posted
Curves aren't a technological advancement. If we had the capability of building a 1000ft-long tritanium starship today, I see no reason why it couldn't look like Voyager.
Interestingly, the addition of "The" to a ship's name is hardly a naval phenomena, in fact, I'd say the opposite is true. From what I understand, ships, especially big ones, are considered places rather than things. One crossed the Atlantic "on Queen Mary" or "on HMS Suffolk" rather than "on the Queen Mary." Bennett navalified the ship in the movies by referring to it as "Enterprise" (no the) and seaQuest likewise went "the"-less.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
but would it be feasible to make it curved? or would we rather have a flying box at first
I admit that NX-01 shouldnt be extremely similar to NCC-1701 because NX-01 is a hot rod.. designed for speed, while NCC-1701 is a military cruiser, beautiful in its simplicity but simple out of necessity.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
Not to mention the hundred years between them.
Maybe, through the wacky subspace physics we don't understand, the Constitution is simply more astrodynamic than Enterprise, so things headed in that direction for a while, an then they figured more stuff out, reconfigured some warp fields, and we evolve into the Galaxy/Sovereign era. Maybe engineers in the twenty-fourth century joke about how the backwards Earth Starfleet was on to something 300 years ago.
Aside from detailing, the only think that looks more "advanced" about Enterprise, to me, is the back-swept nacelles... but it's not too much of a stretch to think that somebody came up with that idea before 2271.
quote:But the inference you've been making is that the designer based Enterprise on the Akira-Class.
No, I wasn't. Jeff: After rereading our posts in this thread, I think you misunderstood the point I was making. There's a world of difference between basing one design on another, and outright copying it. Your post about the Miranda & Nebula class is a good example. TBTB didn't just take the Miranda design and modify it a bit, calling it the Nebula class. No, they made an entirely new ship, but with a similar configuration. It was "based" on the Miranda class, although it was an original design. The same holds true for the Constitution & Galaxy classes. Although the two ships are quite different, you are correct in stating that the configuration of the Ent-D was based on the Ent-nil.
However, my point was that the NX-01 was not based on the Akira; it was in fact copied from it, & that it really wasn't an original design.
[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: However, my point was that the NX-01 was not based on the Akira; it was in fact copied from it, & that it really wasn't an original design.
The problem is that, aside from the general hull configuration -- and only when seen from above -- Enterprise and Akira don't share any common components and features. I know I'm repeating myself here, but let's take a look.
Akira: catamarans are taller than bridge. Enterprise: catamarans are shorter than bridge.
Akira: no visible sensor. Enterprise: lower sensor dome.
Akira: relatively large pod. Enterprise: relatively small pod.
And so on. The differences range from minescule to significant, but if you overlap the two ships (ignoring scale) and compare, not a single feature lines up, even in the top view. In the side view, it is nearly impossible to see any connection at all. Not to mention that, even if they did match in overall comparison, the individual features don't resemble each other.
It is not accurate to say that the ship was copied when no two features are the same, unless we've redefine "copied" to mean "looks similar after a cursory glance despite absolutely no actual duplication aside from two small greeblies on the catamarans."
[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
posted
There are also the notches in the sides of the saucer. Even though they're higher up on the Akiraprise, they're still rather similar. Not to mention that they don't even seem to have a purpose, aside from a place to put a couple of lights that don't shine on anything.
And both sets of impulse engines are in the same locations on both ships.
If you're going to try to make a rational point, don't exaggerate. You can't say that there are no similarities aside from the "superchargers". If you want to claim that the similarities are insignificant, fine. But claiming they don't exist at all makes your arguement rather invalid.
posted
But Ryan's not saying that there are no similarities. He's saying that the new Enterprise is not a direct copy of the Akira-class with only a few minor modifications. As I said earlier in this thread, the new Enterprise would appear to be a from-scratch design where the designer(s) were told to produce something like an Akira-class.
Yeah, the saucer impulse engines are in a similar place on the new Enterprise and the Akira-class, but the Enterprise's engines are a completely different shape than the Akira. In addition, she also has two added impulse engine assemblies at the ends of the catamarans.
The notches in the sides of the saucer are irrelevant, actually. The mini-torpedo tubes or what-have-you protrude from the sides of the saucers. They aren't notches. We don't know what these notches are for on the Enterprise, but they look to be docking areas or airlocks because they do have yellow markings.
-------------------- 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
That's what I was thinking, a shuttlepod or something to land on. Which lowers into the ship like those on DS9 were the runabouts launched from.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: You can't say that there are no similarities aside from the "superchargers". If you want to claim that the similarities are insignificant, fine. But claiming they don't exist at all makes your arguement rather invalid.
I never said anything like that. I said there was no duplication, not that there were no similarities. Since there isn't any duplication, my argument is perfectly valid.
I'm assuming you just misread me, no big deal. But, you're right. Had I actually claimed that there were no similarities, I would not only be invalid, I would be blind. Of course there are similarities, I freely acknowledged that in my post.
posted
I was referring specifically to the fact that you said "...Enterprise and Akira don't share any common components and features...". Unless you're defining "common" to mean "identical down the subatomic level". Otherwise, they could have made an exact copy, but colored it differently, and they could claim the parts weren't "common"...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I was referring specifically to the fact that you said "...Enterprise and Akira don't share any common components and features...". Unless you're defining "common" to mean "identical down the subatomic level". Otherwise, they could have made an exact copy, but colored it differently, and they could claim the parts weren't "common"...
You didn't quote the part in which I said, "Aside from the general configuration." I granted that they both have saucers, nacelles, catamaran hulls, weapons pods, bridges, and pylons all in the same place.
Here's my line of thought: There is no Akira component or feature that is copied on Enterprise without modification, except for the "supercharges." As such, the two designs don't share any common components and features, save said superchargers. Therefore, Enterprise is not a copy of Akira, even if it is heavily based on it.
Do F-14s and Su-27s share common jet engines? No, though they both have similar engines in the same location. Take an Akira warp nacelle and an Enterprise warp nacelle. Set them side by side. Are they identical? No. Are they similar? Only in the same ways that all nacelles are similar. They are not "common" between the ships.
[ October 05, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
