posted
Read carefully. The specs are for the merged configuration.
But the phaser count is wrong IIRC. Should be 12 not 13.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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
*seems to remember pointing this out, like, the week the book came out...*
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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 ]
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
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...
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
