RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,205
Posts: 5,437,130
Members: 24,951
Currently online: 649
Newest member: Zaminhon

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

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


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 June 5 2003, 05:06 PM   #16
Cid Highwind
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Germany
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by Christopher:
Okay, I don't understand this board's software. What's the point of pinning a thread if it doesn't stay on top?
As far as I understand, it was in fact the first thread on the list all the time, just invisible because the standard option of this board is to exclude all threads that haven't been active in the last week...

...Sounds stupid, doesn't it?
__________________
The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!
-- Shran
Cid Highwind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2003, 05:08 PM   #17
Guest
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Depends on how you have your preferences set, I guess.

  Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2003, 05:10 PM   #18
Cid Highwind
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Germany
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by AlexR:
Just FYI, I'm probably going to skip any short-and-sweet FAQ answers about stardates, since it seems like there are almost as many theories about stardates as there are Trekkers. That one's best left to ongoing discussion.
I don't know if this is what you already have in mind, but I would suggest two threads for this FAQ - one for the discussion about its possible content (this one), and another one, closed&sticky, where only you can add new content.
__________________
The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!
-- Shran
Cid Highwind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2003, 05:58 PM   #19
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by Cid Highwind:
I don't know if this is what you already have in mind, but I would suggest two threads for this FAQ - one for the discussion about its possible content (this one), and another one, closed&sticky, where only you can add new content.
I agree. The FAQ wouldn't be as useful if it were cluttered up with discussion about what should be in the FAQ.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2003, 03:15 PM   #20
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by AlexR:
Posted by Forbin:
Like, "when did the unspoken rule that there can be no occupied hullspace between two warp nacelles got thrown away?"

(short answer: "The Wounded" with the first appearence of the Nebula class)
I'm not sure there's a quick-and-easy answer to the question of "Roddenberry's Rules" that won't be a debate in and of itself, though. "They were a fairly groundless attempt to discredit FJ after Roddenberry had a falling-out with him" is accurate, but is likely to start more arguments than it ends, eh?

But... That does give me an idea...

<Dashes off to make some edits>

Best,
Alex
GR was outlining early ideas about why the engines were the way they were to Matt Jefferies even as the original Enterprise was being finalized. They weren't made up for Franz Joseph Schnaubelt or anyone else in particular-just a burst of creativity.

I wish this conspiracy theory would die.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2003, 05:32 PM   #21
AlexR
Rear Admiral
 
Location: North Brunswick, NJ, USA
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by JNG:
GR was outlining early ideas about why the engines were the way they were to Matt Jefferies even as the original Enterprise was being finalized. They weren't made up for Franz Joseph Schnaubelt or anyone else in particular-just a burst of creativity.

I wish this conspiracy theory would die.
Problem is, if GR was that intent on those rules at that point, it stretches credibility to believe he'd have signed off on 3 different ship designs that all violated them to one degree or other.

Either way, I think it's still safe to assume that these rules never gained that much importance in the grand scheme of things Treknological.

Best,
Alex
__________________
Treknologist
Fan of the Whole Star Trek (Prime ) Universe
www.ussavenger.org
"Because you, too, must know."
AlexR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2003, 11:05 AM   #22
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by AlexR:

Either way, I think it's still safe to assume that these rules never gained that much importance in the grand scheme of things Treknological.


Though I still like 'em to tame the excesses of some more...enthusiastic Junior Ship Designer Kidz, on your point there can be no doubt.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2003, 06:48 PM   #23
Death
Admiral
 
Death's Avatar
 
Location: Data Holmes
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by JNG:
Posted by AlexR:

Either way, I think it's still safe to assume that these rules never gained that much importance in the grand scheme of things Treknological.


Though I still like 'em to tame the excesses of some more...enthusiastic Junior Ship Designer Kidz, on your point there can be no doubt.

I agree that there needs to be a set of "fandom ship design rules" but the rules that GR set down are rather impratcial.
__________________
I have become death, destroyer of threads.
Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2003, 03:20 AM   #24
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by hutt359:
Posted by JNG:
Posted by AlexR:

Either way, I think it's still safe to assume that these rules never gained that much importance in the grand scheme of things Treknological.


Though I still like 'em to tame the excesses of some more...enthusiastic Junior Ship Designer Kidz, on your point there can be no doubt.

I agree that there needs to be a set of "fandom ship design rules" but the rules that GR set down are rather impratcial.
I suppose they might seem that way, f only because nearly every significant variation on what was allowed has been done by now. But, of course, if they were "rules" they wouldn't be "fandom."
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2003, 03:32 PM   #25
AlexR
Rear Admiral
 
Location: North Brunswick, NJ, USA
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

FAQ's been edited a bit, based on another suggestion.

Best,
Alex
__________________
Treknologist
Fan of the Whole Star Trek (Prime ) Universe
www.ussavenger.org
"Because you, too, must know."
AlexR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2003, 03:49 PM   #26
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by JNG:
Posted by AlexR:
I'm not sure there's a quick-and-easy answer to the question of "Roddenberry's Rules" that won't be a debate in and of itself, though. "They were a fairly groundless attempt to discredit FJ after Roddenberry had a falling-out with him" is accurate, but is likely to start more arguments than it ends, eh?

GR was outlining early ideas about why the engines were the way they were to Matt Jefferies even as the original Enterprise was being finalized. They weren't made up for Franz Joseph Schnaubelt or anyone else in particular-just a burst of creativity.

I wish this conspiracy theory would die.
First I ever heard that. Everything I ever heard supports GR making the rule after the TM. It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's a sober account of the reason the rule came to be. Not that I ever saw any reason to respect such a rule...
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2003, 03:31 AM   #27
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by Darkwing:
It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's a sober account of the reason the rule came to be.
If it were true, it'd be a sober account. If it were some unprovable surmise made up after the fact by total outsiders who disliked the outcome and/or people who had a personal involvement and corresponding agenda, then "conspiracy theory" seems rather an accurate term to me. I'd at least suggest that a Trek Tech FAQ not come down on one side or the other, and that long, bitter discussion of the business not be directly encouraged save for those who have new information, should any ever come to light.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2003, 03:43 AM   #28
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by JNG:
If it were true, it'd be a sober account. If it were some unprovable surmise made up after the fact by total outsiders who disliked the outcome and/or people who had a personal involvement and corresponding agenda, then "conspiracy theory" seems rather an accurate term to me. I'd at least suggest that a Trek Tech FAQ not come down on one side or the other, and that long, bitter discussion of the business not be directly encouraged save for those who have new information, should any ever come to light.
OK, my point is that I read it somewhere ages ago, and it sounded to me like a straightforward recounting. I could see why he'd have made the rule, even though I didn't agree with it, and the writer didn't seem to have an axe to grind. So as far as i knew it was just a simple fact.

Your post is the first time I ever heard anything contrary, and I was suprised to hear your claim.

I wouldn't mind hearing the background on it, but as far as a Trek tech fAQ, I'd say the best way to handle it would be to mention that GR said it, but that it's no longer observed on-screen, and that each designer should decide for themselves whether to use it. I seriously doubt that the kind of people who make the "uber-kewl super-ultra-battleship Solar Devastator NCC-666" would be deterred by that rule anyway.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2003, 02:41 PM   #29
AlexR
Rear Admiral
 
Location: North Brunswick, NJ, USA
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Posted by Darkwing:
I wouldn't mind hearing the background on it, but as far as a Trek tech fAQ, I'd say the best way to handle it would be to mention that GR said it, but that it's no longer observed on-screen, and that each designer should decide for themselves whether to use it.
Honestly, I think that the way the FAQ covers it is where I'm going to leave it. The basic answer to the question is that ships don't have to have even numbers of nacelles, and that's that.

I seriously doubt that the kind of people who make the "uber-kewl super-ultra-battleship Solar Devastator NCC-666" would be deterred by that rule anyway.
They tend to be the ones who don't want to think that the Trek world has any rules that might "constrain their creativity".

Best,
Alex
__________________
Treknologist
Fan of the Whole Star Trek (Prime ) Universe
www.ussavenger.org
"Because you, too, must know."
AlexR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2003, 07:50 AM   #30
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
 
Location: The Astral Light Realms
Re: Trek Tech FAQ

Dunno if its been said cos ive not got time to read through the thread. How about typing out an FAQ and next it put links to all previous discussions on that question. Its long and tedious task but in the end it helps.
All Seeing Eye 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 07:47 PM.

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