posted
Well, anyway, getting back on-topic, I look forward to seeing this MSD, though I'd prefer it be cutaway-style like the Galaxy, Intrepid, Sovereign, Defiant, etc. I'm sure if budgeting allowed it, more time/effort would have been put into ships like the Brattain, Biko, Excalibur, Sutherland...
Amasov: Miranda's would've rec'd upgrades, no doubt, as they are one of the fleet's workhorses. Though I still think that the extra engines are VFX errors. And if they did indeed replace the SOLE two aft-photorp launchers, they would be lowering her tactical ability in combat. Not to mention, I'm in doubt that the pod has the space inside for an impulse drive. I know someone will mention the Nebula-class mini-drives now, though. Which is also a VFX problem me thinks. IMO, it's a VFX error, period. ;-)
One last thing...was the Saratoga-A's bridge a redress of an Excelsior-class bridge, and if it were, did it too have an MSD aft of the capt's chair?
-------------------- Yeah, I'm the same guy from prev. incarnations of these forums.
Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Research seems to indicate that the DS9 Saratoga bridge is in fact NOT the use of parts of the ST5-6 bridge sets, but a mostly new set that premiered with that episode. It did not have an MSD behind it, and nor did the bridge sets for the Norkova, DS9 Prometheus, or Odyssey that followed it.
Also, it looks like the set was eventually reworked and expanded into the bridge of the Excelsior for VOY "Flashback", and used thereafter as the bridge for the other Prometheus, Equinox, Righteous, etc.
posted
I find this thread, starting with a ship with too many tailpipes and touching on homosexual androids, quite disconcerting.
Also disconcerting would be the placement of impulse engines at that location. Beyond the whole issue of ships having impulse engines that are in weird places unrelated to any sort of center of mass or anything else, there's the simple fact that I would not want my impulse engines placed on such a spindly structure as the Miranda rollbar.
(To be sure, spindly structures on Trek ships are not necessarily as weak as they would appear (TOS Constitution leaps to mind), but I still see no purpose in tempting fate (or taxing the SIF) this way.)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Perhaps the rollbar weapons pod is designed to seperate and fly around the target ship, like a big misquito, but with photon torpedoes.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, that was interesting... so is this here.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Chris W.: Amasov: Miranda's would've rec'd upgrades, no doubt, as they are one of the fleet's workhorses. Though I still think that the extra engines are VFX errors. And if they did indeed replace the SOLE two aft-photorp launchers, they would be lowering her tactical ability in combat. Not to mention, I'm in doubt that the pod has the space inside for an impulse drive. I know someone will mention the Nebula-class mini-drives now, though. Which is also a VFX problem me thinks. IMO, it's a VFX error, period. ;-)
The aft end of the pod looks like the front end. So, either the guy who lightmapped the ship was blind or stupid or both there's no way you could confuse them with impulse engines. The other option is: whoever built the model a) didn't put any detail on the pod (which is hard to believe concidering the fact that the Starship Spotter ship was pretty detailed) or b) did indeed place a pair of impulse engines there, for whatever reason. Besides that, here's the first lesson you have to lean on this board: "There are no VFX errors, just lazy forum members."
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Also disconcerting would be the placement of impulse engines at that location. Beyond the whole issue of ships having impulse engines that are in weird places unrelated to any sort of center of mass or anything else, there's the simple fact that I would not want my impulse engines placed on such a spindly structure as the Miranda rollbar.
They still have the second pair of engines, anyway. Furthermore, I'd rather have another impulse engine in that pod than a torpedo launcher with a stock of antimatter warheads. OTOH, with the engines in that pod, I doubt there's enough space left for a launcher or a single batch of torpedos. But hey, they obviously still have some unused space for torpedo launchers where the shuttlebays used to be. (Concidering the fact that they also produced the infamous Barebone-Galaxys, there's no way Starfleet has the ressources to equip every one of the thousands ouf Mirandas in the fleet with Shuttles).
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But shuttles are easier to build than starships. I'm sure there's a large enough Industrial Replicator that creates shuttles now.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge: But shuttles are easier to build than starships. I'm sure there's a large enough Industrial Replicator that creates shuttles now.
Scary thought. You definitely watch too much Voyager.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Since we never really saw the Mirandas firing torpedoes in the Dominion nastiness, it could well be that the whole pod *is* dedicated to impulse boost now... As long as we believe that the pod is "modular", i.e. swappable, it's also the most practical place for a major new piece of hardware, nicht wahr?
I'm all happy happy joy joy with the idea that Starfleet had to make drastic changes to these geriatric ships to squeeze tactical value out of them. Sealed-off shuttlebays, removed torpedo pods and extra impulse boost sound like the measures a navy of today might do to increase the lifespan of a 1960s-vintage ship (replace relevant treknobabble with things like "helicopter hangar" etc., of course).
posted
Not true - in "Sacrifice of Angels" both Sitak and Majestic were seen firing torpedoes forward shortly before they were blown up. While it's unknown if they were "lit" from behind, they certainly were firing away.
posted
From what I can tell, the picture on the right is BEFORE the one on the left.
At first glance, it appears that we have discovered another Miranda variant. Perhaps the ship on the right is the "Brattain" variant (ie. a ship dedicated to science/exploration, so it wouldn't need the weapons pod). This is total conjecture.
The ship in the left photo appears to have the standard 2 impulse engines and illuminated shuttlebays.
Also, I refuse to believe that each ship of a class starship is completly identical. In the Navy, though the Stennis and Ronald Reagan are both Nimitz-class carriers, the Reagan is far more advanced. Think E-D vs. USS Venture, etc.
What do you guys think? 4th Miranda variant discovered?
-------------------- Yeah, I'm the same guy from prev. incarnations of these forums.
Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
