RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,505
Posts: 5,511,327
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 501
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 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 October 20 2008, 04:23 AM   #61
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: ST XI ships

shipfisher wrote: View Post
I actually think the Kelvin is an over/under nacelle ship as per the flip side of this reasoning. Over/under designs, like the Akula class, tend to be more combat oriented ships (at least in fandom). The Kelvin seems to be packing a fair number of gun turrets ahead of the bridge for a surveyor type.
I don't think you can expect the designers for a movie to be aware of any of the conventions established by fan designers. And the only canonical starship class I'm aware of with an "over/under nacelle" design is the Constellation class, such as the Stargazer, which was an explorer.



ancient wrote: View Post
I'm pretty sure the size of the ships has to be significantly bigger than the originals. The trailer and large bridge size seem to suggest that, anyway. I sure as heck don't think the new bridge could fit in the old ship, it's too wide.
The apparent size of sets in photos can be misleading due to vagaries of design, focal length of the camera lens, etc. For instance, the TNG bridge looked larger and more spacious than the TOS bridge, but the set was actually a little smaller.

The bridge in the released photo looks about the same size as the original bridge to me. I think it looks wider because Kirk's chair is farther back, closer to the aft wall, so the perspective is different, making it look like there's more width between the chair and the turbolift.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 06:58 AM   #62
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: ST XI ships

I don't think you can expect the designers for a movie to be aware of any of the conventions established by fan designers.
Quite - but I wouldn't really wonder if somebody in the production team knew and cared about the single-nacelled fandom destroyers...

And the only canonical starship class I'm aware of with an "over/under nacelle" design is the Constellation class, such as the Stargazer, which was an explorer.
Although for all we know, she became an explorer only after no longer qualifying for her originally intended military duty. Many a famed exploration vessel in the era of sail had been a bomb before - that is, a shore bombardment artillery platform, nicely reinforced so that she would also be capable of arctic or stormy assignments. Perhaps the Constellation had been a superfast interceptor or penetration strike ship in her heyday, and this built-in capacity for speed made her a (barely) credible explorer in the 24th century.

I'm sort of leaning toward the two-nacelle interpretation of the photos, as the upper assembly does seem to be stretching a long, long way back in the bow photo...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 01:07 PM   #63
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: ST XI ships

ancient wrote: View Post
EJD1984 wrote: View Post
I've just noticed a possible new design astetic with the Kelvin (and possibility the Enterprise as well).

There doesn't appear to be any windows along the saucer's edge.


This shot is in motion (look at the stars) so some details are blurred, but there are some windows on the rim, and probably more of them hidden behind that green ship. From their position it almost looks like the rim might be more like 3 or 4 decks thick!

Also, it almost looks like there might be 3 forward ports like on the TOS ENT, but they are not lit.

And call me crazy, but that really looks like a row of windows on the front of the bridge. Though, if the ship is big enough there might be a ready room or lounge in front of the bridge. This is supported by the bridge cieling dome being so tiny in comparison to the bridge structure itself.

If this ship is supposed to be older/smaller than the Enterprise, the ENT herself could end up being...kinda way way bigger than 947 feet.
I somewhat agree (and disagree) on a few points.

1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.

2. Central Saucer: Though could very well be windows, I think they could also be a set of forward sensors, since they're right along the saucer's central axis, and reminiscent of the TOS saucer sensors.

3. Saucer Offset Lights: These appear to be a set of reaction control thrusters, for a few reasons. 1. They're at the standard 45 degree angle from the central axis. 2. Even if the the saucer is two decks, the just appear to be too close to the top hull (though I still think it's one deck). 3. The level of brightness needed in order to project out that amount of light would be blinding inside the ship.
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 01:27 PM   #64
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: ST XI ships

Christopher wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
I'm pretty sure the size of the ships has to be significantly bigger than the originals. The trailer and large bridge size seem to suggest that, anyway. I sure as heck don't think the new bridge could fit in the old ship, it's too wide.
The apparent size of sets in photos can be misleading due to vagaries of design, focal length of the camera lens, etc. For instance, the TNG bridge looked larger and more spacious than the TOS bridge, but the set was actually a little smaller.

The bridge in the released photo looks about the same size as the original bridge to me. I think it looks wider because Kirk's chair is farther back, closer to the aft wall, so the perspective is different, making it look like there's more width between the chair and the turbolift.
I think the TNG bridge looked bigger because it was mostly empty. This new bridge is pretty cluttered and it still looks big (or at least wide) to me. Them turbolift doors are pretty far away.

If that group shot is on the bridge, and I'm pretty sure it is, then it looks like the bridge extends forward of the main viewer. This also seems to suggestsomething bigger than the old version to me.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 02:28 PM   #65
Capt_Jason
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: San Diego, CA
View Capt_Jason's Twitter Profile
Re: ST XI ships

JuanBOOlio wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Do these twits know the reason for having a timeline?
Very little of the timeline or design aesthetic outside of on-screen canon has been established.
Precisely. Im not so sure I understand why you fellas are so up in arms over visual aesthetics and temporal issues when you KNOW what we are going to get with this outing..

This production team is NOT beholden to much of anything that we have already seen from 1966 to the present. Denial is always the first stage..
__________________
Federation Historian
Capt_Jason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 04:50 PM   #66
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: ST XI ships

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.
Like this? http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...thecage011.jpg

(And I just noticed that the perspective of interior and exterior don't line up at all, but I'm sure it's just the best approximation they could manage.)



ancient wrote: View Post
I think the TNG bridge looked bigger because it was mostly empty. This new bridge is pretty cluttered and it still looks big (or at least wide) to me. Them turbolift doors are pretty far away.
Allowing for the captain's chair being further back and the likely camera position, I still think it looks about the same distance. Also, the apparent size of a set can be altered depending on the lens used to take the picture, because the focal length of the lens doesn't necessarily match that of the human eye. Often, filmmakers take advantage of that to make a very small set look much bigger than it is, or vice versa.

If that group shot is on the bridge, and I'm pretty sure it is, then it looks like the bridge extends forward of the main viewer. This also seems to suggestsomething bigger than the old version to me.
That thought occurred to me too, but we don't have enough visual information to draw any firm conclusions. The impression could be misleading.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 05:11 PM   #67
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: ST XI ships

Capt_Jason wrote: View Post
This production team is NOT beholden to much of anything that we have already seen from 1966 to the present. Denial is always the first stage..
Exactly so.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 05:55 PM   #68
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: ST XI ships

So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 06:35 PM   #69
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: ST XI ships

ancient wrote: View Post
I think the TNG bridge looked bigger because it was mostly empty. This new bridge is pretty cluttered and it still looks big (or at least wide) to me. Them turbolift doors are pretty far away.
In the TOS bridge, there was an utility access corridor around the perimeter of the bridge. It appears to me that the designers got rid of that "dead space", and pushed the internal diameter outwards to gain the extra floor space we're seeing.

Also take into consideration, the TMP bridge was approximately the same ID as the original. What made it look somewhat larger was that the continuous console was chopped down to individual stations, freeing up extra square footage, and giving the illusion of a larger bridge.

Last edited by EJD1984; October 20 2008 at 08:38 PM.
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 06:59 PM   #70
Rķu rķu, chķu
Fleet Admiral
 
Rķu rķu, chķu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Rķu rķu, chķu's Twitter Profile
Re: ST XI ships

Christopher wrote: View Post
And the only canonical starship class I'm aware of with an "over/under nacelle" design
"Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in Starfleet?"
"No, not directly. Technically Dunn was under Oveur, and I was under Dunn."
"So Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger?"
"Yep."
"That's right, Dunn was over Unger, and I was over...Dunn."
"So you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn."

is the Constellation class, such as the Stargazer, which was an explorer.
Don't the BOBW II ships count? Wrecked though they may have been...
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart
Rķu rķu, chķu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20 2008, 08:34 PM   #71
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: ST XI ships

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?
Almost nothing gets greenlit unless it is a re-_____ of something else that is in some public awareness.

As a reviewer kinda said about TMP, call this STELLAR VOYAGES instead of ST and would there be ANY uproar?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2008, 06:43 AM   #72
JuanBolio
Admiral
 
JuanBolio's Avatar
 
Location: Florida Keys, USA
Re: ST XI ships

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?
Because with Star Trek you already have so much to work with - great characters, ships, aliens, exciting universe, name recognition, and a devoted fanbase. They updated the look of a pre-TOS bridge, and you're claiming that the design aesthetic sets this movie totally apart from all previous Trek continuity. That, sir, is illogical.

I'd be more worried about the fact that all the old crew characters seem to be about the same age and on the same ship at the same time at least a decade before TOS, in which they were all different ranks and ages. Fret about that, not the bridge update, if you're worried about canon.

Christopher wrote: View Post
EJD1984 wrote: View Post
1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.
Like this? http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...thecage011.jpg
That's not a window. Its just a see-through special effect intended to illustrate where on the ship the bridge is. Later shots of the Pike-era ship show a simple white dome there, and interior shots of the bridge show no transparency whatsoever in the ceiling. A window - and especially a skylight - would be a terrible thing to put in your control center with all the x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, and general high-energy badness of space, not to mention blinding starlight and the potential for laser weapons being directed against you.
__________________
Never fear! JuanBolio wuz here!

This has been an official JuanBolio post. You are now stronger, smarter, and a better human being for having read it. Congratulations.
JuanBolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2008, 08:50 AM   #73
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: ST XI ships

...Then again, variable transparency would be rather nice, especially if the ship is supposed to perform intricate docking maneuvers so that she approaches the pier from below (as the saucer rim latches might suggest, should we choose to believe that this is what they are, here as well as on NX-01).

In TNG, it was explicit that one could see stars through the bridge skylight. In TOS, the only time people try to see through the ceiling dome is when Kirk peers in from the outside while trying to contact his crew in the ship miniaturized by Flint, in "Requiem for Metusaleah". From the inside vantage point, his face appears on the viewscreen of the ship, and nobody on the bridge turns his or her neck to see the Big Giant Head floating above.

So no, I don't much like the idea that the dome would be transparent all the way down to the bridge on Kirk's ship. But it could still be that on Pike's ship. And having a few (darkened) windows on a (usually uncrewed) corridor circling the bridge would still be perfectly possible on the Kelvin. That corridor and those windows might even serve the original purpose of a "bridge" on a ship, as first introduced in the late 19th century: to allow the commander and the helmsman some direct visibility of the surroundings for the purposes of navigating in tight spots, such as harbors. That is, the helmsguy or -gal would get up from the usual pulpit and move to a special console next to these windows in order to perform a demanding docking.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2008, 09:12 AM   #74
JuanBolio
Admiral
 
JuanBolio's Avatar
 
Location: Florida Keys, USA
Re: ST XI ships

Timo wrote: View Post
In TNG, it was explicit that one could see stars through the bridge skylight
Yep... I suspect such is the reason Picard was bald and Worf had a huge tumor on his head.
__________________
Never fear! JuanBolio wuz here!

This has been an official JuanBolio post. You are now stronger, smarter, and a better human being for having read it. Congratulations.
JuanBolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2008, 09:37 AM   #75
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: ST XI ships



But why should a transparent ceiling be any less protection against gamma, beta, or cosmic rays than a non-transparent one? Transparency is a bandpass thing, in which only a certain range of EM behaves differently in a transparent dielectric vs. an opaque metal. Many of the best hard radiation blockers are in fact polymers that could be rather trivially be configured as transparent to visible light.

Similarly, one shouldn't necessarily expect a window to be more brittle than a wall. The same sort of structural properties should be engineerable to both types of structure; indeed, the whole ship might be built of a strong transparent material, and a bit of paint then sprayed on those parts that were intended to provide privacy, chastity or a good night's sleep.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
continuity, cool, kelvin

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 06:34 AM.

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