posted
The reason I argue that a shuttle can't fit in is because I *don't* believe the components are of Excelsior size. If they were, you could park three type 7 shuttles on that bridge, plus a fourth atop them. Is captain Reynolds playing badmington in his free time or what?
And how would a ~220m starship be "too small"? It's bigger than the Defiant, apparently even in internal volume. It's like a Miranda sans shuttlebays. And not every starship needs shuttlebays. They are only so much dead weight in battle anyway.
If any component of Starfleet ships is "kitbashable", the bridge *MODULE* and the torpedo *MODULE* of the Miranda class ought to be. It's a perfectly acceptable parallel to how things are done in the real world, too: you build a number of ships and a number of weapons systems, and then you equip the ships with the systems as befits their intended mission. A Miranda carries three systems: the torp pod, the "pulse phasers", and the shuttlebays. The Renaissance (or whatever) carries one: the torp pod.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
but if we take that bridge as a Miranda module, which there is no definite reason for it to be, we not only lose the shuttlbay, but the windows also become nonsensical.
No one explanation satisfies all the problems with the scaling, but the Excelsior-size Centaur eliminates more of the inconsistencies than a Miranda size
Miranda size Centaur has these problems: > impossible window setup > shuttlebay not big enough to be shuttlebay
> and one advantage, the explanation of reusing a torpedo rollbar and bridge module from a class they probably wouldnt be reusing pieces of
the Excelsior-sized Centaur has one problem: > Miranda bridge complex sized too big, along with oddly situated rollbar reuse.
> and the two advantages of a working shuttlebay and an almost logical window setup.
Add to this the fact that that could easily be a two tiered bridge complex that just looks like another bridge, and this ship makes the most sense.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I find it more likely that a ship could have parts that look identical to the outside of a Miranda bridge module and its torp launcher�but scaled up�than that it would have an entire saucer that looks identical to an Excelsior saucer�but scaled down.
If you're going to have identical bits w/ scaling issues, better that it be the smallest bits possible. I mean there aren't an details on the outside of that bridge module that can't be scaled however you like. However, something as big as a saucer will have more details on it. And if all those details are scaled, it seems strange. One would think that, even if the saucer were smaller, parts of it would stay the same size as before.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I beg to differ on the count of pros and cons, really. Here's how I see it:
Ship smaller than Miranda
+bridge is of reasonable size +weapons module matches bridge and doesn't have torp tubes big enough for a shuttle to fly through +size closer to the appearance in the actual episode
-windows don't fit -no shuttlebay
Ship of Excelsior size
+shuttlebay fits
-windows still don't fit -bridge and torp tubes too big -size doesn't match onscreen appearance very well
Whether the saucer is of "correct" size or not is IMHO not really relevant. Saucers are saucers, and the Excelsior one is especially devoid of scale-establishing features. All the interesting detail is on the impulse assembly, and that area has been especially modified and added to in the Centaur.
Significantly, I feel a ship smaller than a Miranda was the *intention* of the modelmaker, and even more significantly, it was the *intention* of the VFX people to pick the smallest-looking among the kitbashes to pit against Sisko's small battlebug. Sisko had to have a chance of winning the battle, for one thing...
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: This assumption may stem from the MSD in "Generations" which has the structure acting purely as a cargo bay.
True, but the MSD in Generations was drawn by crask-addicted monkeys on heat. It crazy dude man thing wow shit.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd just like to point out a potential flaw in these discussions -- the model photo is not canon. Only the filmed episodes and movies, with the exception of TAS, are canon. DVD-caps are canon. Film cells are canon. Behind-the-scenes photos are not.
Conclusions should be reached from onscreen evidence, and then supplemented by what we know from the photo, meaning that if the onscreen info favors the Excelsior saucer while obscuring the bridge, the saucer becomes more important because there's no onscreen proof that the bridge belongs to a Miranda, whereas there is onscreen proof that the saucer belongs to the Excelsior.
Hence, the proper procedure would be to get some screencaps first and try to forget what we know about the model photo; the information from the latter should be added only if it doesn't contradict observable onscreen features.
posted
That is indeed the correct procedure IMHO. But model photos are often more interesting than the on-screen material - for the reason that they show detail that cannot otherwise be discerned, and it takes a bit of detective work to get to see that detail. And that's a major part of the fun of ship-spotting.
This supremely enjoyable hobby in the real world is a bit different from what it's like in the Trek universe. For one thing, when you research more deeply into real ships, you get more detail. But when you research into Trek ships, you get less - some things aren't present in the model, but are faked in postproduction, for example. Also, Trek is ultimately contradictory while the real world never is.
To get the full kicks out of ship-spotting, I feel we have to accept the use of model photos and backstage info as a substitute to the use of things like spy photos and manufacturer info; but with the limitations the unreality of the Trek ships imposes.
posted
Take a drink everytime someone does a mini-lectuve about what is "canon".
Take two if someone replies and uses the phrase "semi-canon".
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Yeah, they wanted it to be a ship Sisko could beat.
Because, as we all well know, there is no way mere battlebugs could ever hope to take on, say, a larger ship, like a Galaxy-class.
(BTW, sizewise, the Excelsior Centaur would still be pretty small in a fleet of Galaxies and Nebulas and full length Excelsiors..)
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I have more lectures. This one is hot off the presses:
The Difference Between a Creative Writer's Research and Scientific Research
Creative writers, while often doing meticulous research such as Kubrick for 2001, do not really need to research deeply or make sure their facts are 100% correct, either with respect to the real world or a fictional universe. Nobody will ever blame them -- after all, it's obvious that we're talking about a work of fiction that, however well it has been researched, really need not be 100% realistic. Nobody will be hurt because of what they say, and sometimes the story will be helped through "artistic license." More often than not, the seeming discontinuities can be rationalized by a viewer who chooses to do so.
Scientific research (used by anything from a physicist to a historian to a journalist) cannot afford this luxury. These people's facts must be correct; nothing must be assumed, everything must be supported with as much evidence as possible and any statements qualified with an explanation of the limitations under which research was conducted. People can be hurt by careless journalists, and no proper journalist would publish a piece of info that cannot be substantiated.
It's quite obvious that anyone who does not care about establishing authenticity of sources (=canon order), supporting their theories with evidence, is only doing a creative writer's level of research, and posting something that can be qualified as story notes (Excelsior specs), or in some cases, proper stories ("history" of the Excelsior). If these cannot be substantiated, then they're personal opinion -- creative writing -- and belong to the Designs, Artwork, and Creativity forum.
I'm not against questioning the validity of onscreen sources or what is canon, but more is needed than personal opinion in order to go that far. Laws of physics are a good example. Sheer impossibilities, such as the Defiant changing shape every time the models are switched are another (and even here we must eliminate visual distortions or possible refits first.) Personal opinion? That's for the writers, that's creativity, and should go into the appropriate forum.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Why would the Centaur have such a big Bridge module?
Well, after an intensive 5 minutes of head scratching and scale calculations, I've come up with this diagram:-
Note the two deck structure, with the bridge proper on top and a lower deck that could house useful things like; a conference room, the Captain's ready room, maybe even a small cargo bay. One interesting problem is the aft airlock, since the module is scaled up the airlock is now too big to dock properly with the standard. In actually fact, the airlock is now big enough for a travel pod to pass straight through, so why not have an internal docking bay? Having the bridge module carrying it's own travel pod could be useful for shuttling around VIPs, without having to take up valuable space in the shuttlebay. It also provides quick access to the conference room and the small cargo bay.
When you think about it, bridge modules are fairly simple structures so scaling them up is no big deal, at least no bigger a deal than scaling up a saucer section
[ August 16, 2002, 16:46: Message edited by: TSN ]
posted
Interesting; maybe something to do with the greeblies, if they're EW stuff, could be some sort of CIC?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
