posted
I was recently thumbing through some tech manuals and blueprints and realized a few ships that have been seen in Star Trek do not necessarily adhere to GR�s �Starship Design Rules.�
1. Warp nacelles MUST be in pairs. 2. Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull. 3. Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front. 4. The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull.
The �Future� Enterprise-D as seen in All Good Things violates rule number 1, as it has three nacelles. Yes, I am aware of the explanation that each nacelle has a pair of warp coils, but I find this to be a lame explanation at best. It seems that someone is simply trying to rationalize an otherwise �invalid� design. Besides, using the same explanation, one could validate (but not necessarily �canonize�) the odd-nacelle-numbered Franz Joseph designs, as well as others.
The Defiant in DS9 seemingly violates rule number 2, as does the S.S. Aurora seen in TOS: The Way to Eden.
So, I am wondering what other �Canon� starships, if any, violate the �rules.�
[ April 22, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A quick look through the database at EAS turns up: 1) Nacelle blockage: Challenger (vertical blockage?), Curry (maybe), Intrepid, Nebula (maybe), Niagara, Oberth (maybe), Sabre, Steamrunner, and Sydney 2) Odd nacelles: Freedom, Springield, Niagara
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Elkins, Soyuz, Raging Queen, Akira (mabye), Steamrunner (mabye) and almost every alien ship ever shown.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Upon further research, it would seem that the Ambassador-class may violate rule number 3, as the nacelles are not fully visible from the front (though they mostly are).
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Franz Joseph's scout/destroyer and tug designs are already canon, having appeared on displays in the second and third ST films.
And the Freedom and Niagara from "The Best Of Both Worlds" (TNG) would be subject to the same rationalization as the AGT-D. But, with all respect to Masao, the Springfield has an even number of nacelles.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow. It looks as if there are several ships that do not adhere to the rules. So then, I am wondering, what good are these supposed �design rules�?
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Um...these "design rules" were made up by Roddenberry in a rather childish and retroactive (as you pointed out, even ignoring a ship from TOS itself) attempt to invalidate FJ's designs. (Which was pretty pointless becuase, as I mentioned above, they had already appeared in TWOK and TSFS.)
They really never have had any ACTUAL effect on the design of ships on the show, as you can see. Just more BS spouted by a bitter, spiteful old man.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Um...these "design rules" were made up by Roddenberry in a rather childish and retroactive (as you pointed out, even ignoring a ship from TOS itself) attempt to invalidate FJ's designs. (Which was pretty pointless becuase, as I mentioned above, they had already appeared in TWOK and TSFS.)
They really never have had any ACTUAL effect on the design of ships on the show, as you can see. Just more BS spouted by a bitter, spiteful old man.
....Is reminded of thread about TAS.
Wait, so what is supposedly "wrong" with the Nebula and Intrepid?
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Looks like you�re right about the Nebula, though I am not sure about the Intrepid. It depends on just how far up the nacelles fold when the ship goes to warp. Quite frankly, I never understood why the engines weren�t just �fixed� in that position (other than the �coolness� factor) if that is where they needed to be for warp speed.
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I remember Rick Sternbach mentioned once that the idea was that the nacelles could go up to varying degrees based on speed, but obviously, that would have taken a bit extra stock footage (and to get the right clip for the right speed in the script every time, hmmm, that would be a mess)...
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Franz Joseph's scout/destroyer and tug designs are already canon, having appeared on displays in the second and third ST films.
But canon as what? Maybe those are displays of design ideas that didn't work. "Don't do this." LOL!
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Or sending frantic calls for help: "Command, this is Entente. We seem to be missing one nacelle. Or have one too many. Either way, we ain't moving. Please advise."
Didn't the Enterprise-nil herself break the nacelles-visible-from-front rule? In the TMP guise, that is. By a few per cent, but still...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
