posted
Jello all. I was just wondering for your favorite and least favorite things about the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-E are. I personally love everything about the ship.
BTW, I know this aint that great of a topic, but this is the 1st topic i've started here, so keep that in mind
posted
They should've put the aft torpedo-launchers at the edge of the "tail", like on the Excelsior, instead of right under the belly, in the middle. It looks like the torpedos will crasch into the hull if they fire in a tight turn...
Aesthetically, I have nothing to say! Some angles of her are uglier than others, but all ships are like that.
------------------ Ready for the action now, Dangerboy Ready if I'm ready for you, Dangerboy Ready if I want it now, Dangerboy? How dare you, dare you, Dangerboy? How dare you, Dangerboy? I dare you, dare you, Dangerboy...
posted
The lower rear suffers from a lack of phasers as well. I agree with the rear-end torpedo launcher.
The inside of the Q-torp launcher should be less exposed.
I had made my own refit of the ship about 2 weeks after the first time I saw her, it had the following changes:
- Phaser strips on the top of the nacelles on the already available strips that devide the blue into two parts. - Phaser strips on the outer sides of the nacelles, capable of fireing downwards and sideways. - A u-shaped phaser strip at the bottom of the ship under the aft shuttle bay. - Two torpedo tubes at the rear end, just below the aft shuttle bay. - Two torpedo tubes just above the saucer shuttlebay. - An optional extra small strip in between the two shuttlebays. I decided later on that this was a little overkill. - When the saucer seperates, the Captain's Yacht/Q-torp launcher is part of the saucer, and not a part of the engineering hull like the scetch showed. - Also when the saucer seperates, two extra phaser strips show up on the engineering hull where the saucer is normally docked.
That about coveres it. As you may have noticed, I don't like blind spots in phaser fireing arcs.
Later on I decided on some 5 Lakota style phaser nodes: - One on each rear end of a nacelle - Two bottom 'mid-wing' placed, one on each side. - One just above the lowest rear torpedo launcher. That last one I got from Voyager (!!!).
------------------ "Do you want to be President?" "Yes." "Put you hand on the book and say 'I do'." "I do." "Good, done. Let's eat!"
- G'kar and Sheridan, Babylon 5.
[This message has been edited by Altair (edited June 21, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Altair (edited June 21, 2000).]
posted
I'd add a third impulse engine for the secondary hull if the ship is designed for saucer separations. That and more access ports like the ones on Voyager since I cannot see any.
------------------ Cigar Girl- "Would you like to check my figures?"
James Bond- "I'm sure that they are very well rounded..."
posted
That is already there, in fact there are TWO extra impulse engines. You can see them at the top of this picture I took from the other thread:
The model I have at home shows that the angle that the impusle engines make with an imaginary front-to-back horizontal line matches the main impulse engines (but mirrored).
------------------ "Do you want to be President?" "Yes." "Put you hand on the book and say 'I do'." "I do." "Good, done. Let's eat!"
- G'kar and Sheridan, Babylon 5.
[This message has been edited by Altair (edited June 21, 2000).]
posted
The torp launchers, and the aft tractor beam emitter below them...
But what are the big squares up there on the horizontal part of the undercut? Cargo hold doors? Are they also present in the final model?
The ship obviously should be able to separate (else why have a saucer-shaped section at all, if not for atmospheric entry?), but I can't see it fighting in two pieces. Once it's separated, the secondary hull is only so much space junk. Unless, of course, there are pop-up impulse engines hidden somewhere. Perhaps even behind those square doors under the stern?
posted
HELLO!?! I just pointed to the impulse engines on the secondary hull 2 posts ago! DON'T look at that red circle, I said this picture was taken from another thread. Inside the circle are torpedo tubes (2 innstead of the official 1) but at the very top you can clearly see 2 impulse engines, which can be seen offline (given the color on screen) in First Contact.
One more thing about the saucer seperation: You know those black triangle thingies on the bottom (front) of the saucer? Those were taken from the original Enterprise, and on that Enterprise they were doors to the landing legs...
------------------ "Do you want to be President?" "Yes." "Put you hand on the book and say 'I do'." "I do." "Good, done. Let's eat!"
- G'kar and Sheridan, Babylon 5.
[This message has been edited by Altair (edited June 21, 2000).]
posted
Sorry about that confusion, Altair. I thought you meant the red-circled things.
If the two rectangles are indeed impulse engines, and if the separation works as shown in that Eaves picture in that earlier reply, then I guess the secondary hull of the Sovereigns *could* indeed work as a "battle section" on its own. It would be butt-ugly, but then so was the Galaxy one. I seriously hope we don't see a separation in any of the movies.
The only problem then would be the low number of phaser arrays on the secondary hull - why would they ALL be hidden between the hulls in connected flight mode, save for the single ventral strip? Isn't that even more wasteful than in the Galaxy, where only one strip (and one torp launcher) was obscured?
BTW, if I go for a hunt for pictures of the Sovereign, can I trust pictures of, say, ERTL models? Or do they have incorrect detail (like the aft torp tube/s)? It's so confusing nowadays when all sorts of preliminary sketches and study model images are published. Don't you wish they wouldn't do that?
posted
And as for the black elongated triangles of the E-nil, they were never really stated to be landing legs by any "reliable" source. I personally thought they were the TOS version of transporter antennas, until Eaves put them into the Sovereign along with TNG-style transporter antennas.
Perhaps they are subspace communication antennas instead, and the Galaxy generation hid them under radiation-transparent panels for aesthetics? The Sovereign seems to give less attention to aesthetic issues. But the Constitution-refit and Excelsior generations didn't seem to have corresponding features, either.
In any case, they wouldn't make for very good landing legs on the E-nil, what with their narrow, pointed "ground ends". I think the basic idea in that theory was that the saucer would come down vertically (not edge on), come to rest on its ventral bulge, and the narrow triangles would just balance it (there would be a third leg exposed by the severing of the connecting neck). But still, I can't see the lower dome carrying the weight, either. The legs would be useless and unnecessary - the saucer should simply land as is, and partially sink to the ground / be partially crushed.
posted
Oh yes, almost forgot, the Ent-D saucer was supposed to get landing legs as well, just because then they could land savely on a planet in an emergency. But the creators of the ship (in real life) forgot about it.
The same source also said that if those landing legs were there they would have been knocked offline in Generations...
------------------ "Do you want to be President?" "Yes." "Put you hand on the book and say 'I do'." "I do." "Good, done. Let's eat!"
posted
Well, I don't like the lack of panelling detail on the E-E, oh yes its there - but its not as beautiful as the E refits, Mirandas or Galaxies. I guess that's a result of the CGI.
Andrew
------------------ "chocolate cherries allamanda" - Datura, Tori Amos
Printer-friendly view of this topic
