RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 148,603
Posts: 5,888,688
Members: 26,342
Currently online: 529
Newest member: mrklingon

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek/Green Lantern #4
By: T'Bonz on Oct 13

Redshirt’s Little Book Of Doom
By: T'Bonz on Oct 13

Shatner As Twain Tonight
By: T'Bonz on Oct 13

More Dubai Star Trek Beyond Photos
By: T'Bonz on Oct 13

The Red Shirt Diaries: Shore Leave
By: T'Bonz on Oct 12

Shatner-Takei Feud Is On Again
By: T'Bonz on Oct 12

Star Trek Beyond Videos And Photos
By: T'Bonz on Oct 12

Retro Review: Cold Fire
By: Michelle Erica Green on Oct 9

Star Trek: The Animated Voyages Digital Comic Book #3
By: T'Bonz on Oct 9

Trek Writing Contest Returns
By: T'Bonz on Oct 9

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?

Thread Tools
Old November 4 2008, 04:04 PM   #136
Rear Admiral
B.J.'s Avatar
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: ST XI ships

^That would include you, it seems, since you're here.
B.J. ---
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2008, 09:01 PM   #137
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: ST XI ships

Why change the size and shape of the ship, besides that they can??
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2008, 09:22 PM   #138
JuanBolio's Avatar
Location: Florida Keys, USA
Re: ST XI ships

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
Why change the size and shape of the ship, besides that they can??
Well, the design that April posted there is highly conjectural. We don't even know if what we saw in the teaser will be accurate to what's on screen. Why did they change it at all? To make it look cooler and more detailed for a big-screen, big-budget blockbuster. I love the original design more than any other starship I've ever seen, but the Enterprise has had plenty of extensive refits, so I'm not worried about what they change.
Never fear! JuanBolio wuz here!

This has been an official JuanBolio post. You are now stronger, smarter, and a better human being for having read it. Congratulations.
JuanBolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2008, 10:40 PM   #139
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
Gep Malakai's Avatar
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: ST XI ships

Not to mention that, as a simple matter of professional pride, I can totally understand why a production designer might want to leave their own stamp on a classic design. If any of us got our chance to design the Enterprise for a new film, I have a hard time believing that there isn't a person here who wouldn't start to think "hey, I wonder what it would look like if I tried this..."
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5 2008, 08:31 PM   #140
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: ST XI ships

First delurk in months... I'm going to hate myself in the morning...

USS Kelvin NCC-0514
- Appears to be single-nacelle, additional pod above with navigational deflector
- Presumably impulse drive as a backup since the ship does not appear to be at warp

- She is either not equipped with shields/deflectors or isn't using them during this scene (perhaps they are disabled?)
- The ship has sustained multiple hull breaches but is still in the fight. No outgassing or weird secondary explosions visible so this is probably not intended to be catastrophic damage, just visually to imply the ship is taking lots of heat
- The almost complete lack of viewports or windows on the hull suggests the ship is fully armored and probably designed for combat primarily. This may be consistent with the armaments contained on board.

- Timo's image focusses on the right port quarter of the upper saucer where there are four visible weapon emplacements: three [things] firing projectiles--one of which seems damaged--and one behind them that appears to be a phaser cannon. The projectile weapons may be some type of torpedo launcher.
- From the wider angle, the three torpedo launchers are visible behind armored gun ports, as is the flash of what appears to be the phaser cannon firing its first shot. The Romulan attackers are either small fighter craft or (more likely) freaking huge missiles of some kind.
- From the wider image I would guess that Kelvin is equipped (on its upper saucer) with at least two phaser cannons and at least eight torpedo launchers. This based on the weapon emplacements visible in the closer image in which an additional gunport hatch is still closed and may contain another torpedo launcher, either not-deployed or being reloaded. I would actually guess probably as many as four phaser weapons; above and to the left of the K in "Kelvin" is a discolored hull detail that may very well be the phaser gunport for the starboard side.

If the Romulans are attacking the ship with missiles, then the phasers are probably being used as point defense weapons. The SFX are interesting from this still; probably not the long beamlike effects we're used to, more likely a throwback to TWOK phaser effects. The projectiles are clearly meant to remind viewers of TOS photon torpedoes and are either some kind of missile or just older smaller version of the torpedoes themselves. All of this would seem consistent as continuation from Enterprise, in which phaser weapons were concealed behind gunports as well. Lastly, the green streaks in the image are probably fading ion trails from Romulan missiles fired at the ship (assuming those are missiles and not fighters; in the latter case they may be afterimage of disruptor pulses).

Just my two cents. May add a third if more images become available.
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2008, 06:51 AM   #141
Re: ST XI ships

A couple of anti-centiments:

-I'd think the ship does have shields, but of the TOS/DS9 type where piercing hits against the hull are transformed into harmless gasoline explosions by virtue of skintight shielding. Otherwise, those missiles/fighters would be really impotent, worse than TOS movie photon torpedoes. Of course, that is possible if the intent is to remake Star Trek into something more closely resembling nu-BSG - but I think the Makers are not inclined to drop certain Trek icons such as shields, phasers and transporters even if aiming to make the show more "realistic" (that is, more easily dated as the world moves past 2008/9).

-The lack of windows might reflect either a general inability to build lots of holes into the hull, or a preference for fully virtual view, not necessarily an intent to armor the ship. The same would probably go for the nearly windowless TOS hero ship.

-The pop-up turrets are IMHO the likelier point defense weapons: the Makers would want their CIWS to resemble today's systems which fire a lot of ammunition very rapidly in the hopes that something would hit the fast and tiny incomings. The red beams of the phasers are likely to have a lower rate of fire, in purely aesthetic terms, and thus are less likely candidates for CIWS, again in purely aesthetic terms.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10 2008, 06:59 PM   #142
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: ST XI ships

A minor blast from the past....

Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote


continuity, cool, kelvin

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 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.