Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

[M'Sharak]

Sheridan wrote:

---

Well, I googled Conestoga and came across this:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/conestoga3.jpg
...

Thanks for making that a link, Sheridan, but please also be careful not to post inline images hosted on space not belonging to you.

[Sector 7]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

Cylinders butted up against rectangles butted up against disks with no transitions; exterior lamps fastened to the hull, a great big round dish antenna jutting out the front - the appearance of the TOS ship compares to, say, the TMP or particularly the TNG ship in the same way that a 1954 Chevy sedan compares to a 1996 Ford Taurus. You can argue about which design is "better" or more "classic" but it's not at all difficult to assign a chronology to them based simply on the sophistication of manufacture and finish.

Or, if you prefer:





Now, you know what? I'd rather own the older of those two Mustangs, but that's just me - there's still not any doubt which one dates from the mid-1960s and which is contemporary. You can tell by looking, and you could tell from your general knowledge of cars and design even if you'd never seen a Mustang.

Good point, but the ultimate reality is that someone will find a way to bitch about that, too.

[ancient]

Eh, the design doesn't look at all 60's to me, and probably not to anyone else who wasn't even born then.

[Brutal Strudel]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

Trek's dead now. Abrams can't hurt it.

Can't argue with that. No doubt, it will be just as dead when he's through with it, regardless of whether or not this film is a financial sucess.

[Cary L. Brown]

ST-One wrote:

---

Around here are people who think that this ship was designed as the NX-01 before the the actual NX-01 was aproved as the show's hero-ship.
TPTB, according to those people, have since then covered up the fact that Conestoga was actually going to be the NX-01 and not the 'Akiraprise' we got.
Ridiculus and stupid.
These are some of the people we have to deal with here.

I remember when that happened. Though I'd like to point out that I'm not one of the people being referred to there.

[3D Master]

ST-One wrote:

---

In the context of Trek: In 'Enterprise' we have seen that in some places of the ship the gravity is first nullified and then reversed.
But since that transition is very noticable it wouldn't be very practical to have the gravity change within the turbolift-shaft in that angled dorsal....

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

[ST-One]

3D Master wrote:

---

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

'Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?'

[3D Master]

ST-One wrote:

---

'Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?'

What the idiots in STV and TNG era did, writers, in universe engineering fools, or what not is not my concern. Anyone who can control gravity like the Star Trek folks can, are not going to build a lift shaft with gravity.

[Gep Malakai]

^I always assumed the gravity in the shaft was coming form the tubolift car underneath them and not form the bottom of the turboshaft itself.

[ST-One]

3D Master wrote:

---

What the idiots in STV and TNG era did, writers, in universe engineering fools, or what not is not my concern. Anyone who can control gravity like the Star Trek folks can, are not going to build a lift shaft with gravity.

In-universe continuity disagrees with you.
I mean, your idea would be the intelligent one, but we have seen that the shafts have gravity, and that is how it is - untill other writers contradict it.

[Lieut. Arex]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Oh, and... I got a private email a few moments ago reminding me that there had been a Starfleet ship with the general dorsal connection scheme I mentioned previous to my coming up with it earlier. Seems that in the old game "Klingon Academy" there's a ship called the "Ulysses" class dreadnought.

FASA's Nelson-class scout has the two dorsal arrangement you're describing.

[ST-One]

Lieut. Arex wrote:

---

FASA's Nelson-class scout has the two dorsal arrangement you're describing.

Okay, another Contra-argument...

[Cary L. Brown]

3D Master wrote:

---

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

That was my point... it's SILLY to have gravity done put into place in locations where it's HARMFUL. That's sort of like... well, does anyone here remember the Steve Martin's "Cruel Shoes?" Why would you spend a lot of energy and effort to create something that just causes you more difficulties?

Of course, both TNG and ST-V gave us turboshafts with gravity. But remember, I am NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THINGS NOW. All I'm talking about is what I would have done had I been there in 1964/65 alongside MJ.

It was a bad decision for the TV show and the movie to do that... but it's done. We now know that "lift shafts have gravity" (for whatever bizarre reason) in the post-TOS world. Realize that there's no FUNCTIONAL reason that has to be the case (as Dennis correctly points out, all artificial gravity is, is "magic" and it can, and has, been portrayed very differently depending on the needs of any particular story).

[Eric Cheung]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Why would you spend a lot of energy and effort to create something that just causes you more difficulties?

Like creating questions about the internal consistency of fictional technology?

[Lieut. Arex]

ST-One wrote:

---

Okay, another Contra-argument...

Not presented as such, merely to illustrate that the concept has been around for a number of years.