posted
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
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
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
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?
IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What about the "frigates" in "Conspiracy"?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
grb2
Ex-Member
posted
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....
IP: Logged
posted
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
