posted
Yep, we're back to the "ready-load" Defiant torpedo tube discussion Mark Which makes sense to me. We could say that the torp tubes can fire either torp style, their magazines are just ready loaded with a particular type of torp.
Someone was asking about subs and multiple launchers...check out the first four Ohio-class subs which are being refurbished as conventional missile launching submarines. These subs will have multiple vertical launch tubes fitted out to fire tactical missiles...I'd classify that as a modern day example of a weapons system "bristling" with emplacements.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
This is an annotated set of schematic views done by Eaves, showing all the changes he made to the Enterprise-E for the film:
The aforementioned addition of four (4) new torpedo launchers along the dorsal centerline of the ship. One near the front of the saucer, (no mention made of whether it's a single or double tube) one at the front of the bridge module ledge-thingee, (again, no mention of whether it's a single or double) one above the rear airlock, (which we know to be a double tube) and one above the aft shuttlebay. (Which we know to be a single tube.) So, that's actually five (5) new tubes, assuming that only the airlock launcher is double.
A sixth tube was placed at the ventral trailing tip of the secondary hull.
He also added new tapered extensions to the back of the saucer (on both sides of the saucer shuttlebay) that integrate the two parts of the hull a little more gracefully. You can see the smoothing effect that this generates in Amasov's scan.
The nacelles were moved forward by 3.5% and upward by 1.3%. (How much did he change the shape of the pylons to do this?)
A phaser strip was added to the trailing dorsal surface of each pylon as well.
It looks like he gave himself an "A+" for his work, probably with a little self-congradulatory pat on the back to go along with it.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Do you have any scans of the Argo Shuttle from the magazine? It sure would be nice to see what else John Eaves did for the movie.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
So basically...he built a brand-new ship. Idiots. You can't simply play with the structure ifd things like that.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Shik: So basically...he built a brand-new ship. Idiots. You can't simply play with the structure ifd things like that.
Well, it's far less than the refitting of the E-nil in TMP. He didn't even replace the nacelles themselves, or any of the major hull components. All at worst he necessitated the replacement of the nacelle pylons, and even then it was probably only a partial rebuilding rather than a total one. The blending of the saucer and neck doesn't require a gargantuan amount of deconstruction/reconstruction, does it?
And the torp tubes don't change ANY of the actual structure of the hull, at least not externally. I can believe that they made space for them on the inside. (Except maybe that airlock one, but it's still possible...)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Little changes are far worse than large-scale ones. You don't simply decide to move pylons forward & change the dihedral. It's like moving the citadel of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer back 5 meters & increasing the slope of the outer casing walls by 2 degrees. It just isn't done, because it's stupid.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
I think the problem is that the artists are approaching the ship design from an artist's perspective... they figure that tweaking a few details to get things "just right" is a good idea. From an engineer's standpoint for a warship, that's positively awful.
I guess it depends on whether you think we should sit back and accept this all because it's "just a movie" or come up with a damn good explanation for this major-minor refit. Or better yet, come up with some excuse for why it never happened in the first place.
-------------------- “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
posted
It's not like they haven't done this sort of thing before. The 4' miniature of the Ent-D has a different shape and texture than the 6', and all the CG models of the Defiant are a poor match for the physical model.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Little changes are far worse than large-scale ones. You don't simply decide to move pylons forward & change the dihedral. It's like moving the citadel of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer back 5 meters & increasing the slope of the outer casing walls by 2 degrees. It just isn't done, because it's stupid.
Hows about we blame it on SF tinkering with warp geometry to increase efficiency and call things even?
After all, it has been four years since we last saw the ship. That's plenty of time for it to either have undergone a refitting or even to have had a nasty run-in with someone/thing and have her ass blown off. (Sacreligious, I know, but possible.)
Hadn't the Enterprise returned to Earth in 2376? ("Life Line" [VGR]) Sure, I know that if they'd just been thrashed, Deanna probably would have mentioned something about it to Reg, but perhaps it was just a planned refitting after all.
Someone throw me a frickin' bone here...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Seriously, though, I'm sure it's possible for the E-E to have a refit. Here's a new question, though: with the "blending" of the saucer into the engineering hull (the tapering near the shuttlebay), can the ship still separate, at least in theory as so many fanboys say it can?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I submit that aside from the new torpedo launchers and phasers, the ship never "really" changed. Eaves said that this is how it was meant to be from the beginning, as far as the saucer curve and nacelle orientation go, and I for one am willing to accept that retroactively. Same way I accept that Ten Forward was always on the Enterprise-D, even if the windows weren't there at first.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Which makes sense to me. We could say that the torp tubes can fire either torp style, their magazines are just ready loaded with a particular type of torp.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
