posted
To everyone: I accept the Niagara Class starship as three nacelle because somewhere in a forum I read that Rick Stenbach gave this class three nacelles. One further point-the closer of the two nacelles closer to us is more forward than the other nacelle. This configuration agrees with the future USS Enterprise D. And, btw, if the ship has two nacelles, why is not more of the saucer showing and why is the nearer nacelle more forward than the other?
IP: Logged
posted
OK, looking at the vidcap, i agree with this hypothesised niagra, I think the burnt out/turned off port nacelle of the pic in the top right of the starship - might be confusing people - but you can discern the starfleet logo on the top side of the nacelles, (remember this ship is upside down)
yes the topmost (of the viewscreen) is further forward - and does seem to fit nicely with the alternate future E-D - but if people don't always like the idea of three nacelles - whats wrong with having a forth on the bottom - in the center...
sorta like a + when viewed front on, not that i'm say thats what i think i can see, i can't...
posted
does the saucer section have to be ambassador? - I was looking at it upside down - and the saucer looked at little like the constitution refit saucer - i.e. the sudden bulge in the middle and the horizontal strip at the back of the saucer for the impulse engines, just infront of the middle nacelle?
posted
also, reguarding the factfiles, nacelles, for the niagra, maybe it might be partially legit, maybe they DID get the idea for the alternate future E-D from this ship - look at the FF nacelles - they have those strips on the tops of them - although, maybe the person that put this FF picture together, knew there were three nacelles, except but the middle nacelle on the bottom by mistake - look at the shadowing on the pylons, it looks as if one of them was supposed to be a single standing nacelle, and that the other was part of a double pair - maybe the person that did this pick, found it too difficult to put that third middle nacelle in behind the other nacelle, and instead just stuck it on the bottom!?!
posted
The so-called "topmost" nacelle is not farther forward. The reason it looks that way is that the other nacelle is missing its entire Bussard assembly...
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
[This message was edited by TSN on March 28, 1999.]
posted
I can see a port nacelle, Galaxy type, and a Galaxy type pylon. The other thing is definitely another nacelle, however, note the two nacelles are not parallel. So the other nacelle could have been ripped off as well. When I tried to reconstruct the saucer outline, I managed to get its centerline parallel to the port nacelle, but not to the mid nacelle.
If you ask me about the ship's class, I don't think it's a Nebula anymore. It's probably one of the kitbashes, either Niagara or Springfield.
I actually have an old version of GraphicConverter...I ought to get the new one...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
