posted
I seem to recall, which means that I may have dreamt it, that when Okuda provided the 4 nacelle image he said that it had been broken and repaired at some stage. Wouldn't that explain the difference in the nacelle angles?
-------------------- "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
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Not only does the 4-naceller seem to be built for variable pylon geometry: its entire aft hull looks like it would telescope into the forward hull. In some old thread, somebody did a photomanip of the "compacted" configuration, and it looked pretty nifty. Of course, it would make zero sense to dedicate most of the internal volume of the saucer to this telescoping function, but this seems to be what the model builders intended. The variable geometry would have been the "Ooh factor" that would set the Excelsior apart from the Enterprise in the movie.
Originally, I thought the flat 2-naceller would have a telescoping hull as well. Now I'm not so sure.
Since variable geometry wasn't equated with transwarp in the final version of the movie, we could invent another rationale for that feature of the 4-naceller. Perhaps she's a barge carrier that extends her hull to accept the desired number of barges, yet compacts herself when traveling empty?
Timo Saloniemi
To quote AndrewR: "Yes, hmm see my earlier post."
Maybe the neck has nothing to do with the nacelles and the warp field. When I thought about the vessel and its mission some time ago, I used to think it was some sort of test vehicle, like the Proto-Nebula. We never saw it before, we never saw it after Wolf. If Starfleet brought everything they had to Wolf, including ships that would have never seen the light of day (like the Melbourne), this could have been one of them (maybe along with some other "Phase 2"-models). My concept of this ship had two rotating torpedo platforms between the neck pylons. If the ship goes to "attack mode", the neck is stretched and they move out of their alcoves on the rear side of the saucer.
(Besides that, I made the ship a real class, the unseen Rigel-class Tolstoy - since this vessel was seen in the far background of the screen besides the Melbourne and Kyushu, IIRC.)
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
Yeah, the variable geometry could certainly be for some reason that has nothing to do with propulsion. The deploying turrets sound quite nifty! However, the Rigel class has relatively high registries in the Encyclopedia, and pops up elsewhere in the timeline, too. I'd thus prefer a more modern design, at the very least with a Galaxy-era saucer...
posted
I'm not very comfortable with randomly assigning Okuda's conjectural class designations to these models, foremost because that's not what Okuda intended them to be. As a matter of fact, the reason why there are conjectural classes in the first place is because he wanted to show that Starfleet was much bigger than just the Exclesiors, Mirandas, Oberths, Galaxies, and whatnot. The conjectural classes were never supposed to have actual designs attributed to them, and I hope they never do.
-------------------- "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
posted
Red: You (and anyone else) may feel perfectly free to use any of my scans on your sites or wherever.
Are you sure it's NCC-1404 and not NCC-2404? The first digit kind of looks too thick to me to be a 1. (This is also from looking at not just the scan, but the actual mag page with a magnifying glass...)
Dukkie: I agree that the conjectural designations shouldn't be assigned to known ship designs, as their whole purpose was, just as you said, to an entirely different end. However, I would be thrilled to see some future Encyclopdeia edition or other official source portray such designs. It would be in the same spirit as the Daedalus model Jein built for the Chronology.
posted
Red: I agree with you. If you look at the nacelles in the "closed" version, they appear to slant inward slightly, whereas they are vertical in the "opened" version. This is exactly what would happen if the struts closed toward one another.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
um.. maybe the model was movable because they wanted to show the producers three or four possible configurations, and didnt feel like building three or four models (they'd be like.. "Mr. Nimoy.. you could have a two nacelle ship, or maybe well make it 4 like this.. or long like this.. or long with 4 nacelles like this..").
after all, these models weren't built for technological analysis, they were built as proposals to be shown to producers in offices.
honestly.
[ December 04, 2002, 00:18: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I was watching the rerun of "Unification" tonight, and I paid special attention to the Qualor II depot shots. Looking back, I'm almost certain that the "almost-Cheyenne" ship seen is actually the "X-wing" Excelsior study model in its flat-wing version.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
