while analysing the structure of the Norway-class for the next schematic, I thought about the purpose of that vessel. What does starfleet do with the Norway?
Facts: - Rarely seen, but I don't buy the 'prototype-testbed'-theory - Obviously a forward-firing phaser-cannon only, but I don't buy the 'diplomatic clipper'-theory - The armor seems to be Defiant-like - It seems starfleet invited the same freak who painted this one again to do the Medusa and Elkins - in other words: Why does it appear to be grey-brown? - Pretty small, judging by the windows the ship seems to be less than 200 meters. - What's that for a funky box-collection behind the bridge? Could it be the emergency-shuttlebay exit, like the Galaxy's? Some CGI-models have a shuttlebay at the rear end of the saucer, below the two phylons.
And how old is it? At least the Steamrunner seems to predate the Cardassian war with the 52xxx-number. Could the Norway be another pre-war design? I found an interesting footnote in the Bridge Commander Manual; the Galor-class wasment to be the answer to the federation Excelsior-, New Orleans-, Miranda- and Norway-classes. This indicates the ship could be older than we thought. (You can say what you want, but I concider Bridge Commander canon. Besides the game, the information given in the manual is better than everything I have seen, well-researched and can stand the Encyclopedia in any way. Furthermore, it gives us some more starship names. )
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
What's a phylon?
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Yeah, the Norway doesn't seem to have any phaser banks at all[old or new strips]
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: I found an interesting footnote in the Bridge Commander Manual; the Galor-class wasment to be the answer to the federation Excelsior-, New Orleans-, Miranda- and Norway-classes. This indicates the ship could be older than we thought. )
I wonder what does BC imply by this? Are they saying Excel, Miranda, New Orleans, and Norway are all ships from the same time period? Or that they all serve the same purpose?
Hardly likely since New Orleans is a frigate[what ever that means in trek unviverse] and an Excel is hardly equivilant to a Miranda.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: What's a phylon?
A typo. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Captain Amasov, do you have a good list of the ships mentioned/seen in the game.. im always expanding the Galactopedia
[ooh.. .. i just found the website.. good stuff here.. do you have .. dareisayit.. registry numbers, hmm!?]
[ March 31, 2002, 10:13: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"Rarely seen"
First Contact only, so it's really "Seen Once", I think.
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
I have always considered the Norway as a fast courier or a sensor ship dedicated to finding cloaked vessels. Thats what i think those unknown things behind the bridge.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Captain Amasov, do you have a good list of the ships mentioned/seen in the game.. im always expanding the Galactopedia
[ooh.. .. i just found the website.. good stuff here.. do you have .. dareisayit.. registry numbers, hmm!?]
What page was it? Besides the information given in the manual, they also list all ships stationed in the Maelstrom. I haven't completed the game yet, but it seems you'll enconter all of them. The manual only gives the registry for one of those ships besides the Dautless/Sovereign, the Kithomer, but the others have unique hull markings in the game, too. I'll check that soon. For now, this is the complete list of ships (besides this, there are also some ships mentioned in the personal bios of each character and the Galaxy and Sovereign are analyzed, revealing some interesting data):
Galaxy: -Dauntless (NCC-71879) - Cpt. Robert Wright (KIA), Venture (NCC-71854) - Cpt. Benjamin Dawson, San Francisco - Cpt. Eina Zeiss
Nebula: -Berkley - Cpt. Elizabeth Haley, Nightingale - Cpt. Nandi Jadeja, Kithomer (NCC-71906) - Cpt. Jae Yi
Sovereign: -Sovereign (NX-73811) - Captain Jonathan Soto (the guy was replaced by me, don't know what happened to him), Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) - Cpt. James Kirk Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
non-canonically, the novel "Ship of the Line" shares Alabin's train of thought, suggesting that the Norway is a 'border cutter' a ship designed to patrol and defend the far reach of Federation space. (Captain Bateson likened the design of the new Norway-class Bozeman to the purpose of the orginal, a Soyuz-class border cutter.. this (mission purpose) is the same type of ship that Ships of the Star Fleet calls a 'Perimeter Action Vessel'.. a 'tightly wound' 'rig' (Carey's words) designed to be small, operate independantly with a small crew, have enhanced sensors for long-range policing, have enhanced tractors and docks for towing and boarding, and pack a punch as a combatant in its troubleshooter role.
[ March 31, 2002, 11:00: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think that sounds similar to those Akyazi-class ships (and their subclasses), from a non-canon source. But I think they are quite poopular though.
Interesting nontheless, the purpose of the Soyuz class has never been revealed. Or the fact why the class went out of service while her sister-class remained in service for another century.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
In Ship of the Line, there's no mention at all of a Norway-Class ship. I have it right here. The new Bozeman II is a destroyer, that's it.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I do like Carey's 'border cutter' explanation for the Soyuz.. the extra attachments are tractor/tracking/docking/boarding equipment for tracking and towing vessels along the border. And she posits they went out of service, simply because they were all refits of Mirandas and therefore not a 'new-build' class that was going to continue being ordered..
and the Akyazi-class is the very class i was mentioning: its the Perimeter Action Vessel from 'Ships of the Starfleet'
buh? i couldve sworn that Carey mentioned the class.. ive been misled again.. dagnabit!
[ March 31, 2002, 11:20: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
OK, here's some more information, coming right from the dragon's cave; these are the numbers of the ships, I got them from the texture files ('//Activision/Bridge Commander/data/models/ships/' and '//shared textures/', for anyone who wants to check it):
Akira: Devore: NCC-64088 Geronimo: NCC-69302
Ambassador: Excalibur: NCC-26517 Zhukov: NCC-26136 (interesting fact... they corrected the error from the physical model)
Nebula: Berkley: NCC-64720 Kithomer: NCC-66613 (contrary to what was said in the manual, obviously an error) Nightingale: NCC-60805 Prometheus: NCC-71201 (the ship appeared in the first mission, for now, but maybe it'll appear again at the end)
Galaxy: Dauntless: NCC-71879 Venture: NCC-71854 San Francisco: NCC-69480 (oops; obviously another participant in my theroy about Nebula-parts used to produce Galaxys during the war faster. )
That's it, hope I forgot none, but those are the textures I found.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Norway has been seen twice, actually. Once in First Contact, and once in Voyager, where it showed up on a wall display in the fake Starfleet headquarters.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Really? I haven't noticed that. Has the episode been released as DVD yet? Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that.
So, it proves that the Norway-Class was in service before 2371.
[ March 31, 2002, 12:28: Message edited by: U//Magnus ]
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
From the Bridge Commander Manual:
USS Dauntless / Galaxy / NCC-71879 - Captain Robert Wright (KIA)
USS Venture / Galaxy / NCC-71854 - Captain Benjamin Dawson San Francisco/Galaxy/ - Eina Zeiss
USS Khitomer / Nebula / NCC-71906 - Captain Jae Yi
USS Berkely / Nebula / ??? - Captain Elizabeth Haley Nightingale/Nebula/ - Nandi Jadeja
USS Zhukov / Ambassador - Captain Milus Verata
USS Excalibur / Ambassador - Captain William Morrison
USS Devore / Akira - Captain Joshua Martin
USS Geronimo / Akira - Captian Gregory MacCray
USS Sovereign / Sovereign / NX-73811 - Captain Jonathan Soto
USS Hawking - Science Vessel
USS Lionheart - Captain Thomas Wittbeck
USS Parsifal - Captain Lorena Damon
USS Arapaho - Captain Serchin Davas
USS Mohawk
USS Baltic - Captain Didier LaFleur
USS Strongbow - Captain Delia Messina
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
In the battle, seen in FC, there were two Norways. They both survived the battle.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
And the Norway was also seen on that fleet chart in "Favor the Bold," I believe, behind Sisko and Admiral Ross. It's somewhere in the DS9 Technical Manual, towards the beginning.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The Bar in the Fake Starfleet grounds from Voyager was just a top view from the encyc along with a few other ships, and etched? on to what looks like a piece of aluminium or some sort of steel.
That is why I am looking forward to your post-Medusa Norway schematic Cap'n.
Andrew
Posted by grb2 (Member # 787) on :
Norway: Its is apparent that this vessel is oddly shaped for a ship of its era, and does not have the phaser strips, life boat hatches, or even windows seen on most other ships of that era. I figure that Norway-class vessel is a Multi-Environment Explorer. Basically, a Norway will explore dangrous regions you wouldn't want to send a normal ship into, such as subspace ruptures, proto-star clusters, or anything else dangerous.
Its armor would be there to protect it from these extreme environments.
Why would the Galor be designed in response to it? Because it was used extensively to explore the Badlands. (I posted most of this in an earlier post).
That is what I think it is at least. Afterall, how many combat-oriented designs would a pre-2370s Starflett have?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Possibly quite a few, given the wars w/ the Cardassians, Tholians, and Tzenkethi...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Or possibly none, since everything we knew about starships (until the Defiant became the on-screen acknowledged exception to the rule) said that there was no such thing as a "combat-oriented" Starfleet vessel.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What about the "frigates" in "Conspiracy"?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I can tell you one thing; the only person who did a worse work than the guy who textured the ship is the guy who draw the vessel for the encyclopedia. Allthough I have to admit he did the best possible with the worse material available (Can it be possible there is only one single shot available of that damn thing?!?), but there are some blatant errors. And the texture of the CG-model is awful. For example take a close look at the foreward section, where the bridge module is located. The lines of the hull armor or whatever it is are running up to the dome, over the connecting line and back down. And what the hell is the resolution of the texture sheet? 200x200 pixel? The more I think of it, the more I think they let the model disappear for a reason. I'm just glad we never saw a close-up of this thing.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The Norway looks like one of those shovel-nose sharks that swim along the sea floor. Maybe it was built for going into Nebulae!?! ;o)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised by the relatively low quality of the Norway model. It was meant to fill out the background action, and was detailed just enough to look good on the big screen.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I seem to recall seeing some evidence once that the Steamrunner's textures aren't even properly aligned to the features on the ship model itself. But I don't know if that's true or not.
Posted by grb2 (Member # 787) on :
yeah i bet starfleet might indeed have a class they call a "frigate" to serve as a more heavily armed cruiser for support operations near Tzenkethi, Cardassian or Tholian space. But its still not a true "warship," its designed for support operations of the type a modern excelsior is assigned too, but probably with not all the exploratory equipment of excelsiors (they were originally starfleet's most advancd explorers). at least that would follow what seems to be starfleet's main role as en exploratory organization....
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, as long as they don't have a starship type they would actually call "destroyer" or "battleship" or "demolisher" or "conqueror" or "mass murderer", they can quite nicely argue that their ships aren't warships. A "frigate" or a "cruiser" sounds innocuous enough, since there's nothing really warlike about cruising or, uh, frigging. ("What are those big phasers for, if this isn't a warship?" "Mmm, digging holes into asteroids?" "Oh, okay.")
As for the Norway, if she doesn't have phaser strips or torpedo tubes or portholes or lifeboats or shuttlebays, the most natural assumption IMHO would be that she's a transport vessel. Those won't need much in the way of windows or weapons, but a big featureless monobloc hull would be expected. And traditionally, Trek transports have looked quite unlike Trek warships, so the exotic appearance of the Norway would be nicely explained, too.
From what we saw, the Norways didn't play much of a role in the battle - only two of them there, and only one seen firing a weapon (which some claim must have been a superphaser, but I say it could have been a puny type IV beam just as well). Starfleet had Oberths in anti-Borg battles, too. Why not a large military transport or two?
Or, if one wants to pay attention to the variable-geometry nacelles but doesn't want to say this is an experimental vessel, one could say the Norway is a tug. Those would have to have reconfigurable warp fields in order to extend their fields over ships in tow. The longitudal booms to which the nacelle pylons are attached could also be some sort of rails for carrying cargo containers or barges. Ever see a real-world barge carrier? The Norway looks quite a bit like one.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
I read somewhere in this thread, that the Norway didn�t have phaser strips... But I have a small pic where this ship appears firing her phasers. I believe the phaser strips are in the underside of the main hull, but I can be wrong. Anyway, never found a good blueprint of this ship, only those green/brown schematics and a small kit (in which is possible see phaser strips in the underside of the main hull). If somebody has good blueprints, I would like to see them, cause I�m interested in built a CGI model...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The problem is, even if the Norway did have phaser strips, it was shown firing from the recess in the fore of its 'saucer,' indicating it was some type of phaser cannon there that used a different delivery than the common phaser strip system. Knowing 24th century design, that area would probably best be a deflector or torpedo bay, but possibly the animators who did the VFX for the FC film didnt know that and made it a phaser instead ( or even worse, the CGI modeller didnt know of the design standards and actually intended that to be the model's phaser cannon ).. not that its a huge problem, its just that the Norway doesnt jibe with other Starfleet ships for unknown reasons.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
i know its a pretty pathetic excuse for ships like the Saber and Steamrunner, but maybe these classes were somewhat 'classified' during the TNG era, and so would not have been mentioned. If they are warships (or at least we consider them to be) then perhaps they werent mentioned becoz Starfleet does not have warships . either that or they were on deep space missions and since none of them were named enterprise the 'documentary crew' [ie. the TV show that we have come to be so familiar with] never followed them around.
perhaps a lil too cynical, but it is 0240 hours my time.
Buzz
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Made sense to me.
Posted by grb2 (Member # 787) on :
Yeah, but I would still have to argue against it being a transport. That is because we do know Starfleet has alot of ship classes that weren't seen in the battle, such as the Chimera, Bradbury, Freedom, etc ships. Some of those designs were at Wolf 359 cause they were the ships scattered around the Federation core that could be scrambled in time for the battle. But Starfleet was more prepared for the second Borg assault, meeting the borg with a bunch of ships in the distant Typhon Sector. I imagine that the reason why we only saw those, what, 5 or 6 ship classes at Earth in FC was cause by that time in battle those ships were the only ones fast and powerful enough to keep up with the cube all the way to Earth, firing all the way. Come to think of it, I guess the Norway could be some kind of long range fast transport then...but then again, from the CGI it looks like there's some kind of large sensor array on top, so I guess I'll keep with the multi-envionment explorer theory.
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
For me, cause the design, the Norway appears to be an interceptor or patrol ship. I know that it isn�t a commom trek concept, but I think those tasks combine with the Norway.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:(You can say what you want, but I concider Bridge Commander canon. Besides the game, the information given in the manual is better than everything I have seen, well-researched and can stand the Encyclopedia in any way. Furthermore, it gives us some more starship names. )
"Canon" means it's accepted by all; while I don't have any problem with the information given therein (I don't play computer games), I'm not going to even afford it the same status as the Encyclopaedias, that is, semi-canon until something is either confirmed or contradicted onscreen.
And the design. . . well, the Encyclopaedia drawing sucked (I should know, I used it as the basis for the diagram I've done for UP3) and the single existing view of the CGI model looked awful. There's the beginnings of a good design here, and it would have been nice if they'd taken the time to develop it.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BTW, i drew up a slightly better wireframe.. here it is superimposed over the encyclopedia version.. i think it looks pretty spiffy like that. reuse on pages, only if you provide a link to mine: captainmike.org
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
That ship looks as nice as always, but it's not a Norway. Like I said, not one of Drexlers (or whoever did them) best images; the whole bussard-collector/forward-nacelles-thing is wrong, the bridge-module is anything but Norway, the saucer shape is wrong, even the wings need some update.
Maybe we should call that version a 'variant', like the Centaur from the DS9TM. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'm looking forward to your pic Amasoff... I never really noticed any difference between the Encyclopaedia schem and that wierd CGI model. I guess I wasn't really looking for any reason in particular - and you are for your pic... so thanks for the info!
If DD did these pics for the Encyc... wouldn't he have had access/pics of the models sent to him? Maybe he still has them - like on his computer!?!
Undersides of the Steamrunner and Sabre would be nice but all views of the Noraway would be terriffic! Maybe he could send them to (who did the leg work last time?) and just specify that they didn't come from him. AND re the nebula, it wouldn't be interfering with Mojo's work - because he never got the ILM model. DD must have seen it though to do the top view of the schematic.
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I wouldn't be Captain Ammhursopf if I can't do an accurate update of an existing schematic.
Seriously, that seems to be a really good idea. Since the Norway misteriously disappeared after FC, any picture of it would be welcome. I really want to see whats inside the hole in the nose section. We saw a phaser beam coming out of it, but many CGI-models place the main deflector in there.
And if we ask Drexler if he can mail us his Norway-images this time, maybe we should ask for access to his whole harddrive. That would make things a lot easier. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike:
Direct comparison cleaned-up Drexler-NC vs. Amasov's NC:
(I have the larger one... )
Beta 0.5, meaning the thing will be updated and gets a nice top view in time (meaning probably this weekend or next week). And I just spotted I forgot a yellow marking right in front of the Starfleet-Insignia.
Oh, and by the way, maybe you noticed she didn't get a name yet. I wasn't able to pick one. What do you think? Suggestions? Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
U.S.S. Norway NCC-1603-D
just kidding..
most RPG references online have fans giving the U.S.S. Norway either NCC-62341 (or having earlier been NX-62341), or NX-63712 being the second most common. Many of those sites also list a Norway-class Reliant, most at NCC-63421..
BTW I'd love to see the ship labeled either 'Roderick' with a 6xxxx registry or 'Bozeman' at either NCC-1941-A or with a 6xxxx registry, since thats the impression i got from the novel 'Ship of the Line' for that ships class (the Roderick was renamed Bozeman in honor of Morgan Bateson taking command of it)
[ April 05, 2002, 09:21: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Bozeman. Mmmhhh. Sounds good. But the Soyuz was next on my list, and since I put them all into the same folder, this could cause some confusion (I have at least 3 different versions of each picture, and if I apply a confusing name like this, I am one step closer to chaos. )
But if there are no other good suggestions, I might take Roderick. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"HAVE we a Wodewick?"
I suggest Laxness after the late Icelandic 1955 Nobel Laureate poet Halldor Laxness.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
We did see briefly the underside of the Norway Class vessel in First Contact. The underside is completely flat with no lights or other lighted surfaces. The weapon would appear to be in the front of the ship, about mid-center if looked from the front.
This ship is the least distinguishable of the ships seen at the battle. Sabres and Akiras are noticeable for their shapes. The other class, the Steamrunners, are notable for the number lost, including one destroyed by shrapnel cast off a dying Borg ship.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
How about calling it USS Amundsen (the Norwegian who was the first to reach the South Pole.) NCC 71411 (7 + 14th December 19(11))
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: "HAVE we a Wodewick?"
I suggest Laxness after the late Icelandic 1955 Nobel Laureate poet Halldor Laxness.
Good idea for the background, but I remember Jeffries saying he choose the numbers 1701 because they are easily recognizable (contrary to 2,4,6,8, which look all the same from a distance). And having a ship named 'Laxness' sounds somehow like 'useless', and I don't want a useless ship, if you know what I mean. Remember the Centaur-crisis?
On the other hand 'Amundsen' sounds good, even from a distance. 74711 hasn't been used? It sounds familiar. I thought it was Bellerophon, but her's should be 74705.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
:::shakes head & squints in confusion::: WwwwwwwwHAT does Jefferies' number thoughts have to do with anything? And in Reykjavik, you'd be killed for that "useless" comment, or at the very least exiled, which is effectively the same thing.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Maybe you didn't understand what I wanted to say (I know the useless-comment was a bit, err, angry), but here's the problem: the name is written on the wings of the ship, and in a sideview, you have to squeeze the name. You can't read it that clearly anymore. The same happened when we tried to find out the real name of the ship called 'Centaur'. And Jefries said he wanted to eliminate every unclear number, so that the ship's registry is easily readable from a distance. Another example from the kitbash-thread: Was Elkins' registry xxx31 or xxx21? And exactly the same happens here with the name.
(Besides that, Amundsen is a famous person, but 'Laxness' is rather unknown. You know what happened to poor old Brattain when some stupid guys thought the writer wanted a ship named 'Brittain', whatever that would be. )
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
even though Jefferies didnt want any unclear numbers on 1701, the recognizable 'hero' ship, Starfleet must and does use those numbers all the time. Shik's response was because Jefferies' wishes for the Enterprise's registry have no bearing on deciding a registry for another ship.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think there's only one way to excuse my infinite ignorance:
(And sorry for the large size, but they are all 1000 pixel wide).
How about doing a little poll: Who here knows Mr. Halldor 'Nobel-prize-winner' Laxness? I just checked google, and the guy really exists, but I have never heard of him before (sorry beacuse I didn't believe you, but you could have tried to fool me and Laxness was the inventor of the Cheeseburger or something). But really, who knew him before we mentioned it here? (Just want to see how educated you are...) Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, Shik's post was because he didn't see a connection between any of the 3 concepts. Still don't. ANYway...I don't really care.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
OK, then, let's forget that. And don't say Laxnesses naming looks better, I just saw that Amundsen's reistry is a little bit out of place. I'll correct it. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the letting of the type looks a little misaligned
otherwise, good effort at fixing a schematic
a 51xxx and 7xxxx registry though? since we dont have a lot of information, in my head i try to keep all Norways in the 6xxxx range
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Personally, I think the 60xxx-range is good for the later ships of that class, but I suppose it to be around for decades. It looks like an older ship, maybe something developed during the '30's, but probably at least before the cardassian war. I could have assigned a 61955, but that's very close to the 61947 of the Yeager. And the 74711 sounds not that good, but makes a good in-joke if you know what it means.
But on the other hand, I'd even go as far as to say the Norway itself could have a registry down in the 30xxx's or 40xxx's.
And the right font will be used as soon as I find a good one on the net (I once had one called 'classic hull' or something, but it looked nothing like 1701's font.)
[ April 06, 2002, 11:00: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's part of my Bernd-inspired effort to actually examine culture BEYOND America. Of course, being history incarnate, it's not that difficult. But Iceland is my nation & culture of choice.
Did you know that the world's first Basque dictionary was written by an northwest Icelander? He learned the language from Basque sailors who fished in the nearby waters. And that the only epic poem about the Balkan hero Skanderbeg was composed by an obscure Icelandic clergyman in 1861? The nation has a 4% unemployment level & a 100% literacy rate. When the University of Reyjavik was founded in 1911, the national population numbered a mere 90,000; today it's bloomed into a rampant 277,000. It also has the world's oldest legislature, the Al�ingi, & depite its so-called "Viking" roots, the nation's history has always been one of peace, law, & incredibly placid & civil anarchy. In AD 1000, the entire nation as a whole decided by vote to simply convert to Christianity--but didn't institute persecution of those who still worshipped the old pagan gods. Indeed, most people still paid homage to both.
And if Laxness was the first...then wouldn't it be the Laxness-class?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Did you know that there is abundant pornography to be found at the newsstands at Keflavik Airport?
There is.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: And if Laxness was the first...then wouldn't it be the Laxness-class?
No The prototype USS Norway was never commissioned for active duty. This was only the second ship, but the first to be commissioned. (OK, so you got the Laxness, but a whole Laxness-class goes definitely too far! )
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:The prototype USS Norway was never commissioned for active duty.
why the hell not?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Because... because there were some... errr... severe problems itegrating the new... ahh... drive-subsystems. Yes, the drive systems, they, err.. didn't work the way Starfleet want, causing some unpredictable warpfield ruptures during high-velocity tests, so they installed the old versions on the other ships. But it caused some delay for the prototype, making it the second ship of the class to launch, shortly after starship Laxness had been put into service.
Happy now? Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Frankie says Relax(ness)
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Uh...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I get Laxness from eating too many dairy products.. shoulda gone with Wodewick.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well you could make it the 61411 (Although I went '7' as I didn't like those 'new' ships with old registries.) ;o)
Oh, and I realise adding the names was probably done on the fly, but shouldn't they slant away a little with the slope of the nacelle pylon?
And remember another remarkable thing about Iceland... Bj�rk.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Cap'n just about your version of the Norway compared to the DD one... what is correct in reguards to the little round 'fan shaped' thing connecting the spine to the nacelle pylons? Is it something behind or does it actually connect the two like the DD version?
And has anyone e-mailed DD about what he used as his source for the Norway schem for the Encyclopaedia... and that maybe he'd send them out onto the web as even ILM don't seem to have them any more.
Andrew
Posted by grb2 (Member # 787) on :
"Did you know that there is abundant pornography to be found at the newsstands at Keflavik Airport?
There is."
Its the same anywhere in Europe.... I saw pornography right next to the kids' toys in a gas station on the French/Belgian border....
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
So we agree we're going to change the name to the Keflavik class?
Shik - you know more about Iceland than many Icelanders - have you ever been here???
On my way to the airport - in fact I can almost see it from here...
Bless,
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No...sadly, I haven't. I WANT to, though. I want to very, very, very muchly.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Cap'n just about your version of the Norway compared to the DD one... what is correct in reguards to the little round 'fan shaped' thing connecting the spine to the nacelle pylons? Is it something behind or does it actually connect the two like the DD version?
And has anyone e-mailed DD about what he used as his source for the Norway schem for the Encyclopaedia... and that maybe he'd send them out onto the web as even ILM don't seem to have them any more.
Andrew
It does not. The pylon itself is bent, the small round thing appears to be behind the pylons. I checked the screenshot of the Norway from FC, but you can't see where it is. From the image available, I guess there are either two of them, shaped like small wings, or it is one dish connecting both 'arms'. And regarding the names; yes, they'll be redone for the final version, I just noticed you get a clearer look at the name if you leave it this way (just like Drexler did), but the topview will include a clear view at the name anyway.
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
quote:...The pylon itself is bent, the small round thing appears to be behind the pylons. I checked the screenshot of the Norway from FC, but you can't see where it is. From the image available, I guess there are either two of them, shaped like small wings, or it is one dish connecting both 'arms'...
Hi Amasov. Could you show us those screenshots ? Regards,
[ April 09, 2002, 09:33: Message edited by: Cassio ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The only shot online - besides the beauty shot of the vessel from the Sketchbook (and other publications) - is at the Neutral Zone starship database:
Other than that, I used the digitalized version of FC to do my analysis, allthough it a bad quality. The three ships firing at the cube (Thunderchild, the Norway and a Sabre) is the only point where we get to see the ship from below. And since you can't see a dish there, I assume there is none.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
There is a deflector dish on the top of the saucer - in the little dugout - like the Voyager secondary deflector, is there not?
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Some say so, but I don't know for sure. There's no front view of the ship available. But since this is the only position for a deflector, probably yes. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Or, I guess on the rim... seeing as all the other Jaeger/FC ships have that 'indentation' in the forward part of the 'saucer'.
For what it's worth. Not that it's worth very much, as it sucketh majorly. . .
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Uuuaaggghhhh...! Basically, I see a grey mass looking like dead chicken. What is it? Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Years back, someone extrapolated forward and rear views; to this day, I can't tell which is which. . .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The upper one is the fore view. I can only tell because of the six dark grey rectangles that can also be seen in the top view.
[ April 11, 2002, 09:10: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The upper view is the forward view as the rectangles on the saucer correspond to those on the top view.
Basically it's what Tim said, only a little more clear.
[ April 11, 2002, 00:56: Message edited by: Dat ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Is there a website with all really nice schematics?? In colour. I've noticed there have been some new looking Miranda schematics around... they look a bit cartoonish - but nice... I'm guessing they're from the Fact Files?
What I've ALWAYS wanted to see were all the classes done in shcematics and ALL done in the same style - the thing with the Encyc, is that there are different looking styles - say between the E-D and the Norway...
That's why I hope Cap'n Amasov does as many in his own style as possible.
Andrew
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I think the new, 'colorful' Miranda schematic is from ST: The Magazine.. its got a real colorful rendering, and a more accurate view of the upper carriage than the common Okudapedia pic, but i find the nacelles to be inaccurate (especially since they felt the need to color them red and blue glow, which, with the exception of a couple in the Dom. War, no Miranda has ever had)
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
Look at the TOP of the nacelles... look at those 'rails' - like a rectangle on the top of each nacelle... I reckon this could be a form of 'variable geometry' nacelles... i.e. they could possibly move the nacelles forward or back along the tracks!!!! What do you think!?!
I'm just pre-empting the "where would the conduits go - when the nacelles are moving.
They might only move into a particular position and occupy that position for several months, say - instead of changing for every jump to warp. And like The seats on an exercise bike... the 'conduit/power' system might connect at different hardpoints... like where the 'peg' goes into the holes for the different heights of the excercise bike chair - the nacells can move forwards and backwards, and the conduits attach/open into the nacelles through those various circles we see there... That would stop something silly like having them ALL they way back and the 'pylon' connecting to the nacelle all the way down at the Bussard collector...
Andrew
[ April 15, 2002, 09:04: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
BTW anyone asked DD yet!?! See earlier posts as to the question.
Andrew
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
My, Andrew, aren't you a little excited today. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Look at the TOP of the nacelles... look at those 'rails' - like a rectangle on the top of each nacelle... I reckon this could be a form of 'variable geometry' nacelles... i.e. they could possibly move the nacelles forward or back along the tracks!!!! What do you think!?!
I've been saying this on these forums for YEARS, man. Where have YOU been?
Mark
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think the variable-geometry-issue grows to some sort of 'landing-debacle'. Since Voyager introduced it, every damn vessel in the fleet got the ability to land; look at the MSDs. Nova, Prometheus, Defiant, It's just strange E-E isn't able to land yet. So Voyager introduced the variable geometry nacelles. But that does not mean every ship from now on has them. Maybe those contuits are just that - conduits. Or Outdoor-Jeffries-tubes. Or some irrelevant spaceframe extensions. Or something else.
Okay, those could be variable geometry nacelles, there's no proof for either version of the story; but I don't see a reason why the ship should be able to move the nacelles. On the other hand I also never saw a reason for Intrepid's nacelles to be able to move their position. If the 'up'-position of the nacelles supports an optimized warpfield that does not damage subspace, they why do they have to lower them for impulse-flight? They don't need them, so it doesn't matter whether they are up or down.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
And is it just more or have we seen more than one official drawing of the Norway with the nacelles shown further back and forward?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Didn't the "variable geometry" idea start out in the back of the TNGTM in regards to the Nova designs? Or am I imagining things again?
Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :
Well, AndrewR, that pic you asked about is from my site actually:
A scan I did from star trek:fact files
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Mark! You have!?! Well - I just avoid your posts Nah, must be just great minds...
Amazov WTF are you talking about?? The Variable Geometry was brought in to stop ripping up sub-space or something - not about letting ships land.
I agree - why down for impulse and up for WAR and nothing in-between!?! My guess is that the nacelles actually are in varying positions within that movement arc... it's just that 1. We don't notice the difference or 2. We're back to the 'totally upright' again - when we next see it.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Um... variable geometry has nothing to do with preserving subspace integrity... or landing.
In fact nobody knows what the hell its for.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It always seemed to me quite reasonable to assume that Voyager's nacelles were constantly making micro-adjustments in their position all the way through a warp flight. There's no reason at all that we should notice them waving back and forth by a few centimeters, or even a few meters now and then.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Considering that docking thrusters can't maneuver ships the way we've seen, and that the Laws of Physics prevent the forcefield theory some people had goin awhile back, ships must maneuver by some fashion other than we're aware of right now.
My guess is that they use a warp field even during impulse to change direction at sublight speeds. This is why the blue glue is their even when the ship is not at warp.
If this is the case, then slightly different principles might govern the warp field when it is at warp and when it is at impulse. These principles might say that one position is better for the nacelles below the threshold and one is better above it. Variable geometry might offer the best of both worlds.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Not that again... There's nothing wrong with the laws of physics being used to turn/reverse the thrust. Never mind whether you can explain it or not, it is an integral part of today's aerospace technology. Why wouldn't it be part of tomorrow's? (Barring unforeseeable practical limitations, that is. Somebody from the 19th century would undoubtedly wonder why all the world's shipping hasn't moved to balloons and airships, or why we still aren't building cannon big enough to deliver payloads to the Moon... Perhaps thrust reversing, although entirely possible, isn't the best possible method from the 24th century point of view.)
That said, the impulse engines of most starships aren't ideally placed for maneuvering that would obey the laws of physics. It seems wholly plausible that some other, Trek-specific technologies are being used in addition to simple impulse thrust. For example, asymmetric subspace fields or artificial gravity or those nifty mass reduction gadgets would all be fine maneuvering tools...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Amazov WTF are you talking about?? The Variable Geometry was brought in to stop ripping up sub-space or something - not about letting ships land.
Stop me! It's going all wrong! That was just a comparison. Every ship after Voyager got landing capability. And now we want to start assigning a variable geometry warp drive to every ship. There's no connection. Really. Just a comparison. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
If those moveable nacelles are true/people accept the idea - I have new respect for this little ship!!
Amasov any more views!?! (And please hopefully there wont be any BROWNS in your colour scheme! )
Has anyone e-mail DD yet!?!
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Ah heck... is grey, but the the saucer is brown. Anyway, maybe I'll do a variant with proper starfleet colors. Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
[ April 25, 2002, 11:27: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Dammit! Someone edit the link so the whole picture doesn't show up and then educate these people why they shouldn't be doing this!
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Dammit! Someone edit the link so the whole picture doesn't show up and then educate these people why they shouldn't be doing this!
Dat: Isn�t necessary to educate me. That was just a mistake (I believe that you already done this, right ?). As you can see in my other posts, never did that before. Regards,
[ April 25, 2002, 11:44: Message edited by: Cassio ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
That drawing is fantastic. I can use it as a reference, too. And please tell me to finish the damn thing. I started with the Soyuz, and I'm planning to do a B5-Omega class or Intrepid (not B5) with ablative armor activated ( think that hasn't been done before) next. But I have to finish this goddamn top-view! Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Cas, I'm sorry about that. It's just that this morning, I felt miserable, then I came here and saw Koy bitch and moan about last night's episode of Enterprise, and then was fed up with too many posts with really big pictures that automatically show up when you load the thread...and these posts were always done by newbies too. Again I'm sorry about that. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mark, Cas had already provided that link when he posted his schematic of the Norway class. Or at least he posted it before you re-posted it.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Strange, how I missed that. The universe mocks me.
Mark
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Cas, I'm sorry about that. It's just that this morning, I felt miserable, then I came here and saw Koy bitch and moan about last night's episode of Enterprise, and then was fed up with too many posts with really big pictures that automatically show up when you load the thread...and these posts were always done by newbies too. Again I'm sorry about that.
No hard feelings about this. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hmmmmm where did that person/people who fabricated the model get that info about the 'never seen sides' of the Norway... they're actually NOT TOO BAD! I really like this ship I like that angle from aft and starboard.
Nice work - that sort of 'cliff overhang' underneath the aft of the 'saucer'... I'm not too sure about those ungaingley big red impulse engines - I'd hazard a guess that the impulse engines are akin to the Akira's at the end of the nacelle pylon thingies.
Those wing pylons work for me too... reminds me a LOT of the 'Maquis Raider' wing idea.
Maybe there is some sort of lineage now between Maquis Raider -> Norway -> Defiant -> Voyager.
Do people like the 'bussard collectors' on that model? They look nice and Galaxy/Danubish and fits nicely.
Every now and then when I look at the front saucer pic I go 'ooh it's the Equinox/Nova class! Another design connection!?!
ANYONE e-mailed DD!?!?!?!?! I want to know about the underneath of this ship.
The model work their I reckon would have worked well during TNG!
This ship just never worked for me - i.e. I couldn't picture it being a physical model... now I can!
Andrew
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
It's evening now. If I take abreak now, eat something and return to work then I should be able to present the finished version later tonight or tomorrow. Just to let you know the research (and caused by the few pictures available it became a research even harder than the Niagara-research) is still running and nearing its completition.
The baby just needs some color now and everything should be fine. (Sorry, TSN, used you method of encrypting a picture. The text will be removed when it's done, of course... )
And AndrewR, I admire your persistence. If Drexler can't help, maybe we can ask someone else. Or someone at Foundation did some pictures of it. Hmm...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Ooops, forgot the picture:
[Edit]: Dammit, hit the wrong button. Oh well...
[ April 26, 2002, 09:18: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
It's not really persistance - it's just me typing... "anyone e-mailed DD yet" I don't want to do it - unless I have to - 'cause I don't know how I'd make it sound 'right' - i.e. you people managed to get those ATTS pics!! WOW!
My reasoning DD might have some info - as mentioned above... somewhere - is that:
1. Mojo said that ILM couldn't give the ship to him for his book 'cause it had 'gone'.
2. We've heard the rumours about the "Nozza" being a 'damaged model' - I wonder how this works with CGI (a corrupted file?)
3. Where have we seen the Nozza... "First Contact", ?The FC Sketch book? - and the Encyc/Voyager wall plaque. The schem couldn't have possibly been made from FC and the FC Sketch book - cause we get more details and angles - i.e. side and top views.
DD must have been able to see this model? MAYBE he was sent the ship/a pic of the ship!?! The Encyc's the last place we see anything 'new' of the Norway.
Oh Another name for the Norway the U.S.S. Heyerdahl
From Time April, 29, 2002 edition:
Died, Thor Heyerdahl, 87, unorthodox Norwegian adventurer-anthropologist who in 1947 sailed the Kon-Tiki, a tiny balsa raft, from Peru to an island near Tahiti in an attempt to prove his unorthodox theory that the Polynesian Islands could have been settled by prehistoric Peruvians, not by Southeast Asians; of brain cancer; on the Italian Riviera. The so-called Kon-Tiki man did not sway scholars, who dismissed him as an amateur, but his 4,300-mile, 101-day journey across the Pacific riveted the public, spawning his internationally best-selling memoir, Kon-Tiki, and an Oscar-winning documentary on the voyage.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
I don't have his email. Is there anyone else who could possibly help?
Posted by Cassio (Member # 795) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: [QB] ... Oh Another name for the Norway the U.S.S. Heyerdahl...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
That was just a mistake (I believe that you already done this, right ?). As you can see in my other posts, never did that before.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)