quote:Originally posted by Timo: ...However, the same logic might not hold for the Woden, which we did see but which certainly could use an update.
I'd be quite happy if they made her into another TAS-style droneship, just without the forward crew section.
Timo Saloniemi
I had a similar thought. Actually that may be the exact reason they chose to use this design for the Antares; so they can save some time/effort/money and re-use it down the line for the Woden.
posted
I think unmanned Woden now MUST BE a standard TAS cargo drone! Or maybe a Huron without it's bridge.
All they need to do now is slip in Arex or M'Ress into background somewhere (I kid, I kid).
By the way, I've also designed a ship that was meant to be Antares, but I went more for the survey/science ship look than for the cargo/transport look. Oh well.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Was that your barely-seen Capella-class?
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, in my most recent articles, I've been naming ships of a class consistently, so all ships of the class would have names of the same type. Antares should be in a class of ships with star names.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think he means that he'll have to rename the class since the Antares has now been seen to be of a different design. I'm not quite sure of the reasoning there, though, as there should be plenty of star system/planet names to have more than one class following that scheme.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Our simian friend is correct. I had intended for Antares to be a member of my "Capella" class, but since Antares is now a revised robot cargo ship, I'm going to rename the class.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not against selected liftings from TAS, but I have to say that just on a warp dynamics standpoint that thing takes a massive smelly diarrheic dump on things.
I can't think offhand of any other ship in the history of Trek besides the Borg cube that wasn't laid out in such a way as to suggest some sort of aerodynamic-like thought. Even the flying bricks went with their smallest-area side forward.
That having been said, though, I'm loving the render quality. This shot looks great. The orbital shots being shown from Omega Glory look like cartoons.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Oh c'mon, that's just being silly. Is there any reason at all to believe that at any point Star Trek ships were required to be aerodynamic?
By the way.. is it only me, or does this Antares actually look quite like the DY-100, contour-wise? If you sort of squint your eyes, it does look a bit like this.
1. Does this mean that the Antares and the TAS cargo drones are the same class of ship?
2. Can we finally rule out that the Antares is NOT the class ship of the TNG Antares-class U.S.S. Hermes? I mean, there's no way that Picard would have used a ship that old in his tachyon grid fleet.
3. Ergo, does this also mean that the Antares is not necessarily the first ship of her class, as the shiplist in the Encyclopedia suggests, and that the NCC-501 registry making more sense than if it was NX-501?
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
1. It's a little difficult to say, yet. The Antares does look very much like the cargo drone with a bow crew module attached, but there are some variations such as the sensor/deflector dish placement, etc. We may have to reserve judgement until we see what the Woden looks like or get some further clarification from Okuda or somebody.
2. If we couldn't rule it out before, why should we be able to now? Whatever her specific design, I think we all envisioned the Antares as being some kind of TOS-like design. If movie era ships are still being used (and, what's more, being built) in the TNG era, then I see no reason why this design couldn't still be around as well, especially since it's proabably a fairly simple, utilitarian, and low-maintenance vessel. Of course, there's no reason why it need look like this anymore, though. The TOS aesthetics have probably long been refitted out.
3. On the contrary, I would rather tend to think the very fact that they used the registry from the Encyclopedia should lend more credence to the class designation from the same source.
Still, I am now a bit confused as to what this means regarding the Xhosa design from DS9, which had TOS-style computer interfaces and a dedication plaque designating it as Antares-class...
On the other hand, this point brings up again a question that has so far been skirted by us in our discussion of these "remastered" episodes: Are they actually to be taken as re-writing the canon account of things, superceeding the originals, or simply an interesting and fun diversion? Until more time passes, it's hard to tell.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic