RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,836
Posts: 5,327,246
Members: 24,551
Currently online: 541
Newest member: Mycroft

TrekToday headlines

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

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


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 January 16 2014, 03:01 PM   #151
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Maybe the nacelles are covered by exterior panelling, maybe the nacelles sit on top but are close to the body like a Klingon Bird of Prey, maybe it's a ship of an alien design Harry Mudd somehow acquired. Any conclusions will be conjectural.

OTOH, all the warp capable TOS ships we saw close enough to make a determination (including the Romulan BoPs in "The Deadly Years") had a pair of warp nacelles.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2014, 04:54 PM   #152
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Maybe the nacelles are covered by exterior panelling, maybe the nacelles sit on top but are close to the body like a Klingon Bird of Prey, maybe it's a ship of an alien design Harry Mudd somehow acquired. Any conclusions will be conjectural.

OTOH, all the warp capable TOS ships we saw close enough to make a determination (including the Romulan BoPs in "The Deadly Years") had a pair of warp nacelles.
With the exception of the Orion ship from "Journey to Babel" that we couldn't see clearly, all the FTL-capable ships we saw in TOS had a variety of setups. Some had a pair of warp nacelles like the Enterprise, the Aurora and the Klingon warship. The Tholians, Mudd's ship, the "Spock's Brains" ship, and Fesarius did not. There wasn't anything in TOS to preclude the existence of a single nacelle warp or FTL ship, IMHO.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2014, 07:15 PM   #153
Manticore
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Manticore
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
According to the late Franz Joseph in his USS Enterprise blueprints, it was "Naval Construction Contract". Later one of the unlicenced fan technical books (Ships of the Star Fleet?) used the term "Navigational Contact Code" which has a nice ring to it.

NX was assumed to be experimental until Star Trek: Enterprise established it originally as a starship class designation, like DY or J-class. I think now it just means "ships to cool for C's"
I never had any trouble believing that Earth Starfleet could use a different class/registry system than the Federation Starfleet that it eventually grew into.
__________________
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants.
WWJAD
Manticore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2014, 07:35 PM   #154
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
The Tholians, Mudd's ship, the "Spock's Brains" ship, and Fesarius did not. There wasn't anything in TOS to preclude the existence of a single nacelle warp or FTL ship, IMHO.
Again, three of these are definitely of alien design which is also possible for Mudd's ship. And the vessel in "Spock's Brain" had some form of advanced propulsion that got Scotty excited.

We might as well take another look as TAS and will also see that all FTL Federation vessels have paired warp engines.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17 2014, 01:36 AM   #155
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Again, three of these are definitely of alien design which is also possible for Mudd's ship. And the vessel in "Spock's Brain" had some form of advanced propulsion that got Scotty excited.

We might as well take another look as TAS and will also see that all FTL Federation vessels have paired warp engines.
If other races had FTL ships that didn't require paired, side-by-side engines why must we assume that you must have a pair of warp engines for FTL? Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17 2014, 01:29 PM   #156
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?
Because there is no onscreen precedent (prior to nuTrek) suggesting otherwise?

Again, what or whom are we talking about? A man who wasn't a Star Trek fan by his own admission and was not anywhere involved with the actual production of Star Trek, yet and despite what had been suggested in TOS and TAS (i.e. Federation FTL ships have paired warp engines) somehow felt the need to "re-invent the wheel". If I were to start messing around in somebody else's "sandbox" I'd ask for the playing rules first.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17 2014, 03:23 PM   #157
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?
Because there is no onscreen precedent (prior to nuTrek) suggesting otherwise?
Mudd's ship was regulated by Federation law so we do have precedence that other ships in the Federation could have non-paired warp engines. And since you mentioned nuTrek (and thus expanding the places we can look), you could look at ENT and the Vulcan Ring ships or the Vulcan freighters from TNG's "Unification" with their non-paired warp engines.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Again, what or whom are we talking about? A man who wasn't a Star Trek fan by his own admission and was not anywhere involved with the actual production of Star Trek, yet and despite what had been suggested in TOS and TAS (i.e. Federation FTL ships have paired warp engines) somehow felt the need to "re-invent the wheel". If I were to start messing around in somebody else's "sandbox" I'd ask for the playing rules first.
I'm just talking about the evidence onscreen we have and being accurate about it. I don't particularly care whether FJ was right or not in this case but it just shows that it's a poor case if evidence is ignored to prove a point, IMHO.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2014, 02:45 AM   #158
QuinnTV
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?
Because there is no onscreen precedent (prior to nuTrek) suggesting otherwise?
What about the Merchantman freighter?
QuinnTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2014, 02:52 AM   #159
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

What makes you think it had FTL capability?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2014, 05:29 AM   #160
QuinnTV
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

That scene in STIII always struck me as being out in deep space, on the far reaches of normal traffic. Meeting the Klingons with such sensitive information, I figure impulse alone wouldn't get you out to where you can have some interstellar privacy.
QuinnTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2014, 02:46 PM   #161
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

QuinnTV wrote: View Post
What about the Merchantman freighter?
From what I can see this vessel had two long structures port and starboard, probably paired warp engines of a somewhat different configuration.

Alright, please allow me to take the debate to a different point of view.

It has been observed (correctly, IMHO) that there are design elements in Matt Jefferies' TOS Enterprise that most cleverly create a familiarity with the design on the subconscious level (I prefer "unconscious" according to Professor Freud) namely for the female and male design "elements" (e.g. warp nacelles "caps", lower sensor "dome").

If I continue these human body allusions, a pair of warp nacelles carries the allusion to a pair of walking legs, which perfectly fits the context as their prime function is to enable movement, too.

However, a single warp nacelle design no longer carries this ambiguous allusion but limits itself to just the one "male" design element.

Considering the size and proportions of the single nacelle in nuTrek I can't help the suspicion that someone tried to compensate for...okay, I better stop before I get a "R" rating or worse from the moderator.

Deanna Troi once said "sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar [and not a Freudian symbol]". In the case of the single warp nacelle design, however, I'm honestly not that sure.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2014, 07:55 PM   #162
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
QuinnTV wrote: View Post
What about the Merchantman freighter?
From what I can see this vessel had two long structures port and starboard, probably paired warp engines of a somewhat different configuration.
Using that logic, the warp engines on the Klingon BOP in ST3 were the wingtip disruptor pods.

Having a pair of warp engines AFAIK doesn't appear to be a requirement in Star Trek. Having FTL diversity is a plus, IMHO.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18 2014, 10:07 PM   #163
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
QuinnTV wrote: View Post
What about the Merchantman freighter?
From what I can see this vessel had two long structures port and starboard, probably paired warp engines of a somewhat different configuration.
Using that logic, the warp engines on the Klingon BOP in ST3 were the wingtip disruptor pods.

Having a pair of warp engines AFAIK doesn't appear to be a requirement in Star Trek. Having FTL diversity is a plus, IMHO.
Well, I've never been able to figure out what those long thin things are either, but what's quite clear are the large rocket engines at the aft of the ship, which seems to indicate the vessel's primary means of propulsion. FTL? Doubtful.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19 2014, 02:21 AM   #164
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
From what I can see this vessel had two long structures port and starboard, probably paired warp engines of a somewhat different configuration.
Using that logic, the warp engines on the Klingon BOP in ST3 were the wingtip disruptor pods.
The two structures of the Merchantman vessel gain in volume the closer these get to the bow. What we see in the bottom view could be components of its warp engines.

Unlike the wingtips of the Klingon BOP in ST III the purpose of these structures on the Merchantman is obviously conjectural and therefore open to interpretation.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19 2014, 05:00 AM   #165
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

The two structures of the Merchantman vessel gain in volume the closer these get to the bow. What we see in the bottom view could be components of its warp engines
Actually it's entirely possible that the whole wingspan area of those structures are the nacelles, since the Merchantman is obviously a Cardassian ship since the Union was still using the exact same design 100 years later.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   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 05:50 AM.

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