Discussion in 'The Next Generation' started by Probert, Jul 27, 2011.
Why do escape pods look like impacted molars?
Actually, it's still debatable whether ships like the Akira are older than the Galaxy class (based on chronological registries), or much newer (based on the design of the ship itself). I myself have been flip-flopping on this issue for years. Presently I'm of the opinion that all four of the FC ship types are new as of FC, even if only because the underside of the Norway class is identical to the Defiant class.
And the registries of the FC ships were not made by Mr. Okuda. They were made by ILM's VFX department (the same guys who made the names/registries for the Kelvin-kitbash fleet in Star Trek '09).
Is it? Outside the DS9 Tech Manual, I mean?
I doubt the Norway even has an underside in reality.
There was a tug used in DS9...
I would imagine, that they might also have some sort of Universal Docking Collar that would allow them to dock with any Federation ship.
The Feds would probably be interested in providing "universal assistance", that is, in possessing the technological means to assist lifepods that have alien and incompatible interfaces. We have seen several times how such pods are brought into shuttlebays.
Again, there's probably a range of techniques. The most primitive survival devices need to be transported inside or dragged aboard with tractor beams, but the higher-end models have docking systems, maneuvering systems and so forth. Still, it would be fun to see a futuristic special device for recovering lifepod occupants - an analogy to today's "high tech planks" (crane-operated or inflatable) that a passing ship can deploy to pick up people from the sea or from objects floating in the sea.
Ugliest damn thing ever.
No question of that, ugly kitbash, I'd like to see what he has in mind for an original design.
It does. The Fact Files released an underside diagram of it, and I can make out a similar underside in HD screencaps of it in FC.
It was actually Klingon so I guess it's supposed to be ugly. I like it though. Looks very functional.
I doubt it too.
We never see the Noway in any detail.
The registry matters to me because we've never seen new ships get old registries unless it's a renaming. In any case it doesn't matter which pod he choses because FC mucked it up.
Well, it was greenish. But it also had a Starfleet logo on its side. A Klingon design purchased by Starfleet?
Looks like it, yeah. This is the Fact Files rendition:
Whether that's "Defiant-like" is debatable. The same seven-cornered hatches are there, but otherwise it's just generic aztecing... If we're to define design age by similarities of this sort, the Akira was built in the 2150s!
Trust me, I've done my homework about this. There are Excelsiors with registries of 4XXXX, while the Ambassadors never get beyond 2XXXX, despite the fact that the former ship is older than the latter. Also, the brand-new Prometheus has a registry of 5XXXX (just like the FC ships) even though logically it should have a registry in the high 7XXXX's. The 5XXXX Pegasus was only 12 years old as of the final season of TNG, even though chronologically it should have had a higher registry. So no, registry numbers aren't always chronological to build times.
You can shrug all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Yep, that's what I'm talking about. I've compared both pics, and they look similar enough to me, and enough proof that the Norway wasn't built in the 2350's or early '60's like its registry would suggest.
that's a hard one. I looked again...turns out those are Romulan scout ship parts with Top and Engines and the pylons are Intrepid pylons....
Yes I know I've seen it.
In the strictest of meanings that means absolutely nothing.
There is no dead end here as far as reasoning goes. What are you attempting conclude?
It did have a 7XXXX registry. They already explained that was a mistake by production crew.
I presume you're leaving that information out since I've seen you mention it previously in other "places". Sorry, but as inconvient as that is we still can't draw the conclusion that the registries aren't chronological.
We don't know what the build year of the Pegasus was.
They said 12 year old ship but build period and completion could be totally different and frequently are in Naval Constructions especially with experimental ships. The 5XXXX puts it right around the time period of Rutledge in the 2340 which is 30 years prior to the End of TNG and just so happens that there are many types of ships in this period that have Galaxy-esque design cues. It's only 8 years removed from the 40's and since it's clear that vessels like Nebula, New Orleans, Akira, Norway, Saber and Steamrunner also share those features and a similar range of registry it's likely all these ships played a part in the Design of Galaxy.
I support the chronological assertion because:
1) Rick Sternbach supports it
2) Mike Okuda applies them in such a way
3) Intent is everything and means more than canon screw-ups. Without intent there is no purpose. Putting the Official errors as superior to the design intent of the people creating the show would be just like saying the loss of the nose on the Sphinx is the way it's supposed to look.
I usually do... but it still doesn't matter.
Great Scott they cut and pasted...
Mike Okuda himself has stated that registries are not always chronological. Mostly, yes, but not always. If you don't feel like accepting my examples, fine. But if you're going to ignore the guy who had been officially in charge of stuff like this for a long time, then that's your own issue.
Excelsiors with high registries vs. Ambassadors with low registries: I would thing that this would be obvious to you. A more advanced ship has a much lower registry than a lesser advanced one, implying that Starfleet decided to abandon the newer design in favor of rebuilding a much older one. That makes no sense to me.
It's stated that the Pegasus was a twelve year old ship. Not that it was a 30 year old ship with refits. Occam's Razor.
I know the Prometheus's reg was a VFX mistake. I was using it as an example of why the regs for the FC ships could also be a similar mistake as far as their build dates vs. their registries go.
ILM's VFX dept. vs. Mike Okuda: Yeah, it does kinda matter, because here you have a disconnect between the person making sure ships have correct registries, and a division of a company that might not have had the same information Okuda had.
It's never been bout ignoring anything.
It's about evidence...so far I've reviewed the information and have researched as many of your claims as possible. You didn't have the support of the evidence to the conclusions you were looking for.
As for your claims on Okuda, I only have your word. I need something of substance, like at least an attempt to recall his actual wording and not merely 2nd hand testimony. A source would be gratifying.
I'm a bit too tired right now to find the post where Okuda states this. It might even be on Drexfiles instead of here, but that's what he said. Yes, I realize that until I show proof you only have my word. If you feel that strongly about it, go try to find it yourself.
I've been working for the past year on the joint Japan/UK "Build the Enterprise-D" project which, while canceled because of poor initial sales testing and the earthquake/tsunami, may rise again someday. I did a great deal of work detailing the exterior and interior of the "boxy" lifeboat (uprated 4m version), two sketches of which are posted here. Unfortunately, I cannot post the final CGI renders from the UK publishers. Suffice it to say that the general color scheme is light gray shades with pewter docking hardware and doors, and the RCS triangles are standard yellow ochre and brown shades. If and when the project begins again, I'll let you all know. - Rick
I don't have anything constructive to add, but just wanted to say: what a fun thread to read, especially the fab contributions by those who worked on the show (and the knowledgeable commentary by those fans who've immersed themselves in its detail).
It makes me feel like the TNG-era continues on, albeit offscreen.
so apparently Galaxy didn't have the same pods as Voyager.
Please consider, Mr. Probert, infusing some of the escape pods with some of the "technology unchained" qualities seen in the Galaxy Class, its bridge, and the Type-7 shuttle. I imagine that many fans (like me) fell in love with the Enterprise-D for its exotically powerful futuristic look.
Separate names with a comma.