusade? That often featured long scenes set on a shuttle going to or from a planet's surface, and it slowed the action up considerably. Added to that, it wasn't the same set they used for the shuttles in B5, and looked cheaper.
Of course, the E-D was originally going to have transporters on the Bridge, but changed it so that time could be taken for character interaction/plot exposition while they went to the transporter room. Then you had DS9 where they did have transporters in Ops. It's give and take.
posted
[ i dunno if anyone has said anything similar but: ]
You guys talking about the Enterprise not being proper predecessor of starships/can definately be a predecessor of starships are starting to sound a like your reading into the story too much (forgive me if all this discussion is done knowing what you're argument/basis for an algebraic graph/comments does not exist) but (forgive me again if i sound too cynical) but it is a story which is made by writers who can do what they want as long as its part of the contract. If u think u can do better apply for a job at paramount, or if u dont like it, just dont watch it. On another note some of you lot are starting to sound like u think u r some professional starship designer of the 24th century expert on the subject. Last time i checked it was the 21st century, and the only space going manned vehicles we had are space shuttles. SO what if this Enterprise looks no different to what we've seen before. We have no 'proof' that it doesnt follow design lineage. And as many pointed out already there is no canonical proof that this new enterprise violates continuity.
Final Point: don't like it, dont watch it and dont complain, let others enjoy it.
-------------------- "Tom is Canadian. He thereby uses advanced humour tecniques, such as 'irony', 'sarcasm', and werid shit'. If you are not qualified in any of these, it will be risky for you to attempt to decipher what he means. Just smile and carry on." - PsyLiam; 16th June
Printer-friendly view of this topic
