RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,565
Posts: 5,514,213
Members: 25,147
Currently online: 418
Newest member: Wolfspaw

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

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


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 June 17 2009, 06:46 PM   #61
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

I have to side with CuttingEdge100 on the rocket exhaust thing. TOS tried to be futuristic in that area, where other shows basically had rocket ships.

It is therefore not rocket exhaust at the back of the warp engine.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2009, 07:04 PM   #62
SilentP
Commodore
 
SilentP's Avatar
 
Location: is in a very lonely Corner of the Circle
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to SilentP
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Praetor wrote: View Post
It is therefore not rocket exhaust at the back of the warp engine.
My take on it is that it's the starship equivalent of frothing at the mouth, and the Kelvin is itching to slug the Narada directly in the....face? Damn Cthulu-esque ship design
SilentP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2009, 07:53 PM   #63
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

SilentP wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
Even if there are 20, they'd still be pretty sardined in, don't you think? That'd have to be at least 40 per shuttle... I mean if it works, fine. But that still seems very... tight.
Ever been on a single decker bus in London?
Praetor wrote: View Post
Actually, no, but I have been on a single-decker bus in the US, so point taken.
Two words and a hyphen: shuttle-stuffers

If they're really good at their jobs, they get plenty of leg- and elbow-room on the last shuttle out.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2009, 08:14 PM   #64
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Even though the ship has two hulls (engineering and primary), apparently the primary hull is incapable of separating, and acting as a lifeboat as was the intentions of Matt Jeffries.
If it were so capable, separating the hall would've reduced the amount of damage that could be inflicted upon the Narada. The saucer was needed.


The ship also does not appear to have any conventional lifeboats and instead just has shitloads of shuttlecraft which are used apparently as lifeboats.
Same thing with the Stargazer. Picard mentioned in dialogue that they left the ship in shuttlecraft. Moreover, the design of the model didn't have the obvious lifeboat pods markings. It's also something not seen on starships prior to TNG. Although, I think a lifeboat can be seen in the TMP cargo bay matte.

However, in this case, the crew needed to get as far away from the combat zone so I imagine shuttlecraft would be more efficient.

Also, the frame of the camera was such that we only saw a handful of shuttles. Who knows how many more were flying off out of frame? Shoddy, I know, but things like that have been done in Trek before.

The ship (due to the lack of a separating saucer or lifeboats, and instead requiring buttloads of shuttles) is apparently monstrous in size just looking at the shuttlebay. I think I also saw a size comparison of the new Enterprise with the USS Kelvin and it also reflected that the Kelvin was a very large vessel, and when in combination with the 800-man crew, in most likelyhood, is larger than the (original) Constitution-Class (Which as of 2265, 32 years after the Kelvin's destruction, was the largest class of ship in the Federation inventory)
Honestly, we've seen only a handful of the Starfleet inventory in all the movies and shows, including DS9. Besides, the size and crew compliment could've been mission specific and we never got to know what that mission was.

The warp-engine looks gigantically oversized, and the back has a glowing blue exhaust even when not at warp (Considering the ship has regular impulse engines, the argument that this is an impulse engine is moot). Gene Roddenberry specifically said when he created Star Trek that he did *NOT* want to see flamin' rocket-like exhaust shooting out the back of the ship (granted he also said he wanted warp-engines in pairs but that view actually seems to have varied over time) something which has been maintained all the way up to Star Trek Nemesis (which in my opinion sucked)
In TOS remastered, there is exhaust from the impulse drives.

The turbolifts always seemed to be "behind doors" and you never actually saw the elevator shaft.
Exposed turbo-shafts can be seen in the cargo bay and rec deck of TMP.

The point-defense cannons the ship has was never seen on any other Federation-Ship, and the sheer number of overall weapons was ludicrous for that timeframe.
It's about time, tho'. I've always hated that they never had countermeasures of any kind. Hell, they don't even have Time On Target for dealing with cloaked vessels.
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter

Last edited by Ryan Thomas Riddle; June 18 2009 at 10:51 AM.
Ryan Thomas Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 04:06 AM   #65
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Qonos,

um.. Stop, just stop. You're talking about the advantages and disadvantages of a fictional ship that hasn't been built with technologies that don't exist.
That's true, but Star Trek is a television show which features ships which generally feature certain design qualities. Many of these characteristics were developed fairly early on by Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries. While both are dead, Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries did create the first ships in the show, and established design ideologies, traditions and rules for ship-design.

1.) Gene Roddenberry specifically did not want the USS Enterprise (Which Roddenberry originally intended to call the USS Yorktown) to look like any spacecraft currently under development by NASA.
(Logical)

2.) Gene Roddenberry specifically did not want the vessel to have any wings or look like an aircraft
(Logical)

3.) Gene Roddenberry specifically did not want flamin' rocket exhaust shooting out the back of the ship
(Logical)

4.) Gene Roddenberry wanted the ship to employ engines which allow FTL travel by warping the fabric of space to get around the normal universal lightspeed limit
(Logical)

5.) Matt Jeffries wanted the ship's warp engines to be completely visible from the front
(Not Necessarily Logical *see footnote 1*)

6.) Matt Jeffries felt that the ship's warp engines should have at least 50% line-of-sight from the sides
(Not Necessarily Logical / Not Logical *see footnote 2*)

7.) Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries initially felt that warp-nacelles must exist in pairs. Regardless, it is not clear how ironclad this rule was -- Roddenberry signed off on F.J. Schnaubelt's "Star Trek Blueprints" and other works which among other things included at least two (if not three) designs which featured vessels with an odd-number of warp-nacelles. It would seem that he made the twin-nacelle rule canon predominantly to screw F.J. Schnaubelt over.
(Not Logical)

8.) Matt Jeffries wanted the ship to have navigational deflectors which essentially sweep matter and debris out of the way of the ship to avoid high-speed impact damage while moving at high-rates of speed, including warp-speed.
(Logical)

9.) Matt Jeffries and Gene Roddenberry (Predominantly Matt Jeffries it would appear) preferred a modular design ideology which makes construction, maintenance and repairs easier, and is which is what ultimately resulted in podded nacelles, and a separate engineering hull and saucer.
(Not Necessarily Logical *see footnote 3*)

10.) The twin-hulled design of the USS Enterprise was essentially designed to function normally as an organic-whole, with the ability of the primary hull to house all the crew and separate from the rest of the ship in an emergency for the function of being a lifeboat.
(Logical)

Doesn't that set of some flags in your head that maybe you need to sit down, smoke a blunt and eat a bowl of ice cream?
Well, first of all, Marijuana is illegal, second of all, even if I did partake in it, I would not admit to it on an online forum (For the record though, I do not smoke marijuana, or tobacco, I rarely drink, and I don't do any illegal drugs) -- I do enjoy icecream though...

Have Trek fans become this Anal?
Star Trek fans have *always* been this anal. You should know that by now *rolls eyes*

I had no problems with the ship because. IT DOESN'T Actually exist. You do realize that Starship design in Star Trek is one of the most unrealistic things about Star Trek. I mean how does the Deflector system work when the ship has a shelf over it in the primary hull? How far out does the Deflector cone go and when does it's effectiveness become comprimised?
Actually I'm quite aware of this. However, as I said, Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries did establish a variety of design ideologies, traditions, and rules of I listed and I stated which ones had a logical basis, which had a semi-logical basis, and which had no logical basis at all.

Why do you need two Warp Nacelles to create a warp bubble around the ship? I never understood that especially when other stronger space warp (fold) theories have one fold engine inside the ship creating the fold pocket.
I've never heard of that particular theory, though I wouldn't mind hearing about it...

FOOTNOTES
-> Footnote 1: Various warp-drive ideas were proposed. At least one idea did actually depend on the front of the nacelle acting as some sort of impeller. However, other than that it is not a logical feature
-> Footnote 2: Matt Jeffries assumed the flux-chillers/power-combs would share energy between them. Only under that assumption would this be logical, otherwise not.
-> Footnote 3: The modular construction idea *is* logical, but there are ways to design something in a modular fashion which is not as gangly as the USS Enterprise is, however the dual-hull arrangement has some useful functions however.


Herkimer Jitty,

ST: XI had bright flashes coming from the nacelles. Not terribly different from TNG in that respect really, except that the thingy is on the back.
I suppose one could claim that it's not much different than an impulse-engine glow, still, it is an unusual design feature nonetheless. Why would there be an impulse engine on the back of a warp-nacelle, especially when it has impulse engines on the saucer too...

Nemesis had literal exhaust coming out the the nacelles when the Enterprise jumped to warp.
Yeah, I remember that. That was awful...


Borg Phil,

is it possible that the 800 people saved weren't all necessarily on the Kelvin? We heard them comminicating with a starbase, Pike could have included the people on that who would have also been at risk if the Narada hadn't been disabled, assuming it was pretty close by.
I suppose, but it was never really stated for clear. It seems that it's open to interpretation. Still, for a ship to be so gigantic to hold so many shuttles in the proportionally small engineering-hull (relative to the saucer), a crew of 800 would most likely fit quite comfortably in such a vessel.


Plecostomus,

Ever consider joining a Church? Devote some of this asinine nitpicking twords worshiping the Lord? We have ONE TRUE GOSPEL that never changes and is not open to debate.
I'm an atheist.


Praetor,

We don't know that the 1701 Enterprise was the biggest ship in TOS. All we know is that a "starship" is something special, and there were only twelve like her.
I suppose you could use such an argument, but in most likelyhood the qualities that made the Constitution Class so special was it's range of scientific capabilities, it's shields and weapons capabilities, it's propulsion, and likely it's size as the labs on the vessel all took up space and were manned, not to mention it's supposed swimming pool, gym, and bowling alley (all of which take up space)

Also, pretty much every ship shown prior to the series "Enterprise", was smaller, or for it's size had much less occupiable space relative to it's size than the Enterprise...

The DY-100, DY-500, SS-Phoenix, and USS Daedalus for example were both physically smaller and had smaller crews than the Constitution Class.

The XCV-330 Enterprise was larger at 300 meters, but the habitable space inside the vessel (volume wise) was substantially less than the Enterprise

If you count the show "Enterprise" the NX-01 still was smaller than the TOS Enterprise (225m vs 289m) although some of the largest Vulcan vessels were larger (I'm not counting future federation ships)

Some fans have no problem with three-nacelle dreadnoughts, myself among them.
I personally like a number of the characteristics the vessel possesses. The fact that the saucer has a warp-engine, the fact that the bridge is hidden inside the saucer for example...

Older technology could potentially make for a greater crew and bigger ship in the form of the Kelvin. (Although I still have issues with 800 people fleeing in those shuttles... )
Agreed, especially when the saucer could serve as a lifeboat and the ship could carry lifeboats onboard.

Still considering how big the Kelvin was compared to the Constitution Class vessel, 800 people could easily fit onboard that vessel fine.

I don't think the Kelvin's warp core is necessarily in the secondary hull - I think it's all hangar.
I don't really see the point for having a hangar set-up like that, especially when you consider that a modular hanger design would have no reasonable purpose -- why would you jettison your hangar? An NCC-1000 Bonaventure-Class set-up would be more practical in that case as it would have one hull.

The Star Trek reason you'd have a dual hull is so you can use one of them as a lifeboat...


Disillusion,

It's not designed by Matt Jeffries or Gene Roddenberry, now is it? So what does it matter?
That's true, but they established design ideologies, traditions, and such which was often used on later ship designs...


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 04:15 AM   #66
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Regarding the secondary hull, I might think of it more like the AWACS type pod on the Nebula - switchable for a variety of missions. This one happened to involve hauling 800 people...
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 04:41 AM   #67
Qonos
Captain
 
Qonos's Avatar
 
Location: Long Pond Pa
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

That's true, but they established design ideologies, traditions, and such which was often used on later ship designs...
They are also no longer in control of the property. Realistically Trek ship design has been kept more as a homage to the creators and the fans but it has been departed from (Defiant in DS9, Voyger with the variable pylons and the more elongated I guess we would call it more of an arrowhead design than a saucer section and the Enterprise E which really is one of the ugliest Enterprises ever.)
__________________
This post is brought to you by The Soylent Green Biscuit company. Soylent Green our people have GREAT Taste.
Qonos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 06:51 AM   #68
DiSiLLUSiON
Commodore
 
DiSiLLUSiON's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Disillusion,

It's not designed by Matt Jeffries or Gene Roddenberry, now is it? So what does it matter?
That's true, but they established design ideologies, traditions, and such which was often used on later ship designs...
That's true, but a lot of those design ideologies have been nullified later on anyway. Perhaps the most important thing, then, is not if it agrees with what has come before, but if it looks like it could be what it's supposed to be.

For example: As long as there is some sort of blue glow in a long line, preferably with a red glow at the front, it's probably a warp nacelle, and people will recognize it as such. If you make it a glowing circle at both sides, it's still probably a pair of warp nacelles of some sort. If it looks like the ISS or Hubble Telescope, it's probably not a warp nacelle. Doesn't matter if it's big, small, long, short, single or if there are 65 of them arranged in a flower power pattern. It's still recognizable.

That doesn't mean that you need to lay these rules down and forgo any experimenting. The warp ring on the ENT Vulcan ships is a great example; something very different but still recognizable. The Jellyfish in the new movie; it's very different then any trek ship before, but not unrecognizable.

Most of the "rules" by Jeffires or Roddenberry are nice as guidelines, but nothing more. Look critically at the Star Trek ships; they already look almost exactly the same to the untrained eye. Perhaps some more difference isn't all that bad.
DiSiLLUSiON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 07:27 PM   #69
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

Middy Sea Fort,

If it were so capable, separating the hall would've reduced the amount of damage that could be inflicted upon the Narada. The saucer was needed.
That's not a really good argument. Plus considering how much more deadly weapons technology has increased simply from TOS to TMP, let alone TMP to TNG (which were massive), then from there to the Borg Conflict and the Dominion War (which apparently ended in the 2370's), and from there to 2387 where the Narada hails from, I'm amazed the Kelvin wasn't vaporized with one or two shots, or at least a volley from the Narada.

Even then, considering the time it took for the USS Kelvin to evacuate then steer towards the Narada, I'm amazed they couldn't have blown up the already wounded ship by then...

Exposed turbo-shafts can be seen in the cargo bay and rec deck of TMP.
I suppose that's true, but they still looked way more streamlined than that. Pretty much all Star Trek ships generally are pretty clean-cut all the way back to the NX-01 at least.

It's about time, tho'. I've always hated that they never had countermeasures of any kind. Hell, they don't even have Time On Target for dealing with cloaked vessels.
While that's actually a good point, I'm pretty sure the ship would have had to have ECM of some sort even if they didn't mention it.

I'm also quite amazed that they couldn't shoot down torpedoes. The regular phasers could have done that though to my knowledge.

Regarding cloaked vessels, I've never received a very good explanation why they couldn't fire torpedoes while cloaked all the way until Star Trek 6


Praetor,

Regarding the secondary hull, I might think of it more like the AWACS type pod on the Nebula - switchable for a variety of missions. This one happened to involve hauling 800 people...
Bad argument. I'll explain why.

1.) This pod has the navigational deflector on it. Considering there are no other navigational deflectors on the ship, it seems likely that the nav-deflector and engineering-hull are integral to the functioning of the ship.

2.) The shuttlebay is located on the back of the engineering-hull/pod. There are no other shuttlebays on the vessel.
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 07:30 PM   #70
SantaEddie74
Fleet Admiral
 
SantaEddie74's Avatar
 
Location: The North Pole of the Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant
View SantaEddie74's Twitter Profile
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

DonIago wrote: View Post
CuttingEdge - Captain Robau would like some words with you.


Bring your own bag of blood for the transfusion you'll need afterwards.
__________________
Remember what cooleddie74 says, kids:

"Don't forget to have a Patrick Swayze Christmas!"
SantaEddie74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 08:24 PM   #71
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Praetor,

Regarding the secondary hull, I might think of it more like the AWACS type pod on the Nebula - switchable for a variety of missions. This one happened to involve hauling 800 people...
Bad argument. I'll explain why.

1.) This pod has the navigational deflector on it. Considering there are no other navigational deflectors on the ship, it seems likely that the nav-deflector and engineering-hull are integral to the functioning of the ship.

2.) The shuttlebay is located on the back of the engineering-hull/pod. There are no other shuttlebays on the vessel.
Touche. Still, I don't have a problem with it. I'd just put the warp core elsewhere. The Kelvin's mission profile obviously required a huuuge cargo/shuttlebay.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 08:34 PM   #72
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Middy Sea Fort,

If it were so capable, separating the hall would've reduced the amount of damage that could be inflicted upon the Narada. The saucer was needed.
That's not a really good argument...
I stand by my statement. It is sound from a tactical point-of-view. The saucer provides a greater area of impact against the hall of the Narada. You may not agree but that is within your purview, and, honestly, you didn't write a convincing rebuttal to as it was not so. You merely stated it was "not a good argument," but did nothing to refute my statement rather you just moved on to the topic of weapon yields.

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Posted by Me
It's about time, tho'. I've always hated that they never had countermeasures of any kind. Hell, they don't even have Time On Target for dealing with cloaked vessels.
While that's actually a good point, I'm pretty sure the ship would have had to have ECM of some sort even if they didn't mention it.

I'm also quite amazed that they couldn't shoot down torpedoes. The regular phasers could have done that though to my knowledge.

Regarding cloaked vessels, I've never received a very good explanation why they couldn't fire torpedoes while cloaked all the way until Star Trek 6.
I was referring more to estimating position of a cloaked target by calculating it's last two know positions and deriving a current position by that. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_On_Target
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter
Ryan Thomas Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 09:37 PM   #73
Hyperspace05
Commodore
 
Hyperspace05's Avatar
 
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

I just love how people develop their own personal "canon" in their mind about the pre-TOS era. Because there has been ZERO canon material about the time between ENT and TOS.

And then they get up in arms about details of a never before seen ship class. Classic.

Arguing about design rules that are not canon. Classic.

And I just also love the bitching about no escape pods/capsules... Yet they conveniently forget that the ENT-D was the first trek ship with visible escape pods. Not a single TOS series or TOS movie ship had them either! Just classic!
Hyperspace05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 08:24 AM   #74
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Even though the ship has two hulls (engineering and primary), apparently the primary hull is incapable of separating, and acting as a lifeboat as was the intentions of Matt Jeffries.
Is this supposed to be funny? The entire ship is just a saucer with a nacelle and a hangar/cargo pod attached to it. What the hell would the saucer separate FROM?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 08:27 AM   #75
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

It's modular, anyways. There's nothing to indicate it can't seperate and there are plenty of points you could put the seperation lines.

Besides, with the TOS E, it's more like the engineering hull is being ditched from the habitat hull, since the saucer has the sublight engine anyways. Same deal here.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
kelvin, uss 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 09:39 AM.

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