Flare Sci-Fi Forums: D'oh! The Prometheus has HOW many nacelles??

This is topic D'oh! The Prometheus has HOW many nacelles?? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1506.html

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Looks like the Starship Spotter fouled it up on this account, too.

There are six, damn it! SIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not five.

-MMoM

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]

Posted by StyroFoam Man (Member # 706) on :

Bleeding heck! Well that just ruined my night! I'm off to commit major crimes and casue death and destruction...

All because of that one mistake.

Unless, they don't consider the one nacelle a nacelle and it's a "warp engine pod"

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Excepting, of course, for the fact that it's freakin' identical to the other little one, which they call a nacelle.

Apparently Mojo & Bonchune forgot to look on the underside of the saucer-section model...

Posted by StyroFoam Man (Member # 706) on :

Exactly. I noticed this too. I figure that it's a simple mistake, thats all.

Either way, they should be punished.

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

Read carefully. The specs are for the merged configuration.

But the phaser count is wrong IIRC. Should be 12 not 13.

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

In the merged configuration, there should be only four nacelles. The top nacelle on the Alpha section should retract into the hull just like the lower nacelle does. From what I remember, the Alpha section necelles are "sustainer" nacelles designed to keep the saucer at warp after separation. I think you can even see little extended struts when the ship separates...

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :

*imagines Mojo being interogated by MMoM in Cardassian makeup*

THERE ARE FIVE NACELLES!!!!!!

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :

LMAO

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

*seems to remember pointing this out, like, the week the book came out...*

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

quote:
Apparently Mojo & Bonchune forgot to look on the underside of the saucer-section model...

Don't say anything bad about them just yet. They only did the sweet pics. The text was written up by two different guys altogether. I'm sure Mojo and Bonchune know about the sixth nacelle, but just didn't have the time to correct any errors in the text before putting it out to print...that's if they were responsible for reviewing and correcting the text.

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Dat ]

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Are they the ones to blame for saying the Constitution-class was commissioned in 2245, as well?

Idiots.

-MMoM

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

!? Wasn't 2245 always supposed to be the commisioning year of the Constitution class?

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Not always: it used to be in the 2220s originally - or some 40-50 years prior to TOS anyway, regardless of when one thought TOS would take place. This due to something Roddenberry wrote about the ship having a long and distinguished pre-Kirk history.

But 2245's been generally accepted (that is, even Alex Rosenzweig accepts it!) for quite some time now. It's one of those Okudaic facts that isn't halfway bad and is supported by TPTB, even if it doesn't quite jibe with older fan views.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Umm...that is not correct. Okuda just said that the NCC-1701 was commissioned in 2245, and that was based on Gene's date. Never has he ever said that that was the year the class was commissioned.

That's what I mean. The writers of the SS must have looked at Okuda's date for the commissioning of the E-nil, and mistakenly used it as a date for the entire class.

We know that the Constitution class was in service in 2217, when the U.S.S. Valiant was destroyed. Everybody seems to "forget" that the Valiant was a Connie...

-MMoM

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

You're kidding, right?

Every unseen ship wasn't a Constitution. we need to get over that fact. Not only did nobody say the Valiant was Constitution, but it is WAY outside of the dates necessary for that class.

By your logic, the Antares was Constitution too. And the SS Columbia too.. lets just say every unseen starship was a Constitution.. the Klingon scout in Errand of Mercy must have been a Constitution.

So have they been making Constitutions since the time of ENT?

As much as i love SotSF.. its a great book.. id love to accept everything in it (and do, in fact with the exception of what has been directly contradicted).. but its obvious that the dates are wrong. and we need to get over that, because the dates presented by Paramount make a LOT more sense.

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Dude, no one is saying ALL unseen ships were Connies. But the Valiant is, according to the TOS production staff's original starship list.

And once again, Paramount has NEVER said that 2245 was the commisssioning of the Constitution class. Only that of the E-nil.

Besides, (even though I personally don't) those of you who think registry numbers are chronological should have a problem with a 2245 commissioning, given that the Connie's numbers go down as far as NCC-956! (The Eagle from TUC.)

2245 is definitely waaaaay to late a date for the entire class to be commissioned.

Unless...

(Just thought of this)

Maybe they meant (or at least maybe it could be interpreted to mean) that particular configuration of the Connie. Cause didn't they give a new commissioning date for the refit-configuration? Maybe the 2245 date is a refit-commisioning date.

Of course, there's still a bit of a problem with this, given that the E-nil didn't LOOK like that when it was commissioned. The model they have shown is the series version, not the older one from "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

*grumble* *grumble*

-MMOM

Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :

We know these two facts:
first, in the years that followed the crash of the S.S. Columbia , Starfleet introduced a new class which were more advanced than previous classes. This new class was introduced in the 18 years between the crash and the episode "The Cage". "The Cage" is eleven years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before". U.S.S. Enterprise belongs to this new class.

Second, the duotronics revolution occured twenty-five years before "The Ultimate Computer". All new ships of the fleet were given these advanced computers. U.S.S. Enterprise has doutronic computers.

Combined, these two facts tell us that the alpha-designation class starships, later known first as Enterprise then Constitution , were first constructed in the 2240's. (I am assuming at the time of the commission of the first of this new class that Starfleet was employing the system seen in Enterprise and referred to briefly in TOS .)

The U.S.S. Valiant could not have been in this new class. She was destroyed fifty years ago.

As for registry chronology, there didn't exist sequential registries in this century. The Oberth Class and the Excelsior Class share many similiar design features, yet the former class has ships with registries in the 600s whereas the latter has registries in the 2000s.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

So what is wrong with the idea that ships can take on the registries of older ships - like the Enterprise - but not with a letter. Or the idea that fits better - that the Oberths in the 100's are just older ships that have been refitted with new tech - like the Enterprise. This - I think explains away the Akira/Steamrunner etc discrepancies... they were built before TNG - around the Cardassian Wars... it was just that they have been refitted and upgraded with current technology after being pulled out of mothballs.

Andrew

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: AndrewR ]

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :

Then what would be the point in having registry numbers?
From what I gather regestries are to keep track of the ships over a long period of time, regardless of their names. For instance, someone wants to do a search on all the voyages of the Farragut...well a computer would then spit out everything on all of the Farraguts...but if you only wanted the logs of the Nebula Class Farragut then you could specify it with its regestry number (NCC-60597).
If you wanted the logs of the Excelsior Class Farragut you would have to specify the registery NCC-38907 (yes, I am making this up) and the computer would note that NCC-38907 was originally called Intrepid but the name was changed when command of the ship was transfered to the surviving crew of the Nebula class vessel and the crew of the Intrepid was transfered to the new prototype.
But if your right and you can number ships any way you please then there would be no way to distinguish between ships of the same name.
Obviously the Enterprises were special cases and are infact differentiated with a letter sufix...the second defiant is a lazy cockup plain and simple.
As for why some of the Oberths have such low registeries and yet they look contemporary with the Excelsior, it is possible that they originally looked very different but were drastically refitted in the 2280s, much like the Constitution class.

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :

Or, perhaps, at the time they allocated certain blocks of registry numbers to different types of starship (i.e. 500s to scouts, 1700s to heavy cruisers), and the numbers were used whenever the ships of that type were constructed. That would also explain why we heard a reference to the dreadnought Entente and its 2120 registry in TMP, fourteen years before we saw the Excelsior.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

The idea that the Federation had Constitutions in the 2220s is almost unthinkable. Connies were always established to be at the forefront of the fleet, a flagship design. The thought that the Federation would not overtake that design for 65 years is bizarre. By the movie era and beyond, the flagship roles are swapped out every 10-20 years.. less in some cases. How would the Federation spend the bulk of the 23rd century not designing starships?

This is a difficult thing for me to have to say, because i respect Ships of the StarFleet, and give credence to a lot of the content (i.e. i will continue to beleive there is a Belknap-class, etc until proven otherwise.. so much of SotSF's data adds beautifully to the ST universe)

but we also have to recognize that when it comes to the intentions of the Trek creators, SotSF is.. complete.. bullshit..! it was made up by some fanboys. They love Star Trek, they can draw better than the current manual-makers, but its still way outside of what needs to be recognized by Paramount.

Other things that are in SotSF that arent real
The Enterprise being commissioned in 2220
The naming of the 'Avenger-class'
The Belknap's cloaking device
(most likely) the refitting & existence of Horizon-class & Archon-class
All the dates..

And the Valiant? The TOS staff also had data that at times made the show appear to be in the 2700s. Backstage stuff that doesnt make it onscreen.. didnt make it onscreen!.. and the Valiant's dates point at the 2210s decade, even before the erroneous SotSF dates for the Constitution-class.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
but we also have to recognize that when it comes to the intentions of the Trek creators, SotSF is.. complete.. bullshit..!

You're joking, right? Ships of the Star Fleet (and the other fandom material it was based on) got the 2220s date from The Making of Star Trek, which was written with the input and consent of Gene Roddenberry, the ultimate "Trek creator." Roddenberry wanted the Starship Class ships to have been around for about forty years when that book was written.

In other words, when it comes to the intentions of the Trek creators at the time, SotSF was absolutely right! Or did you mean current Trek creators? That this was later changed may mean that the book is ultiamtely wrong, but not that Todd Guenther was wrong for using the date. It is simply a case where Star Trek's producers decided to ignore the original intent.

Don't get me wrong: it's their right. Anything that wasn't established onscreen is fair game for alterations. I don't fault them for changing the dates around, or for using "Miranda" instead of "Avenger," or for calling the refit "Constitution-class." However, it is quite unfair to suggest that anyone who followed those ideas was wrong to do so, since at the time they had no way of knowing that a scenic artist named Mike Okuda would end up deciding these things. All they had to go on is the notes and quotes of those who came before.

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
Other things that are in SotSF that arent real
The Enterprise being commissioned in 2220

Since you already mentioned this, it doesn't exactly fall into the category of "other things."

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
The naming of the 'Avenger-class'

Once again, the name Avenger was taken from the people who designed the ship... even if it was ultiamtely contradicted.

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
The Belknap's cloaking device

Since the Belknap has never been established to exist in canon, how do you know it didn't have a cloak?

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
(most likely) the refitting & existence of Horizon-class & Archon-class

There is no canon to contradict these speculations.

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
All the dates..

Same story... the dates are essentially based on "Miri" (TOS), in which a bicycle from 1960 is said to be 300 years old. Later dates are conjectural, just as Okuda's are.

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
And the Valiant? The TOS staff also had data that at times made the show appear to be in the 2700s. Backstage stuff that doesnt make it onscreen.. didnt make it onscreen!..

Now this I agree with.

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
and the Valiant's dates point at the 2210s decade, even before the erroneous SotSF dates for the Constitution-class.

"Erroneous" suggests that the dates were a mistake... which they weren't. Try "later-changed."

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Surely the sole reason for registry numbers is bookkeeping, regardless of just how those books are organized?

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

About registries - may I retract my statement about new ships using older (pre-used) registries like the Enterprises without the suffix. I realised when I hit send it was sorta silly and now reading it again - and the replies - it is definately silly.

I'll keep the idea though about the Refitting of the Mirandas and the Oberths.

I like the idea of the blocks of registries. Someone mentioned that ships are given registries when their initially started... Since the Excelsior was such an experiment-laden ship - it presumably was started a while ago... and thus started out with a 2000 registry, Blocks or not. This allows the Jenolen 2010 and the Entent etc. This 'spaceframe registry' idea also works for the Akiras/Steamrunners/Prometheus etc. Ignoring the name - the registries CAN work - since the ideas and the frames/construction could have begun well before we see the ship actually running. Look at the 5**** Prometheus (even if this is wrong) it could be explained away because it took a long time to get this ship out into space. It's initial design/construction/spaceframe might have been begun 20 years earlier - but the radical 3 in one idea probably took a while to work - probably after the simpler 2 sectioned Galaxy Class was given a thorough workout... This also works with the E-D been given a 7***** registry... and later - presumably when given the name 'Enterprise' was redubbed/reregistered NCC-1701-D.

Andrew