quote:Originally posted by Commander Dan: Actually, the “S.S.” prefix and F1313 registry likely originated from the Geoffrey Mandel Blueprints published in ’77. (refer to link below)
I agree that the commonly held registries are wrong, and I'm glad someone corrected them.
But I had to offer an observtion on Mandel's blueprints. They are SO off that I'd never even consider them in any discussion about the ship. He counted windows but not the spacing of them, so his deck count is off by at least one, maybe three. On a ship this small that's a huge difference.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, back in 1977 there were few (if any?) home videotape machines, no WWW, and no "Star Trek" magazine. Cinefantastique and Starlog were around, but I doubt there were few official sources for references. I remember trying to photograph images off the television screen to get ship pictures. The most you can say about Mandel's blueprints are that they were inspired by USS Huron; basically everything is off (I have a copy of them). His Bonaventure is even weirder! (At least I think this is by Mandel): http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/researchsurvey_bonaventure.jpg
So, we technofans should be happy we're living in a time when references are easier to get.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, now that the registry has been clarified it's easy to say that Mandel's blueprints depict the NCC-F1300 class whilst the Huron is a member of the more advanced NNC-F1900 class.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: That Bonaventure is one goofy lookin' thing!
Eesh.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]
In all actuality, though, it's not much worse than other ships of the same formula.
RANT:
There are so many fan creations which, either in an attempt to show a TOS-era ship family or a pre-TOS lineage, simply take the Constitution, screw around with the proportions and exact lines, and call it a new ship.
Sometimes, such vessels are in possession of a redeeming quality . . . the Bonaventure, for instance, has some rather interesting nacelles, though I wonder what those little flat things are coming off of the secondary hull (they remind me of the old pooping planks off of sailing ships, though I hardly think that would explain away the running "where's the toilet?" joke).
That's the reason I so adored Masao's Starfleet Museum when I first saw it . . . here, at last, was a pre-history of ships that had really been thought about and considered.
But, even the wonderful Starfleet Museum falls prey to the formula of taking Matt Jeffries' artistry and, by playing with a few lines, calling something different. The Asia class and Hyperion class come to mind . . . Asia is redeemed only by the interesting hump in the secondary hull, Hyperion by the completely interesting and relatively original old-style secondary hull . . . but overall, it's the old formula.
I hate the formula.
Thank you, end of rant.
G2k
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Hmm . . . note to self: do not rant when freshly awake, lest you get confused and, in that confusion, run with it.
I was actually intending to talk about the Valley Forge class, not Hyperion. It's Valley Forge that follows the formula . . . Hyperion is actually pretty good, overall.
Sorry.
G2k
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
You could of course do something completely radical like flipping the nacelles .
I quite admire Jefferies that he managed to design something so unique and so recognizable as the NCC-1701. It is by all means the prototype of ALL Star Trek ships. Without these components, a ship simply isn't recognizable Star Trek.
posted
Actually, I hate it when every time we see a new ship - it is of a radically different design, with next to no elements the same. I like to see the whole 'progression' of tech - and families of ships - it's more realistic than having 2371 Defiant, 2372 Intrepid, 2373 Sovereign, Akira, Norway, Sabre, Steamrunner, 2374 Prometheus, Data's scout/Holoship/New Shuttle/Captain's yacht. 2375 Equinox.
ACTUALLY - I have found that the Deffie fits. Then at least the Intrepid and the Delta Flyer fit and well the Prommie, Sovereign and Equinox class fit. The rest are just all over the bloody place. That Data's Scout - it woeful - so it the holodeckship. Just plucked out of no where.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Unlike real world vehicles, which are all, without fail, identical in form?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
No, but they adhere to the same design principles to function in the environments they were intended to function in. Andrew's point is something along the longs of they're reinventing the helicopter over and over again. "Look! Look! We have this new kind of aircraft that doesn't even need wings!" Revolutionary, yes. Taking on many different variations, yes. But something as revolutionary and eventually far reaching as that, is a rare thing.
I however, believe that even these radical differences between starship designs can be explained as offshoots of the same basic design principles. Aircrafts are designed to fly through the air, while fulfilling some sort of specified design objective. No airplane has ever been designed unless there was a purpose to it. Be that delivering cargo, passengers, or air combat superiority. Similarily, Trek spacecraft fly through space (or more precisely, subspace) and are also required to fulfill specific design goals. The Galaxy was designed to do everything, from being fast to carrying passengers, to combat, and science. The Holodeck ship to provide the maximum amount of holodeck space. The Defiant was designed to be as small, manuevrable, fast (while still being small), and as packed to the teeth as possible. Sometimes speculation on what a ship was meant to do (ie Nebula, do everything, except be fast and do it all at once), and you can create some basic rules of design that appear to be followed in the Trek universe. Saucer/Engineering designs are faster. The large the surface area of the hull, the better the subspace field projection off that hull (ie pointy saucered ships are 'faster' than circle saucer ships). Etc etc.
I forgot what my point was.
Anyway, real vehicles may not be identical in form, but they follow identical guidelines in design, providing a cohesive reference from which to deduce purpose out of the variations in design.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
