RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,893
Posts: 5,330,350
Members: 24,555
Currently online: 536
Newest member: berlyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 1 2008, 01:39 PM   #46
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

You make good points about the smaller Excelsior hulls, especially with the larger Connie bridge module on the Centaur backing that up. However, I will say this about the Yeager: I just can't see myself saying that the secondary hull is anything except an upscaled Maquis raider. It's just too out-of-place for me. Say, if the model builder used a model of a Volkswagen Beetle as the secondary hull, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 02:11 PM   #47
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Then again, a Federation contractor supposedly designed and built the Yeager and the Maquis ships both. Why would a Federation design element be out of place in a Federation ship? We accept "standard" saucers, nacelles and impulse assemblies in unlikely combinations, so why not accept a "standard" secondary hull as well?

(Especially when there's precedent, in the Ambassador and Niagara secondary hull essentially being upscaled Constitution ones, or the Galaxy one being an upscaled New Orleans hull...)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 04:22 PM   #48
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

I'm afraid I have to agree with Dukhat on this one. The Maquis hull is far too specific a shape to ignore. It's just barley credible that it has a smaller, shuttle sized counterpart ("Pre-emptive Strike") that there is also a cruiser sized variant AND that someone welded it to an Intrepid saucer and it is still somehow a functioning starship just pushes it over edge for me. That aside, it would also have to have two radically different warp engine designs working in tandem.
I think the cast off hull/counter intellegence idea is the only one that makes any kind of sense.
As for the Elkins, I like to turn my head, squint and pretend it's actually Sternbach's Voyager prototype (which I happen to perfer as the design for the Bradbury.)

I don't have much of a problem with the Centaur being at either Connie or Excelsior scale. There's sufficient logic to support both possibilities. So either way it's still the Renaissance class.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 05:22 PM   #49
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

How is the shape too specific? In the Yeager, the outboard impulse blocks have been omitted, greeblies have been added in their place, other greeblies omitted e.g. from the wings, and the warp grillework is missing/painted over, leaving only the nacelles to represent a warp propulsion system. Apart from this, the hull is a simple flat box - one of the most rationally scaleable structures imaginable, and one that the manufacturer no doubt configures differently internally in all its applications anyway.

So essentially none of the scaling counterindications that Bernd carefully lists should apply to this particular case. The only thing that perhaps couldn't or at least shouldn't be scaled up without altering its shape is the wingtip cannon thingamabob, and the failure to omit those from the Yeager is my single misgiving with the design.

As for "welded onto an Intrepid", well, somebody welded a secondary hull to NCC-74656, too. Both sets of welders seem to have done a fairly smooth job, even if the quarterdeck of the Yeager is a bit busier.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 07:30 PM   #50
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

It's just barley credible that it has a smaller, shuttle sized counterpart ("Pre-emptive Strike") that there is also a cruiser sized variant AND that someone welded it to an Intrepid saucer and it is still somehow a functioning starship just pushes it over edge for me.
Actually, there'd be three sizes: The shuttle-sized "Preemptive Strike" version, Chakotay's raider, and then this even larger version slapped to the Intrepid saucer. Scale-wise, Chakotay's ship would still be too small against the saucer.

Of course, we could sit here all day trying to make excuses about the design, but the truth is that it was just never meant to be taken seriously. That's why it was in the far background. Someone probably built it as a practical joke, an Easter Egg, or a "Where's Waldo" type deal. If we concede this ship's existence as a true Starfleet vessel, then we must also concede that Starfleet had two ships shaped coincidentally like the Millenium Falcon during the Sector 001 battle in FC, or that Starfleet had a decommissioned ship in the Qualor II surplus depot that coincidentally looked like a mothership from the "V" miniseries.

Rev: It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree about the Renaissance class.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 09:23 PM   #51
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

No no. Quid pro quo. I agreed with you now you have to admit I'm right.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2008, 10:12 AM   #52
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

If we concede this ship's existence as a true Starfleet vessel, then we must also concede that Starfleet had two ships shaped coincidentally like the Millenium Falcon during the Sector 001 battle in FC, or that Starfleet had a decommissioned ship in the Qualor II surplus depot that coincidentally looked like a mothership from the "V" miniseries.
But the Yeager is roughy as prominent as the Sabre on screen. What next, we have to stop pretending that the Batris type of freighter exists in the Star Trek universe because it's just a recycled bit of "V" hardware with some bits glued on?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2008, 02:32 PM   #53
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

He's right, that's a tricky line to walk. Hence: cast off hull.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
technobabble

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.