quote: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.
Unfortunately, unless the ships were designed by Okuda, I wouldn't have too much faith in anyone else designing them based on the attributes of their registry numbers. Case in point: Michael Jan Friedman (not one of my favorite Star Trek novel writers) has a new Stargazer book series. In these books, he states that as of 2340 or whatever, the Stargazer is a brand new ship, while the prototype for the New Orleans class is a design that's a has-been. We know this to be utter nonsense, of course. But this just goes to show that I'd rather have the conjectural designs stay that way.
-------------------- "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
quote: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.
I thought everyone knew it was this 4-nacelle Excelsior (or 'X-Wing') ship. It's quite clear, I for one never thought it was anything else.
posted
There used to be a theory that it could be the Cheyenne upside-down, but that was before we saw the picture of the study model.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: 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.
No shit, Sherlock. We are in a forum dedicated to the fantastic technologies of a television show set 300 years in the future. So why come in here and say that!?! *rolls eyes* we are talking about the TREK TECH. gah.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I think he was trying to say that the model was built to represent two different ships (depending upon whether it was collapsed or extended), rather than one ship w/ moving parts. Sherlock.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
im saying that, in the Trek universe, maybe there is only one configuration for the model, and the rest are just behind the scenes bullshit?
as if this model ever got this far.. it might have well have been shitcanned for all the scrutiny its getting.. it wasnt actually featured in anything more than a few seconds footage at a few pixels wide? and from this we are to presuppose all sorts of magic-technological wonders from it? crikey...
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
OK, now we are talking about behind the scenes stuff - why would the build 2 nearly identicle ships and just move the nacelles 2mm one way or the other?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
No, Andrew, that's not what TSN meant. There weren't two nmodels built. There was only one. But the model might have been able to expand & retract both its hull and it's nacelles, thereby giving the appearance of two different ships even though they used the same model.
If anyone really cares, I've always been of the opinion that the model was just broken, & Okuda glued the nacelles back on differently than its original configuration. There's really no need for the hull to expand or contract either; Nilo Rodis wanted the ship to be that long on purpose. I believe it was just someone here who used Photoshop to adjust the hull, back when Okuda gave us the pic.
-------------------- "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
The thing that suggests telescoping for the four-naceller is the fancy boxlike superstructure at the aft rim of the saucer: it apparently has an opening at the back, one that nicely matches the contours of the aft hull features that would move into the front hull if the hull did telescope.
Similarly, there's plenty of room for the X-pylons to move, in the form of hull openings at the hinge points. Why would these openings have been left in the aft hull if not to allow for this movement? The other models with comparable level of detail did not have unexplained holes anywhere, even when it apparently took some effort to create a wholly enclosed hull of the required shape.
I still suspect a "transformer" trick was built into these models to accentuate the technological superiority of the Excelsior to the Enterprise. *And* I'm happy Nimoy didn't give the go-ahead for that particular trick...
quote:Originally posted by Timo: The thing that suggests telescoping for the four-naceller is the fancy boxlike superstructure at the aft rim of the saucer: it apparently has an opening at the back, one that nicely matches the contours of the aft hull features that would move into the front hull if the hull did telescope.
Similarly, there's plenty of room for the X-pylons to move, in the form of hull openings at the hinge points. Why would these openings have been left in the aft hull if not to allow for this movement? The other models with comparable level of detail did not have unexplained holes anywhere, even when it apparently took some effort to create a wholly enclosed hull of the required shape.
I still suspect a "transformer" trick was built into these models to accentuate the technological superiority of the Excelsior to the Enterprise. *And* I'm happy Nimoy didn't give the go-ahead for that particular trick...
Timo Saloniemi
Maybe it's a shuttlebay? Assuming I'm looking at the right hole.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
