RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,959
Posts: 5,391,412
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 427
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 13 2013, 04:30 AM   #16
Ar-Pharazon
Rear Admiral
 
Ar-Pharazon's Avatar
 
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Melakon wrote: View Post
There's no one like Roddenberry or Berman overseeing the franchise anymore, so the new films can pretty much do whatever they want.
Oh, no doubt. I just think Roddenbery's theory of even nacelles was the only "real" mention of the subject.
__________________
Rimmer, on what period of history to live in-
“Well, It’d be the 19th century for me, one of Napoleon’s marshals.
The chance to march across Europe with the greatest general of all time and kill Belgians” - (White Hole).
Ar-Pharazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 07:28 AM   #17
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Aircraft have different numbers of engines. some really huge planes have only two while some smaller ones have four. It's a combination of factors. Two of one kind of engine may be more powerful than four of another, so maybe the 3 nacelled ships have less powerful engines in each.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 08:36 AM   #18
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness


.

.


Strange thing about that ship is the light is coming down from the upper right, if there were a saucer above those nacelles, the rim should be nicely illuminated, just as the closest nacelle is.

And I think it's a twin nacelle ship, with the red-orange shape slightly to the left being a space-suited person in the foreground, standing atop the space station upper surface. The shape isn't a part of the ship.

There's another red-orange figure farther to the left, a second space-suited person?

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 01:26 PM   #19
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Ar-Pharazon wrote: View Post
What does a saucer-only ship need with 3 nacelles?

A dreadnought I could see.
Speed over long distances. It's probably classed as a "fast frigate"
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 02:34 PM   #20
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

She has one large nacelle the size of the Kelvins and two that are under 2/3rd's the length.

There could be all sorts of reasons, we know warp drive functions differently in this universe, the Armstrong class could well have been part of the progression to it.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 09:47 PM   #21
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Chrysalis wrote: View Post
we know warp drive functions differently in this universe
How so?
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 06:14 PM   #22
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Ar-Pharazon wrote: View Post
What does a saucer-only ship need with 3 nacelles?
It's having a midlife crisis and overcompensating.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 07:14 PM   #23
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Hate to think what that means for the Newton having two secondary hulls.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25 2013, 10:32 AM   #24
Captain Jed R.
Lieutenant
 
Captain Jed R.'s Avatar
 
Location: Lala Land.
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Melakon wrote: View Post
There's no one like Roddenberry or Berman overseeing the franchise anymore, so the new films can pretty much do whatever they want.
You say that like its a good thing. We've gone from a universe with what I'd call fairly consistent design rules to a universe with super-duper-gigantic ships of badass where "rule-of-cool" is the order of the day.

Sure, consistent rules are less fun, but they help create consistent s-f universes, which helps create verisimilitude. Everything in Star Wars looks like Star Wars. Everything in Star Trek looks like Star Trek. Except now, not so much.
__________________
All things are possible. It's just a question of trying.

One day there'll be something cool in this signature, but not yet. Not yet.
Captain Jed R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25 2013, 11:52 AM   #25
Mario de Monti
Captain
 
Mario de Monti's Avatar
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
We've gone from a universe with what I'd call fairly consistent design rules to a universe with super-duper-gigantic ships of badass where "rule-of-cool" is the order of the day.
Then what about the change from the Galaxy-class to the Sovereign-class between TNG/GEN and FC? They changed an elegant and futuristic design to a very aggressive-looking one that seems to scream out "look how keeewl"! And within the same "universe", and from one movie to the next, and for no reason whatsoever other than for change´s sake.
NuTrek is Trek re-imagined, so a change in design was inevitable and necessary - the change from Galaxy to Sovereign was not! And if you compare the respective ship designs, IMO the change from Galaxy to Sovereign is much more extreme, than that from the TMP-Enterprise to the nuTrek-Enterprise.

Mario
__________________
"Do you give me attitude, Spock?" - "I´m expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously, Sir. To which are you referring?"
Mario de Monti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25 2013, 02:06 PM   #26
Captain Jed R.
Lieutenant
 
Captain Jed R.'s Avatar
 
Location: Lala Land.
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Mario de Monti wrote: View Post
Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
We've gone from a universe with what I'd call fairly consistent design rules to a universe with super-duper-gigantic ships of badass where "rule-of-cool" is the order of the day.
Then what about the change from the Galaxy-class to the Sovereign-class between TNG/GEN and FC? They changed an elegant and futuristic design to a very aggressive-looking one that seems to scream out "look how keeewl"! And within the same "universe", and from one movie to the next, and for no reason whatsoever other than for change´s sake.
NuTrek is Trek re-imagined, so a change in design was inevitable and necessary - the change from Galaxy to Sovereign was not! And if you compare the respective ship designs, IMO the change from Galaxy to Sovereign is much more extreme, than that from the TMP-Enterprise to the nuTrek-Enterprise.

Mario
This is really off topic further than it should be beyond my one comment, but:

The Sovereign design shares many similarities with the Galaxy design, in terms of hull detail, shapes used. It's a different step certainly, as one might expect from an evolved design with a different purpose, but it's consistent in universe. It's details are consistent, how it fires it's weapons is consistent. It's interiors are consistent with others. Other ships introduced in the movie are also consistent in shapes and details. They all fire the same kind of weapons. They're clearly part of the same universe.

While it may not be from the minute the Kelvin appears, from the moment you see her cavernous factory engineering, or see her fire the little bolt turrets, there's a totally different thing going on. Within it's own universe, it's consistent, but as something meant to be part of Star Trek? It establishes different rules for how technology works within the setting from the get go, and a lot of those rules seem to be less rules and more "go with what looks awesome".

(And as a side note, of course the new Enterprise is less of a step away from the TMP Enterprise - it bolts the TMP saucer on a new star drive section. Badly, In my opinion.)
__________________
All things are possible. It's just a question of trying.

One day there'll be something cool in this signature, but not yet. Not yet.
Captain Jed R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25 2013, 02:35 PM   #27
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

The Kelvin is directly based off of the Saladin class from the 1970's, the Vengeance is largely taken from the Dreadnought class in the same publication, and the 1701 in this universe has new curves and proportions, but is based entirely off the 1701 series and movie design.

Even the Armstrong, Newton and Mayflower are taken from the Miranda in general design.

They have the saucers, stardrives (on some of them) and nacelles, distinctively Trek in appearance.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25 2013, 03:25 PM   #28
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
This is really off topic further than it should be beyond my one comment, but:

The Sovereign design shares many similarities with the Galaxy design, in terms of hull detail, shapes used. It's a different step certainly, as one might expect from an evolved design with a different purpose, but it's consistent in universe. It's details are consistent, how it fires it's weapons is consistent. It's interiors are consistent with others. Other ships introduced in the movie are also consistent in shapes and details. They all fire the same kind of weapons. They're clearly part of the same universe.

While it may not be from the minute the Kelvin appears, from the moment you see her cavernous factory engineering, or see her fire the little bolt turrets, there's a totally different thing going on. Within it's own universe, it's consistent, but as something meant to be part of Star Trek? It establishes different rules for how technology works within the setting from the get go, and a lot of those rules seem to be less rules and more "go with what looks awesome".

(And as a side note, of course the new Enterprise is less of a step away from the TMP Enterprise - it bolts the TMP saucer on a new star drive section. Badly, In my opinion.)
Yet 25 years later the Enterprise fires the same kind of phasers and photon torpedoes we saw in TMP and WoK. Even if they were something different, it's obviously not something Starfleet stuck with in either timeline.

And if you took the decks away from the TOS or TMP Engineering hulls, you'd probably have something looking a lot like the Kelvin or Enterprise's in the new movies - machinery, conduits and catwalks.

Your reaction reminds me of mine when I first saw the Defiant - a Millenium Falcon rip-off without nacelles that fires like a Bird of Prey? Yeesh.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26 2013, 02:10 AM   #29
Dick_Valentine
Commander
 
Location: Birmingham, UK (Not Alabama)
View Dick_Valentine's Twitter Profile
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

Errr I assume I'm late to the party on this one but......


Why is there a RED ship?
__________________
I don't care what anyone thinks, when I hit the iceberg the iceberg sinks!
Dick_Valentine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26 2013, 02:55 AM   #30
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Unidentified Spacecraft in Into Darkness

The red ones go faster.
__________________
"What?" - { Emilia }
Herkimer Jitty 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 08:33 AM.

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