posted
I'm all about some TMP shuttles. However, they do not appear as such in the movie. You're thinking of an "Art of Star Trek"-type matte painting seen in one of the books. I got corrected on this previously, so I know how you feel . . . I liked them, too.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
And the not-quite-90-degrees is probably just caused by the materials the ship was built from. Pretty much everyone who has modeled the 1701 has had that problem
posted
My only problem is the recon role. Don't get me wrong . . . I don't want Starfleet to be a bunch of science ships and couriers, and I do like the fact that he's at least acknowledging different roles for all these zillions of Federation ship designs. But, a recon ship called the Stargazer (of the Constellation class) strikes me as a contradiction in terms.
Of course, the U.S. Navy has a Constellation that's a warship, but still.
I would think the vessel better suited to exploration, myself . . . a more capable Soyuz, perhaps.
Though, I must admit, the lack of a dedicated navigational deflector does lend itself to a "low observability" idea, at least while at warp. But, given the Miranda and Soyuz, I might simply be talking out of my butt.
However, splitting the warp field between four units might also serve in that concept quite well. If you think of the warp nacelles as light bulbs illuminating an object or area, you could use one 100 watt, or two fifty watts, or four 25 watts . . . and perhaps even smaller wattages to get the same coverage, like 100 / 40 / 15. From an opponent's perspective across the zone, the ship might seem "less bright" that way. The fact that the ship was underpowered according to Picard might support the 15-watt concept.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Picard did indeed consider the Stargazer "underpowered" and "overworked", but that may have been with respect to her poor state of repair, or in comparison with modern starships. It's a bit unlikely she would have fared badly wrt other TOS movie era ships, and yet would see so much service.
The two mech figurines on the underside could be there for planetary assault duties. (I think I suggested this two-three years ago already)
Speculation on what makes the "sensor cannon" special & cannonlike: it has its own subspace field generator for FTL sensing, and doesn't have to rely on the field generator that is normally associated with the deflector dish and its assorted forward-pointing long-range sensors. Previous vessels lacked FTL scanning in directions other than the one where the dish was pointing (explaining why it's called both the sensor dish and the deflector dish, while allowing for plenty of sensors elsewhere on the ship). TNG era ships might have a number of more elegantly housed "sensor cannon" somewhere, for off-axis FTL scanning. Or then not, depending on how crucial that capability is to a non-recce starship.
(Not that there's any canonical basis for the above, but it sounds nice that the FTL scanning abilities of early starships would be very limited. I like limitations. They make for drama. Unlike omnipotent superships.)
quote:Originally posted by Timo: We only ever saw bow views of dysfunctional Constellations, and we know the deflectors of Constitutions don't glow while the ships are powered down.
We did see the USS Victory flying toward us and it was good as new with no glowy thing on the front. We'll just have to accept 4-level high shuttlebays!
posted
This is a fascinating article, and I really enjoy and appreciate that Mr. Sternbach is continuing to contribute small articles in this way -- even though some of it is stuff we already know, it's still probably the most official data we'll ever get. Heck, some of us already consider the TNG Tech Manual to be "near-canon," and IMO these articles could be given the same status, since they're written by the same author for the same basic purpose (that is, for the establishment of hard data regarding the technology and for the enjoyment of us fans).
The only part that I don't like at all is the suggestion that the Constellation-class starships could stay in service through 2435. That's an extraordinarily long time period.
(Now that I think about it, I'm going to start another topic on this because it's a more general issue that I could go on about for a page or more. )
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Ambassador on the design board in the 2280s. I don't like that at all. No, sir..I don't like that one bit.
It is contradictory to canon. The Hierarchy does not approve.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The Galaxy Project took 20 years. That would put the first launch of the Ambassador possibly around the turn of the century, hopefully a bit later, which is not that far off the scale.
posted
First of all, Picard's comment was that they were "overworked" and "underpowered", which I think is appropriate for any Constitution-era-tech vessel serving in a fleet that's long since moved on to Excelsior and Ambassador tech and is in the process of cranking out the new Galaxy tech...
Secondly, the shuttles. I have it from Andy Probert directly that he designed two sizes -- the smaller shuttlecraft seen in the hangar matte painting, and the larger long-range shuttle that Spock arrived in (which was attached to the Vulcan Science Academy, if anyone didn't know...). The latter is also the provenence/design of the "long-range shuttle Laika" buried in the Epsilon 9 chatter.
And, lastly for right now, we had a bow shot of the Victory in "Elementary, Dear Data". The bow door/deflector/whatever was distinctly unlit -- no surprise, seeing as it was re-used footage of the Stargazer.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not sure I buy that the Stargazer was put back into service without Picard making any mention of it. I mean, he was on the ship for what, twenty years?
Beyond that, the reason the TNG technical manual could be considered to be...well, in a nebulous state as far as canon goes, is because the people writing it worked for the show. Sternbach isn't even employed by Paramount anymore, so, while I think there are other reasons one might want to include information from this and similar articles in their Big Lists of Everything, (For instance, they're neat! Another reason should not really be required.) those shouldn't be the same reasons one resorts to for inclusion of the technical manual material.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Assuming you're analyzing the real, legal Star Trek as opposed to your personal perception of Star Trek, there really are three major categories of data that stand out. In the order of importance:
Canon = data in the shows and the movies that isn't a blooper, meaning the data which makes sense in the context of the portrayed reality regardless of whether it was intended by producers or not. Unless you're using an outside source to fix an error as defined above, it overrides every other source.
Apocrypha (term suggested by Ryan) = data created by people who worked on the show for the purpose of making the actual show. This includes the partial registry systems, stardate systems, blueprints, model photos, and series bibles, as well as any External sources chosen to function as apocrypha = TNGTM, DS9TM, Star Fleet Technical Manual, possibly the Star Charts. This data only supercedes the external data if it's more consistent with canon than the external data, but otherwise it's in the same category.
External (need a better term for this) = licensed data not functioning as apocrypha. This includes most of the novels and games, and probably Starship Spotter, Worlds of the Federation, Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, but also websites and sources written under the Fair Usage provision of the Copyright Law. Online theories can fit into this category likewise.
Rick Sternbach's articles are technically external data, but they probably would function as apocrypha if the need arose. Hence, they're pretty high up in the External category, overriding just about everything other data. That doesn't mean that a better-researched External resource couldn't override it if it happens to be more consistent with canon than this article.
However, Rick's recent articles are so good that only a website could realistically do that.
posted
I was under the impression that "Star Trek: The Magazine" was an official publication licensed by Paramount.
Furthermore, aside from "Nemesis" there isn't ANY development of the TNG-era right now. Therefore, I consider Sternbach's previous and similar works to be sufficient justification to consider the new articles on a similar (though not completely equal) level.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The Magazine/Fact Files are on the same level as the Tech Manuals, Encyclopedia, and Chronology. That is, "canon except where contradicted by the actual episodes, films, etc."
While Sternbach does not work in the Star Trek Art Department at Paramount Studios anymore, he has been commissioned by Paramount to do these articles for the Mag.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I beg to disagree, Der M�chtige Affe von Mim... the parts of the magazines written by Sternbach I will accord the same credulity as the TM and Encyc. material, but the tripe wheeled out by the Mag and Fact Files regular writers is garbage, with no basis in canon, and has nothing to do with Paramount's canon, and there for is accepted on a level at or below other officially licensed but non-canon sources like comics and novels.
With the exception of like two issues, most of the magazine's tech articles have been written by ninnies that had nothing to do with the production of the show.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic