The Much-Maligned TAS Bonaventure

[Icy_Penguigo]

Re: A quick request...

I have two topics I want to breach here, and I'd like to ask for help and/or input from you guys.

First... it was suggested that I might want to do a "side by side" render... this ship right next to the 1701. Unfortunately, I've never made my own model of the 1701, and surprisingly, there are no good versions on the 'net that I've been able to find. I've asked friends on here if they have one I can use, but so far no one has had a model I can just pull in and work from (say, a 3DSMax or Lightwave format, or something "neutral") but also something pretty nice-looking and accurate.

I know that such models EXIST. But they're awfully hard to come by. I have access to a rather nice translation package, so if you have something that's in a common format, or can export to a common format, I can use that, I'm sure.

So... anyone able to help???

SECONDLY...

I mentioned that I was thinking about some of the further detailing, and that I was seriously considering how to put weapons (and other external detailing) on her.

At this point, I'd like to ask for serious suggestions as to how to go. Exposed turrets for laser canon? TOS style details on the inside of the nacelles? Aridas-style details on TOP of the nacelles? Flashy lights per TOS, per WNMHGB, or none at all (per "the cage?"), or something else? Any additional markings? Exposed hatches?

I'm soliciting your THOUGHTS... both aesthetic and technical in nature... as to what you, personally, would do to "dress up" the model. The main things that I've decided, though, are:

1) No exposed hardware or plumbing, ala "Star Wars" on the hull exterior. Anything that IS on the exterior needs to be able to be brought inside for servicing (either by just retracting or by being detached and brought in through the hangar doors)

2) Nothing that's there JUST to "look cool." In other words, say something like "I think that there should be docking hatches here and here, and they should be five-sided like in TMP, because (insert reasoning here)..." Don't say "I think it needs some color variations to make it look kewl, though. If you've got a sound reason, I'm interested... if it's PURELY COSMETIC, I'll probably ignore it... and hey, it IS my project.

Basically, I've been worrying that I might be straying TOO close to TOS in terms of "dressing up" but I keep drifting back in that direction. SO... instead of asking for NEGATIVE comments, I'm asking for POSITIVE ones (not praise, but INPUT). And I'm anxious to hear 'em!

I have a few suggestions. For the engines, I think the classic inboard cooling tubes and vents would be just fine. As far as the bussard intakes go, I think it would be cool to have the unlit copper domes of the pilot Enterprise.

As far as armament goes, I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind for the actual weapon systems(phasers vs lasers, photons vs nukes). The best frame of reference I have is SFB history, so I'll make suggestions based on that and your "modified" timeframe for the Bonnie. I think you should go with phasers and photon torpedoes, maybe with guided nuclear missiles as a tertiary weapon system. In the SFB history, fed ships had phasers and photons 40 years before TOS, they were just considerably less efficient and way more bulky. Heavy cruisers could mount at most two photons, and typically had 4-5 phaser turrets. So rather large and ungainly phaser turrets (at least compared to later) would be rather neat, imo. Photon ports I don't think would look any different than small holes, though. Maybe also have visible hatches for nuclear missiles, too.

Also, I haven't really spoken up in this thread at all, but I think you've done some very cool work with this ship. I like the logical changes you've made and in some ways it happens to vaguely match things laid out in SFB for the given time period(which is a cool bonus, imo).

 

[c5maier]

Cary,
we all know that no Star Trek timeline will ever make perfect sense. But over time, by the diligent work and fine talent of a number of people, building upon and improving their predecessor's work, a general skeleton has been laid down that does hold together fairly nicely, IMHO.

Quote:
I'm not sure who first decided that this was in the 23rd century.
The earliest reference I can find is TMP, where Voyager VI was said to have been launched over 300 years ago. And then the next film began with: "In the 23rd century..."

By the way, as early as 1971 (i.e. before TAS), the German version of the introductory narration had a line "We are in the year 2200" included between "Space - the final frontier." and "These are the voyages...". That seems to indicate, that Paramount had even before that time included some information about Star Trek being set in the 23rd century in their sales campaign for the international market.

In MY case, I've chosen to keep the general timing and to "compress" things a bit. In other words, this ship was developed not centuries but DECADES earlier... and the folks seen on there are first-generation descendents of the original crew, alongside, I'm sure, many of the original crew as well. Say the the Bonaventure was lost 40 years prior to "The Time Trap."

I would say that compressing time from centuries to decades is more than just a bit - and seems totally unnecessary, being just based on the throw-away line about the time barrier having been broken.

Could you please explain the second half of the quote as I don't understand what you are talking about. I have not seen any folks on there. I go along with the opinion that the red-head female in the white uniform on the council is an officer from the Bonaventure and that is the only person we get shown. To me she seems to be in her late twenties (always difficult to judge from cartoon figures), but we are told that time moves but very slowly in this pocket in space, so she may have been in her mid-twenties when her ship vanished something like a century earlier.

In my opinion, there is just no way to account for Scotts exclamation if the Bonaventure was just launched a few decades earlier. It still seems strange that he feels obliged to fill the others in, as the development of space travel seems to be taught in school. After all, we all have a visual concept for historic aircraft like the Wright Flyer or the Spirit of St. Louis or for vessels like the Titanic. Then again, who of us would easily recognise the Turbinia, which was certainly a milestone of equal importance? And maybe he was just so overcome by the moment that he volunteered information that no one had requested. But would he have said to us folks: "Look, that is an Apollo spacecraft, the first that went to the moon" or "See the big '65' painted on the island structure beside the flight deck? That is the first nuclear aircraft carrier"? No way!

But: Hey, it is your project, so why do I even comment so much about it - other than because I care for TOS and TAS and like how you do, too.

 

[Kail]

I actually commisoned the Bonaventure artwork from him. Real American dollars.

And here I was working for free!

It was only $20. I'll gladly send you $20 if you'll go back to doing alien artwork for me. Tell me where to send the check.

In Tomorrow is Yesterday, Kirk is told he will be locked up for 200 years, and he responds with "That ought to be just about right". That seems pretty clear. TOS is set around the year 2168.

Oh yeah, "Rosebud".

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Oh yeah, "Rosebud".

You did "get" that didn't ya... Citizen Kail?

 

[Soar_Dude]

IMHO (Throwing Enterprise out) The Bonaventure was the first Starship that could could stay in warp continously without having to stop and scan for obsticles ahead of them. It could also make course changes at warp. Before this ships could warp for short periods call it a warp jump.

Soar Dude

 

[Shaw]

I think there are lots of examples of non-warp FTL in Trek.

For example, both Spock and Scott talk about the unique technology based on ion propulsion used by the Eymorg in Spock's Brain. The Enterprise followed the trail left by that ship at warp 6 for more than 15 hours... there is no way that any ship traveling at less than the speed of light would have been able to cover that distance in that short a period of time.

Or how about the Bajoran lightship which made first contact between Bajor and Cardassia in the episode Explorers as another.

Warp Factor is a valid unit of speed measurement in the Federation, but doesn't say anything about a ships propulsion system. We still use MPH as a measure of speed here in the US while in other parts of the world they use KPH. So my car going 60 by my gauges can over take some other car going 90 by their gauges.

As for the time barrier quote... I always thought that warp was the first form of propulsion to completely remove time dilation from excessive speeds. And in fact the trip to Delta Vega may have taken months or even close to a year without warp... but the time dilation made the trip seem like a few days. Who knows, maybe the Enterprise started out in WNMHGB in the 2250s and ended up around 2266 by the time they got home. The ship could have been listed as MIA for years only to pop up again saying sorry, we had engine problems.

In the end any number of interpretations are possible, with most being equally valid. Seems to me that once we get too far removed from the topic of the thread (which, after all, is about Cary's outstanding workmanship) that maybe we should consider taking this up as it's own topic in the Trek Tech section.

Just a thought.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Or how about the Bajoran lightship which made first contact between Bajor and Cardassia in the episode Explorers as another.

AFAIK, the lightship was specifically said to have been kicked into warp (accidentally, since the lightships were never made to go FTL).

As for the time barrier quote... I always thought that warp was the first form of propulsion to completely remove time dilation from excessive speeds.

I think it was just some random quote they came up with because they thought it sounded good. (This was the 60's, after all.) It doesn't really mean anything. Time dilation doesn't seem to be a problem - it's never been shown to be one, not even at impulse (although I did hear that full impulse is intentionally limited to be only about 1/4 lightspeed, just for this reason).

 

[Shaw]

Babaganoosh,

By the time we run through all your this doesn't count, in my view, I choose to interpret that and it was some random quote types of statements, you've pretty much ruled out anything that doesn't fit your view of this. That isn't the basis of a logical argument, that is purposeful avoidance of any evidence that threatens your long held beliefs.

But if I'm wrong about your stance here, why not prove it by starting a new thread in the appropriate section for this topic rather than continuing to derail someone else's thread on their work of art.

 

[U.S.S. Republic]

Warp Factor is a valid unit of speed measurement in the Federation, but doesn't say anything about a ships propulsion system.

Cary is looking for proof of an FTL drive that is not co-equal with Warp Drive.

There are 2 terms used in the series and many assume they are equivalent.
1 - Warp Factor
2 - Time Factor

I submit that they are not equivalent and was established as such from the beginning.

The Cage:
"TYLER: And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Well the time barrier's been broken."

"PIKE: This is the captain. Our destination is the Talos star group. Our time warp, factor seven."

"SPOCK: This is the acting captain speaking. We have no choice now but to consider the safety of this vessel and the remainder of the crew. We're leaving. All decks prepare for hyperdrive. Time warp factor."

This last quoted statement by Spock differentiates between Hyperdrive and Time Warp Factor; meaning FTL exists and may be augmented by the Time Factor upon request - as explaining the additional directive of Time Warp Factor is redundant even for Spock - thus Tyler's exclamation of the time barrier being broken.

Since this is stated as 13 years previous to the "current conditions" of the original series it may have been so new as to not be available simultaneously and had to be (or may be) activated independently. By the time of the original series, the two operations can be explained as being merged into a single action due to refinement or confidence in the breakthrough.

By the way, Shaw is correct in that it does not say anything directly about the propulsion itself, only that presumably the Einstein law of relativity has been broken and can be adjusted to whatever level of time dilation is desired.

That later evidence shows that this is somehow related to perceived speed is fairly implied. Perhaps it is nothing more than additional stress placed upon a ship using a higher time factor which is indirectly related/perceived as an increase in speed without actually being so. Does the ship speed up or does the universe slow down?

Warp 1 may not be a factor of speed but of the amount of time that passes by in the universe around the ship; i.e. a 1 to 1 ratio.

Warp 2 may be half of some other such time dilation, thus giving a perceived increase in velocity to the outside universe.

Warp may or may not be a constant speed (hyperdrive is possibly and likely far faster than what is currently long-held fanon regard as warp 1) no matter what "factor" is requested.

How much this plays into Stardates (a universal GMT?) is another theory - and may explain the differences in progression of a stardate.

Long-winded and sorry to be slightly off topic Cary.

 

[ancient]

Personally, I'd say the Bon is a purely research based ship design, possibly without any weapons or shields.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Warp Factor is a valid unit of speed measurement in the Federation, but doesn't say anything about a ships propulsion system.

Cary is looking for proof of an FTL drive that is not co-equal with Warp Drive.

There are 2 terms used in the series and many assume they are equivalent.
1 - Warp Factor
2 - Time Factor

I submit that they are not equivalent and was established as such from the beginning.

The Cage:
"TYLER: And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Well the time barrier's been broken."

"PIKE: This is the captain. Our destination is the Talos star group. Our time warp, factor seven."

"SPOCK: This is the acting captain speaking. We have no choice now but to consider the safety of this vessel and the remainder of the crew. We're leaving. All decks prepare for hyperdrive. Time warp factor."

This last quoted statement by Spock differentiates between Hyperdrive and Time Warp Factor; meaning FTL exists and may be augmented by the Time Factor upon request - as explaining the additional directive of Time Warp Factor is redundant even for Spock - thus Tyler's exclamation of the time barrier being broken.

Since this is stated as 13 years previous to the "current conditions" of the original series it may have been so new as to not be available simultaneously and had to be (or may be) activated independently. By the time of the original series, the two operations can be explained as being merged into a single action due to refinement or confidence in the breakthrough.

By the way, Shaw is correct in that it does not say anything directly about the propulsion itself, only that presumably the Einstein law of relativity has been broken and can be adjusted to whatever level of time dilation is desired.

That later evidence shows that this is somehow related to perceived speed is fairly implied. Perhaps it is nothing more than additional stress placed upon a ship using a higher time factor which is indirectly related/perceived as an increase in speed without actually being so. Does the ship speed up or does the universe slow down?

Warp 1 may not be a factor of speed but of the amount of time that passes by in the universe around the ship; i.e. a 1 to 1 ratio.

Warp 2 may be half of some other such time dilation, thus giving a perceived increase in velocity to the outside universe.

Warp may or may not be a constant speed (hyperdrive is possibly and likely far faster than what is currently long-held fanon regard as warp 1) no matter what "factor" is requested.

How much this plays into Stardates (a universal GMT?) is another theory - and may explain the differences in progression of a stardate.

Long-winded and sorry to be slightly off topic Cary.

I'm not complaining, mainly because (1) it's an interesting conversation, (2) as I said, I'm sorta booked solid right now and thus don't have time to work on the model for a few days, and (3) it's a CIVIL conversation (even the one bit that became a bit personal didn't really go very far... compared to other things I've seen on here!). On the other hand, it's definitely going "off topic."

SO... I'm fine with leaving this conversation in here for a few more days, but don't want it to overwhelm the actual thread topic (ie, my ship model!). So, if you guys want to discuss it BRIEFLY for another day or two, here... go for it. But if you really want to dig into this deeply, I recommend someone start a new thread over in "Trek Tech" to really mine this subject as deeply and technically as possible.

Fair 'nuff?

(And for the record, I admit full culpability in being an active and willing participant in the conversation which has, undeniably, been dragging this thread off-topic!)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Personally, I'd say the Bon is a purely research based ship design, possibly without any weapons or shields.

I thought about that... and I definitely don't want it to be a "battleship" of any kind. I see it (as I said before) as basically in the same vein as the Grissom, or as the Nova (the little ship from Voyager, which was portrayed as being the TNG-era equivalent to the Grissom).

On the other hand, I found it utterly implausible that the Grissom, which was undeniably a valuable piece of hardware, had NO apparent defensive capabilities in ST-III. At the very least, it should have had shields. (Maybe it did and Esteban was just an incompetent commander???) But there were no visible torpedo ports or phaser ports.

This ship ought to have shields, if for no other reason than the fact that it flies fast through a not-entirely-empty galaxy. And to protect it from damage from, say, stellar radiation or ion storms or so forth. (I reject "polarized hull plating"... and wish that "Enterprise" had just given the ship really weak forcefields instead!) So this ship will have "force fields" but not "deflectors." When I use those terms, I'm using them as they were defined for TMP, though the usage fell aside in later times.

The cliff's notes version: The forcefields are basically a "skin field" forming an energy based "outer hull layer," very close to the surface of the ship. The DEFLECTORS, on the other hand, form a zone well offset from the surface of the ship (basically ovoid in shape at that distance). It doesn't serve to BLOCK strikes, but rather had a steep gravitational slope so it serves to "missteer" physical objects and to "refract" energy beams, both away from the center of mass of the ship. It also tends to DIFFRACT energy beams and scatter clusters of particles... so a laser beam, for example, which was 1cm in diameter might be 1 m in diameter by the time it reached the surface of the ship, or a tightly-choked "shotgun" style blast would be scattered into a widely spaced pattern. Of course, they'd then hit the hull... but it wouldn't be the PHYSICAL hull, it would be the forcefield-based "skin field."

They treated it this way for TMP, and some of the graphics in TWOK treated things that way... but by the time of TNG, they basically forgot this. I like it, however, so I stick with it.

So this ship doesn't have DEFLECTOR shields but does have a forcefield...

I also think that it needs SOME form of weapons... even if the sole purpose of them is to blast rogue asteroids in the path of the ship or so forth. But I do agree that, if it's armed, it ought not be WELL-armed. It's basically (as others have noted) equivalent to the Grissom... but not quite as weenie.

Though I love the idea of making it SFB-compatible (and wouldn't object to someone else taking the general design and converting it into that scenario, provided I get proper credit for my portion of the work!), I'd think that any such armed variants would be "follow-on" ships, not the original ship. So, no rows of missile tubes or large numbers of torpedo launchers.

I've actually been thinking that the ideal place for some multipurpose launchers would be in the "fingers" on either side of the deflector/scanner dish. These could fire off weapons, or more commonly would launch probes.

I'm leaning towards using something that looks like the "The Cage" laser canon mounted onto a retractable pivot... sort of like the NX-01 had their "phase canon" on... behind some sort of retractable panels. There wouldn't be many of these. I was originally thinking about having two on a rail-type ring around the lower sensor dome, but that would be too prominent. So I'm now considering a pair of hatches down there, and another pair on the top, and maybe one on the top of the "bump" above the hangar bay. That would cover the ship for firepower, but I think maybe it's too much... five turrets, even old-style laser canon ("able to blast half a continent," granted) seems like overkill.

 

[Kail]

Oh yeah, "Rosebud".

You did "get" that didn't ya... Citizen Kail?

One of my favorites, Mr. Brown. I'm actually a huge classic movie fan. BTW, I do like your Bonnie model.

 

[U.S.S. Republic]

But if you really want to dig into this deeply, I recommend someone start a new thread over in "Trek Tech" to really mine this subject as deeply and technically as possible.

Fair 'nuff?

Fair 'nuff, at least for me.
The extra day is more than sufficient. And, I have no desire to begin a thread on this in any event.
I commented here only due to the fact that you expressed an opinion concerning an older FTL other than warp. But, thank you for the consideration nevertheless.

May I leave you with these closing thoughts from me on the subject?
If warp 1 is as slow as everyone thinks it is (really)... ever wonder why there are so many instances of Kirk ordering the ship to proceed at warp 1 at the close of the show (or otherwise)?

I'm sure someone will say that warp 1 is what is used to leave a star system... or some other such explanation; possibly involving a police speed trap. What is the difference between warp 1 and warp 4 when you leave? None. Only the difference in Time dilation. Warp is warp. Kirk keeps things on a 1 to 1 time ratio until duty calls for him to order it otherwise. He's not riding off into the sunset with Tonto (soon to be Quinto) at a shuffling pace - he's zooming off at warp, just without the time dilation because it's not needed.

On topic: I'd still like the nacelles higher.
But, it is your project.

That would cover the ship for firepower, but I think maybe it's too much... five turrets, even old-style laser canon ("able to blast half a continent," granted) seems like overkill.

Yes. Overkill.

Otherwise, add the 5th nacelle, the blistering of weapons everywhere and quantum torpedo tubes projecting at every angle possible and really fall into line with popular fan-design.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

On the other hand, I found it utterly implausible that the Grissom, which was undeniably a valuable piece of hardware, had NO apparent defensive capabilities in ST-III.

Well, it had to have had some kind of weapon systems, because Kirk wonders if they'll "join us or fire on us" as the Enterprise is on its way to Genesis.

I would say even a science vessel would have minimal defensive weapons and shields, just in case.

 

[Santaman]

I assume that Bonadventure will have weapons and shields since in those days space wasn't a very safe place to be and not as much under control as like it was in Kirk's days or like in the 24th century, she has to be able to take care of herself IMO.

 

[ancient]

On the other hand, I found it utterly implausible that the Grissom, which was undeniably a valuable piece of hardware, had NO apparent defensive capabilities in ST-III.

Well, it had to have had some kind of weapon systems, because Kirk wonders if they'll "join us or fire on us" as the Enterprise is on its way to Genesis.

I would say even a science vessel would have minimal defensive weapons and shields, just in case.

We've never actually seen an Oberth fire any kind of weapon, at least as far as I can recall. In STIII we never hear Captain Redshirt order shields. The only thing he does order is "evasive". So either the Grissom has no shield or he was waiting for Starfleet command to authorize shields.

I do think they'd have some sort of deflector beam to clear the ship's path.

I know that from the sci-fi POV there just seems to be something wrong with a ship without shields and weapons - even a science ship. But think of contemperary research ships. They carry nothing to defend themselves with. Actually most ships don't carry any cannons/guns.

Clearly, an Oberth would never intentionally be sent into a war-zone. Most Obeths would never encounter any hostile ships. Starfleet could easily send a cruiser to protect it if there was some pressing need to have one in hostile space. In STIII it's pretty clear the Grissom was not supposed to encounter any danger. If it weren't for a renegade Klingon...

Anyway, the point is, if the Bon is a research ship, phasers/torps aren't needed...imo.

 

[Shaw]

When I'm looking for inspiration and references for this type of stuff I often find looking at the Royal Navy in the 18th century as a good measure. By this point vessels had reach quite a state of advancement in technology (primarily navigational) to both chart new places and return to them with relative ease (mainly due to the advent of accurate clocks).

With much of the world still a mystery waiting to be discovered, what types of vessels were sent out on those missions? Were they lined with rows upon rows of guns, or were heavy armaments kept rather minimal?

For me, I look at the vessels of James Cook (mainly the Endeavour) as a good measure of exploratory craft. Even William Bligh's Bounty is a good example. It was considered highly unlikely to run afoul of a vessel from a competing world power in the Pacific, and more heavily armed vessels weren't put into service in those waters until after other nations (and pirates) started taking an interest in the Pacific as well.

Frankly the idea that starships should be lined with weapons and that space battles are a daily occurrence is an unfortunate turn for Star Trek that was further advanced by the popularity of Star Wars. And while I'm sure that it wouldn't appeal to the short attention spans of todays audiences, I have hoped that the voyages of starships in future Trek would gain inspiration from historical references like Cook or Lewis & Clark.

Discovery and exploration shouldn't be a shoot first and ask questions later type of venture.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

When I'm looking for inspiration and references for this type of stuff I often find looking at the Royal Navy in the 18th century as a good measure. By this point vessels had reach quite a state of advancement in technology (primarily navigational) to both chart new places and return to them with relative ease (mainly due to the advent of accurate clocks).

With much of the world still a mystery waiting to be discovered, what types of vessels were sent out on those missions? Were they lined with rows upon rows of guns, or were heavy armaments kept rather minimal?

For me, I look at the vessels of James Cook (mainly the Endeavour) as a good measure of exploratory craft. Even William Bligh's Bounty is a good example. It was considered highly unlikely to run afoul of a vessel from a competing world power in the Pacific, and more heavily armed vessels weren't put into service in those waters until after other nations (and pirates) started taking an interest in the Pacific as well.

Frankly the idea that starships should be lined with weapons and that space battles are a daily occurrence is an unfortunate turn for Star Trek that was further advanced by the popularity of Star Wars. And while I'm sure that it wouldn't appeal to the short attention spans of todays audiences, I have hoped that the voyages of starships in future Trek would gain inspiration from historical references like Cook or Lewis & Clark.

Discovery and exploration shouldn't be a shoot first and ask questions later type of venture.

Endavour and Bounty weren't lined with guns, but they were armed.

Endavour carried ten cannons and six swivel guns and Bounty had four cannons and also six swivel guns.

As far as i see it, that level of armament is discussed here.

 

[Shaw]

Endavour and Bounty weren't lined with guns, but they were armed.

Well, if that was supposed to imply that I said differently, I would suggest rereading my post. I was well aware of both ships configurations (or I wouldn't have posted about them).

This type of stuff is relative. It isn't an either they had them or they didn't (which seems to be your argument based on that first line). The real question is to what extent the Royal Navy felt these vessels required armament.

But yeah, don't project a black and white argument on anything I said.