I'm thinking it's part of the reaction control system for the secondary hull.
Spoilers The Strange New Worlds Starship Thread™
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
-Starfleet is a military.Good! (Finally)
I guess "ship = character" joins the ranks of "money or not" and "military or not" XD
-Federation uses money in some way.
-Ships are not characters.
Like the commbadges in Picard season 2, they can be used as ninja death stars (after the Enterprise has undergone it's Optimus Prime transformation, of course)
Why are people arguing over "the ship is a character" or not? It's pointless.
It depends entirely on your perception of the word character. Words mean what we choose them to mean. If someone wants to call it a character, let them. If someone doesn't. so what?
If you regard a character as something that has a personality then it's not one. If you regard it as an environment for storytelling then it is. Doesn't matter either way.
It depends entirely on your perception of the word character. Words mean what we choose them to mean. If someone wants to call it a character, let them. If someone doesn't. so what?
If you regard a character as something that has a personality then it's not one. If you regard it as an environment for storytelling then it is. Doesn't matter either way.
I feel like I'm missing a piece of the conversation about ships as characters. When we talk about books, films, whatever, it's very, very common to discuss setting as a character. Studious scholars (probably, but not definitely, wearing tweed jackets) do it all the time. It doesn't mean anyone has illusions about settings actually being characters. Am I missing some other use that Trek fans are making?
When people use language, we also use words non-literally--- metaphorically as when we wax poetic, without going all "Beep-beep-beep-beep The Enterprise is not a want or a desire, it is a mechanical device. Illogical, Illogical, all units relate. Norman coordinate."Words have meanings. I'm not arguing - I'm correcting misuse.
When production personnel and actors refer to the Enterprise as another character in the show, they are speaking metaphorically, not literally, to elicit an emotional response and sense of connection. It's employed as part of a different rhetorical strategy than adherence to strict literalism and precise diction. As part of a public relations strategy, the use of language with more emotional connotations serves a rhetorical purpose that a simple, factual, 'The Enterprise is the setting of our stories, our vehicle for getting our characters where we need them to be" does not.
There are contexts in which "The Enterprise is a beautiful lady and we love her" is preferable to "The Enterprise is a wooden filming model constructed by Richard C. Datin," and other circumstances in which the converse is preferable.
That's a lot of arguing for someone who says it's pointless to argue.
If pointless discussions were disallowed on this forum it would be shut down.
For you.
The modern Trek Production staff are all paying homage to GR's comment as to why GR disliked STIII:TSFS because of the destruction of the Enterprise as he felt is was as important a 'character' as the other cast, and it deserved better. They don't want to upset the Roddenberrites who repeat everything the man said about Star Trek (even though he usually broke many of the so called 'rules' he himself set in every script he came up with the story or teleplay for).
It's alway been that way in-universe. Our out-universe eyes were just unable to see it until now.
A USS ship with a crew of three must be mighty small or plenty automated. Perhaps the equivalent of a 23rd century runabout, or perhaps the Archer-class scout from the Star Trek: Vanguard and Star Trek: Seekers novels?
TrekCore posted a link to a sneak peek video, showing another ship in a neighboring drydock. It appears to use the Donnie's saucer and has two underslung nacelles. Kinda like a 23rd century California class? Perhaps it's the Helios class from DSC S2e1?
Video link (YouTube):
The "Enterprise is a character" debate could be easily settled if we get an episode told from Enterprise's perspective, perhaps with a romance subplot? The shuttlebay clamshell doors could serve as the starship equivalent of a reptile's/dinosaur's cloaca.
Last edited:
Or a Miranda.
The Archer is a saucer hull with a single nacelle beneath. What was that ship that Franz Joseph drew, with the single nacelle? The Hermes? I don't remember. Anyway, it looks a lot like that in the reference images viewed by the characters. I don't think we get anything more than a rather distant look at it, abandoned in orbit around the planet Kiley Some-Roman-Numeral-Or-Other.
Oh,
Travel time between Vulcan and Earth seems to be measured in hours. There is an urgency to launch Enterprise from Earth dock "By 1800 hours*" and Pike contacts Spock on Vulcan to pull him back or rendezvous with him there, I forget which.
These higher speeds seem to be horses out of the barn, where future iterations of Trek are concerned. The ships are all faster now.
*Or maybe 1300 hours. I honestly don't remember. Same-day launch window, though.
These higher speeds seem to be horses out of the barn, where future iterations of Trek are concerned. The ships are all faster now.
*Or maybe 1300 hours. I honestly don't remember. Same-day launch window, though.
Yup, that's our best look at it. Nifty, huh?
Heh ... yer welcome.
I created a tighter shot as well ...
It looks similar to this version...
(not sure why we're using spoilers, these pics are already in this thread spoiler free)
Last edited:
Dammit - in addition to the Saladin; I want the 3 Nacelle Franz Joseph Trek Manual Dreadnaught.Heh ... yer welcome.
I created a tighter shot as well ...
It looks similar to this version...
(not sure why we're using spoilers, these pics are already in this thread spoiler free)
Similar threads
