RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,135
Posts: 5,433,653
Members: 24,934
Currently online: 581
Newest member: Emperor Khaless

TrekToday headlines

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Productions

Fan Productions Creating our own Trek canon!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 13 2013, 08:17 PM   #166
Loken
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

I know Juve. I will friend Juan on FB.

Thanks

Alec
Loken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 11:03 AM   #167
captainkirk
Commander
 
captainkirk's Avatar
 
Location: South Africa
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Loken wrote: View Post
First meeting with John Eaves Thursday.
That's awesome! What will his role on the project be?
captainkirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 11:07 AM   #168
lennier1
Commodore
 
lennier1's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Loken wrote: View Post
First meeting with John Eaves Thursday.
Have fun! Just like Tobias he's not only very talented, but also a pretty likable guy.
__________________
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
lennier1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 04:47 PM   #169
Loken
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

captainkirk wrote: View Post
Loken wrote: View Post
First meeting with John Eaves Thursday.
That's awesome! What will his role on the project be?

Production Designer.
Loken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 11:47 PM   #170
captainkirk
Commander
 
captainkirk's Avatar
 
Location: South Africa
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Cool, thanks.
captainkirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 08:11 PM   #171
Vieux Normand
Ensign
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Might one ask a few questions about the impressively-detailed and textured ships seen earlier in the thread? As mentioned, they are a mixture of design influences all the way from Franz Joseph to the JJVerse vessels.

Firstly, to what scale are they built? If they are similar in scale to the 2009 movie, please disregard this question. However, if they are pre-TOS in size, one wonders if the connections between primary and secondary hulls in the Hermes and the Korolyew are wide enough to have the sorts of turbolifts, Jeffries tubes and other conduits to allow personnel and power to pass from one to another. Of course, the connection need not be as long as a TOS-1701 neck, but it might have to be as wide.

Secondly, might it be useful for the "roll-bars" to be full weapons platforms as was the first "roll-bar": that of the WOK's Reliant? The "roll-bars" in the Axanar ships are very JJ-esque in that there are no phasers mounted in the corners, which makes one wonder why one would need a roll-bar at all: after all, as shown very ably on the Magellan, if one only wants dorsal torpedo launchers, one can mount them directly on the raised area of the saucer above the shuttle bay. On the subject of "roll-bars", is it certain that the destroyer Geronimo needs one to launch torpedoes? If the Magellan doesn't need one for that purpose...

Thirdly, regarding the Hermes, are the warp cores to be placed in the secondary hulls? That would make for a long and complicated route for main power to reach the nacelles, and the more complicated something is, the more can go wrong--particularly since those conduits would pass very close to the bridge due to the half-saucer primary hull. Also, are these standard secondary hulls on the ship? If so, why would a vessel need two deflector dishes when most ships don't seem to need any at all? Perhaps placing the warp core in the area behind the bridge, while letting the two secondary hulls become through-decks, would make a little more sense.

Fourthly, the connection between the Kolroyew's saucer and secondary hull, in addition to seeming more like a strut than a passageway, seems placed directly beneath the impulse engines (which are also placed directly behind the bridge). Multiply-hazardous in case of a direct hit to that area. Perhaps a complete saucer section for the ship, as well as the aforementioned widened passageway, might address these issues.

Finally, the Aries. Nice, streamlined design. I had always been curious to see what it would look like if one reverse-engineered ASDB's Hokule'a design (the second from the top on the ASDB site's page) with TOS-connie parts rather than Excelsior components. Like Hokule'a, the secondary hull of the Aries had to be custom-built--slightly flattened--to fit the general design while allowing for a deflector. (Meanwhile, I'm not sure why a pre-TOS vessel would have a TMP-style deflector). As well, if one is using support-strut technology from the JJ-verse (as seems to be the case) on most of the ships, don't the longer, thinner TOS-looking struts of the Aries seem a little fragile by comparison? As much as one wants to like the design, it lacks the textured reality of the other ships, looking a bit cartoonish when next to them (though Aries would certainly not come across that way if it had appeared next to TOS-Enterprise in the sixties).

Perhaps it's just me: I always thought Enterprise-D and JJ-Prise both looked a bit too cartoony for realism when placed against other vessels in the same story.

Anyway, the time and effort put into all these ships has been well-spent and deserve much admiration and appreciation by those who still follow Star Trek.

Qapla Long And Live Prosper.

|//|

Last edited by Vieux Normand; February 22 2013 at 03:17 AM.
Vieux Normand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 12:23 AM   #172
Johnny
Commander
 
Johnny's Avatar
 
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

I quite liked the Ent-D... i think magestic is the only way to describe it. There's very few trek ships that I feel aren't designed in a wind tunnel.
J.
__________________
www.digitalfilmworks.co.uk
Johnny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 03:13 AM   #173
Vieux Normand
Ensign
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Johnny wrote: View Post
I quite liked the Ent-D... i think magestic is the only way to describe it. There's very few trek ships that I feel aren't designed in a wind tunnel.
J.
What I got from the Ent.-D was a small-ship impression (which didn't match the supposed size of the thing). For a long time, I couldn't figure out why. Then it slowly became a bit clearer. After the Connie-class, of course, came the Excelsior. With that, you had tiny windows and a smaller "head-to-body-size" ratio in terms of comparison of primary to secondary hull. It looked like a more "grown-up" starship.

If one looks at any living thing, creatures with large heads compared to the bodies are immature versions of the adult. Large windows can also give the same overall impression as "large eyes"--and the Galaxy class had huge windows. If one looks at the windows of vessels such as the Excelsior or D'Deridex, their pinhole size makes the whole ship, by contrast, look immense. By contrast, the Galaxy seemed small by design due to those visual cues.

I did rather prefer the three-nacelle Ent.-D that briefly appeared in All Good Things. Its additions, being primarily to the secondary hull, made for a more balanced (less "head-heavy") design. It did present a problem in terms of the neck-mounted impulse engine, however, and this brings up a question I have about those.

As far as I can tell, impulse engines are deuterium-fed fusion-reactor-powered versions of rockets. They utilize Newton's Second Law to propel a ship through normal space. The three-nacelle Ent.-D's relocated neck-section impulse engines seem close enough together that their backblast would hit the strut of the ship's dorsal nacelle. Some views of the Ent.-E also seem to show impulse whose placement means backblast that would hit that ship's struts.

If this is a risk, wouldn't all ships be designed so that the impulse nozzles project back and away from any other part of the vessel? I'm looking at the Hermes and the Korolyew. The former has some impulse engines right at the back of what would be the saucer if that ship had a circular saucer--but there seem to be others placed right in front of the connection between the secondary hulls and the rest. The heavy cruiser, meanwhile, has impulse engines blasting back from a recessed part of the primary hull, with some apparent risk to the parts of the saucer section found aft of them.

Had I a magic wand, I might switch the primary hulls of the Korolyew with that of the Geronimo. One benefit would be that the Geronimo, from dorsal and ventral views, would cease to resemble a frying pan. I might then place its impulse engines on the two most aft-projecting parts of the primary hull, using Geronimo's "roll-bar" as a power conduit from them to the photorp launcher in its centre. The warp core could be placed just aft of the bridge (where the impulse engines are on the current hevy cruiser). Just forward of the bridge (though obviously no more than a couple of decks above the saucer), a small shuttle bay could be placed.

No magic wand, though.

Jolan False,

|//|

Last edited by Vieux Normand; February 22 2013 at 04:51 AM.
Vieux Normand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 06:45 PM   #174
Johnny
Commander
 
Johnny's Avatar
 
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
What I got from the Ent.-D was a small-ship impression (which didn't match the supposed size of the thing). For a long time, I couldn't figure out why. Then it slowly became a bit clearer. After the Connie-class, of course, came the Excelsior. With that, you had tiny windows and a smaller "head-to-body-size" ratio in terms of comparison of primary to secondary hull. It looked like a more "grown-up" starship.
The transitions between the Excelsior and Galaxy I thought was like going from a submarine to a luxury liner, an understandable change over that period of time. Larger windows, bigger ships. No point floating above a planet if you can't see out the windows.

I think showing scale was the (cost?) limit of eighties special effects, it's always comparative and rarely looks that way above a planet.

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
If one looks at any living thing, creatures with large heads compared to the bodies are immature versions of the adult. Large windows can also give the same overall impression as "large eyes"--and the Galaxy class had huge windows. If one looks at the windows of vessels such as the Excelsior or D'Deridex, their pinhole size makes the whole ship, by contrast, look immense. By contrast, the Galaxy seemed small by design due to those visual cues.
If you think about the human body, all of the vital organs are in the torso and head (ie: the saucer) which is a pretty big place, and you can lose your legs (secondary) and still operate and therefore save your life if you lost an appendage.
Assuming that we treat the star ship in the same way, the design makes sense. Power below/behind, safety above/infront.
Since when had design solely depended on nature? Just look at the rocket! XD

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
I did rather prefer the three-nacelle Ent.-D that briefly appeared in All Good Things. Its additions, being primarily to the secondary hull, made for a more balanced (less "head-heavy") design. It did present a problem in terms of the neck-mounted impulse engine, however, and this brings up a question I have about those.
I liked seeing that version, purely for change and seeing the possibilities of what could be, but got the feeling that in a firefight squeezing through a tight gap would be like trying to force a brick through a letter box! No elegance or grace.
I like the way the two-nacelle version as the the side profile of the saucer (which I always compare the a plane wing) isn't interrupted by another nacelle.
__________________
www.digitalfilmworks.co.uk
Johnny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 12:13 AM   #175
Vieux Normand
Ensign
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Johnny wrote: View Post
The transitions between the Excelsior and Galaxy I thought was like going from a submarine to a luxury liner,
Subs and luxury liners serve completely different purposes. As far as I can tell, both Galaxy-class and Excelsiors served as explorers/heavy cruisers.

Larger windows, bigger ships. No point floating above a planet if you can't see out the windows.
Personnel serving on both Excelsior and D'Deridex-class ships (the latter considerably bigger than the Galaxy) vessels couldn't see out of all those windows?

If you think about the human body, all of the vital organs are in the torso and head (ie: the saucer)
That might make sense if we were discussing cephalopods. However, vertebrates seem mostly arranged by limbs, body, neck and head. The body is where the heart (power source, analogous to the warp core) is placed, the head is where the brain (analogous to the main computer and bridge on a starship) resides and the limbs/wings are pretty close, in placement and purpose, to the struts and nacelles of a starship.

Since when had design solely depended on nature? Just look at the rocket!
Rockets (using a Newtonian principle commonly found in nature, as evidenced by any sea-going creatures which use a well-placed jet of water to escape predators) are quite real. Since Trek starship-designs are exercises in total fantasy, I suppose one can make a head and chest analogous to an oversized saucer if one wishes.

I liked seeing that version, purely for change and seeing the possibilities of what could be, but got the feeling that in a firefight squeezing through a tight gap would be like trying to force a brick through a letter box!
Dreadnoughts need not squeeze through a tight gap. As the AGT-prise showed against two Negh'Var-class ships, dreadnoughts make the gap bigger.

I like the way the two-nacelle version as the the side profile of the saucer (which I always compare the a plane wing) isn't interrupted by another nacelle.
The side view of the Gal class was certainly better than other elevations because it de-emphasized both the saucer's size (relative to the rest of the ship) and the relatively-thin neck section just above the secondary hull. The amount of energy wasted in structural-integrity fields, trying to hold all that together under rapid-manoeuvre situations, may well have been one reason why the far-superior Sovereign design had no "neck".

Cheers,

|//|
Vieux Normand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 03:38 AM   #176
dayxday1000
Lieutenant Commander
 
dayxday1000's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
Johnny wrote: View Post
The transitions between the Excelsior and Galaxy I thought was like going from a submarine to a luxury liner,
Subs and luxury liners serve completely different purposes. As far as I can tell, both Galaxy-class and Excelsiors served as explorers/heavy cruisers.

Larger windows, bigger ships. No point floating above a planet if you can't see out the windows.
Personnel serving on both Excelsior and D'Deridex-class ships (the latter considerably bigger than the Galaxy) vessels couldn't see out of all those windows?


That might make sense if we were discussing cephalopods. However, vertebrates seem mostly arranged by limbs, body, neck and head. The body is where the heart (power source, analogous to the warp core) is placed, the head is where the brain (analogous to the main computer and bridge on a starship) resides and the limbs/wings are pretty close, in placement and purpose, to the struts and nacelles of a starship.



Rockets (using a Newtonian principle commonly found in nature, as evidenced by any sea-going creatures which use a well-placed jet of water to escape predators) are quite real. Since Trek starship-designs are exercises in total fantasy, I suppose one can make a head and chest analogous to an oversized saucer if one wishes.

I liked seeing that version, purely for change and seeing the possibilities of what could be, but got the feeling that in a firefight squeezing through a tight gap would be like trying to force a brick through a letter box!
Dreadnoughts need not squeeze through a tight gap. As the AGT-prise showed against two Negh'Var-class ships, dreadnoughts make the gap bigger.

I like the way the two-nacelle version as the the side profile of the saucer (which I always compare the a plane wing) isn't interrupted by another nacelle.
The side view of the Gal class was certainly better than other elevations because it de-emphasized both the saucer's size (relative to the rest of the ship) and the relatively-thin neck section just above the secondary hull. The amount of energy wasted in structural-integrity fields, trying to hold all that together under rapid-manoeuvre situations, may well have been one reason why the far-superior Sovereign design had no "neck".

Cheers,

|//|
Wow. Talk about minutiae. I'm hoping those in charge of this production focus on writing a good story, finding decent actors, and maintaining the highest production values possible for a fan film. If there's time and inclination after that, they can worry about making sure the red matter sub-space flux capacitor fits correctly in the Mcguffin polaritrometer. Given the time span it takes to complete a fan film, there will certainly be plenty of time to work on those things later.
dayxday1000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 11:32 AM   #177
Vieux Normand
Ensign
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Talk about minutiae.
I get a feeling you're about to.

I'm hoping those in charge of this production focus on writing a good story, finding decent actors, and maintaining the highest production values possible for a fan film.
Yep, I was right.

A properly kick-ass ship is the both central and essential.

Everything else is just minutiae.






See what I did there?
Vieux Normand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2013, 05:31 PM   #178
dayxday1000
Lieutenant Commander
 
dayxday1000's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

See what I did there?
Yes I do. I stand by my opinion.

Last edited by dayxday1000; February 23 2013 at 06:02 PM.
dayxday1000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2013, 01:14 AM   #179
Vieux Normand
Ensign
 
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

[QUOTE=dayxday1000;7720642]
I stand by my opinion.
To which you are, of course, quite welcome.

Some are interested in "human relationships" or whatever.

They want to know how, exactly, Wesley intones: "Ughh...z'at mean I get to go to the academy???!!?" or "D-uh saucer-section's a sitting duck!!!!"

Others, for some reason, find more fascination in ship design--and various fun ways in which said ships can space crew members of enemy vessels, leaving the latter to die in agony in the fragrant vacuum of the void.

Regardless of the specificities involved, it's all about the positive values advanced by Star Trek: the conquest of alien systems, stripping of resources from defenseless planets and total subjugation of inferior races.

Cheers,

|//|

Last edited by Vieux Normand; February 24 2013 at 03:06 AM.
Vieux Normand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2013, 09:52 AM   #180
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
dayxday1000 wrote: View Post
I stand by my opinion.
To which you are, of course, quite welcome.

Some are interested in "human relationships" or whatever.

They want to know how, exactly, Wesley intones: "Ughh...z'at mean I get to go to the academy???!!?" or "D-uh saucer-section's a sitting duck!!!!"

Others, for some reason, find more fascination in ship design--and various fun ways in which said ships can space crew members of enemy vessels, leaving the latter to die in agony in the fragrant vacuum of the void.

Regardless of the specificities involved, it's all about the positive values advanced by Star Trek: the conquest of alien systems, stripping of resources from defenseless planets and total subjugation of inferior races.
And then there are those of us who both understand that story and characters are far more relevant than the straw man you set up, and want the technical aspects of the ship to make sense and remain consistent.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 02:47 AM.

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