PROBERT in need of a little help-

[Timo]

It was actually Klingon so I guess it's supposed to be ugly. I like it though. Looks very functional.

Well, it was greenish. But it also had a Starfleet logo on its side. A Klingon design purchased by Starfleet?

I can make out a similar underside in HD screencaps of it in FC.

...This one?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...tacthd0261.jpg

Looks like it, yeah. This is the Fact Files rendition:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...way-5views.jpg

Whether that's "Defiant-like" is debatable. The same seven-cornered hatches are there, but otherwise it's just generic aztecing... If we're to define design age by similarities of this sort, the Akira was built in the 2150s!

Timo Saloniemi

[Dukhat]

Saquist wrote:

---

The registry matters to me because we've never seen new ships get old registries unless it's a renaming. In any case it doesn't matter which pod he choses because FC mucked it up.

Trust me, I've done my homework about this. There are Excelsiors with registries of 4XXXX, while the Ambassadors never get beyond 2XXXX, despite the fact that the former ship is older than the latter. Also, the brand-new Prometheus has a registry of 5XXXX (just like the FC ships) even though logically it should have a registry in the high 7XXXX's. The 5XXXX Pegasus was only 12 years old as of the final season of TNG, even though chronologically it should have had a higher registry. So no, registry numbers aren't always chronological to build times.

(shrug)

You can shrug all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Timo wrote:

---

This one?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...tacthd0261.jpg

Looks like it, yeah. This is the Fact Files rendition:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...way-5views.jpg

Whether that's "Defiant-like" is debatable.

Yep, that's what I'm talking about. I've compared both pics, and they look similar enough to me, and enough proof that the Norway wasn't built in the 2350's or early '60's like its registry would suggest.

[Saquist]

Timo wrote:

---

Well, it was greenish. But it also had a Starfleet logo on its side. A Klingon design purchased by Starfleet?

that's a hard one. I looked again...turns out those are Romulan scout ship parts with Top and Engines and the pylons are Intrepid pylons....

Go...figure...

...This one?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...tacthd0261.jpg

Looks like it, yeah. This is the Fact Files rendition:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...way-5views.jpg

Whether that's "Defiant-like" is debatable. The same seven-cornered hatches are there, but otherwise it's just generic aztecing... If we're to define design age by similarities of this sort, the Akira was built in the 2150s!

Timo Saloniemi

Dukhat wrote:

---

Trust me, I've done my homework about this.

Yes I know I've seen it.

There are Excelsiors with registries of 4XXXX, while the Ambassadors never get beyond 2XXXX, despite the fact that the former ship is older than the latter.

In the strictest of meanings that means absolutely nothing.
There is no dead end here as far as reasoning goes. What are you attempting conclude?

Also, the brand-new Prometheus has a registry of 5XXXX (just like the FC ships) even though logically it should have a registry in the high 7XXXX's.

It did have a 7XXXX registry. They already explained that was a mistake by production crew.
I presume you're leaving that information out since I've seen you mention it previously in other "places". Sorry, but as inconvient as that is we still can't draw the conclusion that the registries aren't chronological.

The 5XXXX Pegasus was only 12 years old as of the final season of TNG, even though chronologically it should have had a higher registry. So no, registry numbers aren't always chronological to build times.

We don't know what the build year of the Pegasus was.
They said 12 year old ship but build period and completion could be totally different and frequently are in Naval Constructions especially with experimental ships. The 5XXXX puts it right around the time period of Rutledge in the 2340 which is 30 years prior to the End of TNG and just so happens that there are many types of ships in this period that have Galaxy-esque design cues. It's only 8 years removed from the 40's and since it's clear that vessels like Nebula, New Orleans, Akira, Norway, Saber and Steamrunner also share those features and a similar range of registry it's likely all these ships played a part in the Design of Galaxy.

I support the chronological assertion because:
1) Rick Sternbach supports it
2) Mike Okuda applies them in such a way
3) Intent is everything and means more than canon screw-ups. Without intent there is no purpose. Putting the Official errors as superior to the design intent of the people creating the show would be just like saying the loss of the nose on the Sphinx is the way it's supposed to look.

You can shrug all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

I usually do... but it still doesn't matter.

Yep, that's what I'm talking about. I've compared both pics, and they look similar enough to me, and enough proof that the Norway wasn't built in the 2350's or early '60's like its registry would suggest.

Great Scott they cut and pasted...

[Dukhat]

Mike Okuda himself has stated that registries are not always chronological. Mostly, yes, but not always. If you don't feel like accepting my examples, fine. But if you're going to ignore the guy who had been officially in charge of stuff like this for a long time, then that's your own issue.

Excelsiors with high registries vs. Ambassadors with low registries: I would thing that this would be obvious to you. A more advanced ship has a much lower registry than a lesser advanced one, implying that Starfleet decided to abandon the newer design in favor of rebuilding a much older one. That makes no sense to me.

It's stated that the Pegasus was a twelve year old ship. Not that it was a 30 year old ship with refits. Occam's Razor.

I know the Prometheus's reg was a VFX mistake. I was using it as an example of why the regs for the FC ships could also be a similar mistake as far as their build dates vs. their registries go.

ILM's VFX dept. vs. Mike Okuda: Yeah, it does kinda matter, because here you have a disconnect between the person making sure ships have correct registries, and a division of a company that might not have had the same information Okuda had.

[Saquist]

It's never been bout ignoring anything.
It's about evidence...so far I've reviewed the information and have researched as many of your claims as possible. You didn't have the support of the evidence to the conclusions you were looking for.

As for your claims on Okuda, I only have your word. I need something of substance, like at least an attempt to recall his actual wording and not merely 2nd hand testimony. A source would be gratifying.

[Dukhat]

Saquist wrote:

---

It's never been bout ignoring anything.
It's about evidence...so far I've reviewed the information and have researched as many of your claims as possible. You didn't have the support of the evidence to the conclusions you were looking for.

As for your claims on Okuda, I only have your word. I need something of substance, like at least an attempt to recall his actual wording and not merely 2nd hand testimony. A source would be gratifying.

I'm a bit too tired right now to find the post where Okuda states this. It might even be on Drexfiles instead of here, but that's what he said. Yes, I realize that until I show proof you only have my word. If you feel that strongly about it, go try to find it yourself.

[Rick Sternbach]

I've been working for the past year on the joint Japan/UK "Build the Enterprise-D" project which, while canceled because of poor initial sales testing and the earthquake/tsunami, may rise again someday. I did a great deal of work detailing the exterior and interior of the "boxy" lifeboat (uprated 4m version), two sketches of which are posted here. Unfortunately, I cannot post the final CGI renders from the UK publishers. Suffice it to say that the general color scheme is light gray shades with pewter docking hardware and doors, and the RCS triangles are standard yellow ochre and brown shades. If and when the project begins again, I'll let you all know. - Rick

[Holdfast]

I don't have anything constructive to add, but just wanted to say: what a fun thread to read, especially the fab contributions by those who worked on the show (and the knowledgeable commentary by those fans who've immersed themselves in its detail).

It makes me feel like the TNG-era continues on, albeit offscreen.

[Saquist]

so apparently Galaxy didn't have the same pods as Voyager.

[Arpy]

Please consider, Mr. Probert, infusing some of the escape pods with some of the "technology unchained" qualities seen in the Galaxy Class, its bridge, and the Type-7 shuttle. I imagine that many fans (like me) fell in love with the Enterprise-D for its exotically powerful futuristic look.

[charonjr]

Though this thread is a year old, I thought I'd add my two-cents. I believe that the Star Fleet would continually upgrade the escape pod designs and mechanisms on all ships of the fleet, regardless of age and design. There's no resign the Excelsior class wouldn't end up with lifeboats similar to Voyager's in due time.

[Mott the barber]

Holdfast wrote:

---

I don't have anything constructive to add, but just wanted to say: what a fun thread to read, especially the fab contributions by those who worked on the show (and the knowledgeable commentary by those fans who've immersed themselves in its detail).

It makes me feel like the TNG-era continues on, albeit offscreen.

+1

[T'Girl]

It would seem to me, given missions of long range exploration out in the Federation's "boonies," that all the Enterprise's (really all Starfleet ship's) lifeboats/pods would have a warp drive.

I imagine something like the size nacelles you see on the smallest two seat shuttle pod, stored folded flush into the basic cube shape, post launch they would deploy out on short arms/struts and provide a low warp capability (warp three or four) so the life boat could reach a nearby system with a hopefully suitable planet to await rescue on. Depending on where the abandon ship occurred, rescue might be years in the future. As the ship traveled through the galaxy, the fight computers on the lifeboats would be periodically updated with the location to the nearest class M planets.

In terms of a rescue ship removing people from lifeboats, simply beaming them out would be option number one.

Option number two would be landing the lifeboats on the flight deck, remove the occupants, and if necessary throw the empty lifeboat back into space to make room for the next one. If the original ship was in battle prior to launching the lifeboats, the occupants could be heavily injured and we would see medical teams right alongside the lifeboats on the flight deck.

Option number three, we've seen forcefields hold in atmosphere when the hull has been breached. Docking ports, both male and female, take up a fair amount of room, which would be at a premium in a lifeboat. Have a tractor beam simply butt the lifeboat's pressure hatch up against the rescuing ship's docking port, erect a forcefield tightly around the lifeboat, fill the forcefield with air, open the hatches and transfer the personnel.

[Robert Comsol]

charonjr wrote:

---

Though this thread is a year old, I thought I'd add my two-cents. I believe that the Star Fleet would continually upgrade the escape pod designs and mechanisms on all ships of the fleet, regardless of age and design. There's no resign the Excelsior class wouldn't end up with lifeboats similar to Voyager's in due time.

No matter how I look at the various possibilities, I think Rick Sternbach's cube proposal makes the most sense.

After a catastrophic event the lifeboat cubes could easily connect to one another to form a cluster of lifeboats that would eventually resemble a Rubik's Cube. If there's enough space the survivors could move to the interior cubes with the outer cubes providing a protective shell or buffer zone.

I definitely wouldn't like to see lifeboat designs from the later series or movies being retconned into the TNG era. I'd like to see a unique and different design for the TNG era.

Bob

[Albertus]

Hi Mr Probert.

I don't comment often. but on this subject I will.

The earliest rendition or inclusion (on screen) of discernible 'Escape Hatches' were on the Ambassador Class Enterprise captained by Rachael Garret in 'Yesterday's Enterprise'.

Given that that ship existed in the historical period of Khitomer 2293, the war with the Klingons, then it seems likely that the hatches on the saucer were not for escape, but deployment of ground forces. There are onscreen references and inferences that I think support that contention.

After the Khitomer Accord, tensions relaxed and the need for troop ships was no longer required.

Long story short:
Federation and StarFleet used the bigger troopships (E-C) to utilise the combat experience of the E-C to man-manage increased personnel of the 'Town-Ship' that is the E-D

My point is, no specific escape or deployment systems were onboard a starship prior to the Ambassador Class
Tha Saratoga and other Miranda Class ships used 'Lifeboats'. Individual vessels capable of direction independent flight and planetary touchdown. Life/escape pods are not.

Albertus