Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

[sojourner]

[/quote][/quote]
And once again these designs have the same underlying glaring weaknesses. The stick thin Pylons, the exposed conduits. Yes great fan updates but they don't make the ship look any more realistic, or any more survivable in a battle.[/quote]


pssst! Qonos, Ya might want to take a look at those links about warpdrive the other guy posted. You're just embarrassing yourself by claiming to be more informed when your arguments reveal a lack of knowledge (whether the subject is Star Trek Physics or Real World Physics).

 

[DeafPoet]

Thanks for showing up, Finnegan

As long as you can look at the hyperbolic dissenters with a sense of humour, you're gonna fit in just fine here.

 

[Tom Servo]

And once again these designs have the same underlying glaring weaknesses. The stick thin Pylons, the exposed conduits. Yes great fan updates but they don't make the ship look any more realistic, or any more survivable in a battle.

pssst! Qonos, Ya might want to take a look at those links about warpdrive the other guy posted. You're just embarrassing yourself by claiming to be more informed when your arguments reveal a lack of knowledge (whether the subject is Star Trek Physics or Real World Physics).

His original thesis about how the Warp nacelles work, sucking in space, and accelerating it out the back is correct in the pre TNG era. I've read that many different times. It may not makes sense when compared to TNG ward drive, and actual theories about it, but within the context of the original design, he is right.

 

[Ovation]

I'm 45 now, and have had Trek in my life since the TOS began showing on TV again in syndication. So, I'm a lifelong fan of the highest order, and have supported Trek through all of it's various permutations. I have earned my right to voice those opinions, and would like to now--but I know after reading some of the comments here, that I will be shunned simply because I'm new to this forum and don't have hundreds of posts under my belt yet.
So I'm "new"--and new means change, or something different, something to be feared--and that really seems to frighten or even enrage some of the posters here. Change is NOT neccessarily bad, something different that pays homage to what has come before is not the work of the Devil, and to be feared and despised at any and all costs. Are you Trek fans or not? Does the philosophy behind the concept mean nothing to some of you? IDIC, anyone?

After reading most of the comments here, I'm really floored at just how incredibly close-minded and anal some of the posters are. Really virulent
haters, in my opinion. And over what? The nacelles look different, or the
main deflector dish sticks out "too far"? Gimme a flipping break! The re-imagined Enterprise is beautiful to behold! At least we HAVE a new Enterprise to drool over and wonder about--at least there is some new TREK on the way!! But that's not enough for some. No, some of you would rather get into shouting matches over 3 digit registry numbers vs. the established "cannon" of 4 numbers. There is simply no pleasing some people, I guess.

The refit (movie) Enterprise was different than the original, and you survived. So who cares if they have some big bucks, some renewed studio interest, and have updated and streamlined the old girl a bit? Chillax, people.

If they happen to show a washroom in STXI, some of you will be howling
because they never showed Uhura or Bones taking a dump on national television in 1969--so therefore toilets cannot exist in the Trek universe because it's against "cannon". That's how ridiculous some of you are. THAT is how small-minded and petty some of the posters here are, at least in my opinion. So get bent.

I LOVE TREK, and I say (and agree) that some of you really do need to get a life, kiss a girl, and move out of your parents' basements. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, but sweating such small details and flaming
off on each other and the new movie before the trailer is even out just strikes me as so sad. Some new Trek is on the way, and you act like it's the end of the world.

As someone who has "hundreds (actually thousands) of posts under my belt" (and only four years younger than you), all I have to say is WELL DONE. Your comments about the puritanical focus on minutiae are spot on.

 

[Michael]

^ I completely agree.

 

[sojourner]

You mean this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qonos

Scientificly the new engines work via the same physics as a jet engine. The large bussard scoops pull in particles and as they are forced out the back the tapering helps speed up the particle stream.. You know how a jet works with water and air. Particles are matter and when you compact them in a stream they move faster.. This is called thrust.


um. no. just no.

 

[cynical dreamer]

I'll keep my comments brief, but I would like to say, love the ship or hate it, it's pretty damn classy for John Eaves to post and give people some perspective on the photo that has been released.

As for the ship, love that they've kept much from the Refit (my favorite ship in the fleet). Not crazy about the neck being so far forward but that'll pass in time.

The excitement grows...

 

[Tom Servo]

You mean this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qonos
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient
Sorry, those engines are droopy. They look like they're yawning. I really want to like the ship, and I will try hard to force myself to like it, but I think I actually dislike it more today than yesterday, which isn't a good sign.

Scientificly the new engines work via the same physics as a jet engine. The large bussard scoops pull in particles and as they are forced out the back the tapering helps speed up the particle stream.. You know how a jet works with water and air. Particles are matter and when you compact them in a stream they move faster.. This is called thrust.


um. no. just no.

I think he is on the right track, but he is getting is terms wrong. I remember in interviews with Gene, he stated the the front of the nacelles sucked in space time, accelerated it thought the engine, and shot it out the back. The idea was the mirrored ball structures on the front and the back and the front of the nacelles ripped open space time, and then shut it at the other end.

In the sense that it worked like an interstellar jet engine, he is right. However, since that interview, the way that warp drive works has changed.

 

[sojourner]

I'll keep my comments brief, but I would like to say, love the ship or hate it, it's pretty damn classy for John Eaves to post and give people some perspective on the photo that has been released.

As for the ship, love that they've kept much from the Refit (my favorite ship in the fleet). Not crazy about the neck being so far forward but that'll pass in time.

The excitement grows...

Ryan Church is the designer and commenter, not John Eaves. But we knew what you meant.

 

[Finnegan]

I'm 45 now, and have had Trek in my life since the TOS began showing on TV again in syndication. So, I'm a lifelong fan of the highest order, and have supported Trek through all of it's various permutations. I have earned my right to voice those opinions, and would like to now--but I know after reading some of the comments here, that I will be shunned simply because I'm new to this forum and don't have hundreds of posts under my belt yet.
So I'm "new"--and new means change, or something different, something to be feared--and that really seems to frighten or even enrage some of the posters here. Change is NOT neccessarily bad, something different that pays homage to what has come before is not the work of the Devil, and to be feared and despised at any and all costs. Are you Trek fans or not? Does the philosophy behind the concept mean nothing to some of you? IDIC, anyone?

After reading most of the comments here, I'm really floored at just how incredibly close-minded and anal some of the posters are. Really virulent
haters, in my opinion. And over what? The nacelles look different, or the
main deflector dish sticks out "too far"? Gimme a flipping break! The re-imagined Enterprise is beautiful to behold! At least we HAVE a new Enterprise to drool over and wonder about--at least there is some new TREK on the way!! But that's not enough for some. No, some of you would rather get into shouting matches over 3 digit registry numbers vs. the established "cannon" of 4 numbers. There is simply no pleasing some people, I guess.

The refit (movie) Enterprise was different than the original, and you survived. So who cares if they have some big bucks, some renewed studio interest, and have updated and streamlined the old girl a bit? Chillax, people.

If they happen to show a washroom in STXI, some of you will be howling
because they never showed Uhura or Bones taking a dump on national television in 1969--so therefore toilets cannot exist in the Trek universe because it's against "cannon". That's how ridiculous some of you are. THAT is how small-minded and petty some of the posters here are, at least in my opinion. So get bent.

I LOVE TREK, and I say (and agree) that some of you really do need to get a life, kiss a girl, and move out of your parents' basements. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, but sweating such small details and flaming
off on each other and the new movie before the trailer is even out just strikes me as so sad. Some new Trek is on the way, and you act like it's the end of the world.

As someone who has "hundreds (actually thousands) of posts under my belt" (and only four years younger than you), all I have to say is WELL DONE. Your comments about the puritanical focus on minutiae are spot on.

Thanks for your kind words. I look forward to having some fun here!

 

[3D Master]

I'm 45 now, and have had Trek in my life since the TOS began showing on TV again in syndication. So, I'm a lifelong fan of the highest order, and have supported Trek through all of it's various permutations. I have earned my right to voice those opinions, and would like to now--but I know after reading some of the comments here, that I will be shunned simply because I'm new to this forum and don't have hundreds of posts under my belt yet.
So I'm "new"--and new means change, or something different, something to be feared--and that really seems to frighten or even enrage some of the posters here. Change is NOT neccessarily bad, something different that pays homage to what has come before is not the work of the Devil, and to be feared and despised at any and all costs.

In case you hadn't notices - well, you're new here - most of those who do not like what we're seeing, are pro change, and have been clamoring for change for a while now.

We're not afraid of change, in fact, we say the right is good.

Problem is, this change, is bad, really, really, really BAD. That ship is ugly as all hell.

Not to mention, that the ship seems to be supposedly the TOS Enterprise. Well, it clearly is NOT.

Are you Trek fans or not? Does the philosophy behind the concept mean nothing to some of you? IDIC, anyone?

Oh, that again. Because after all, as Star Trek fans we're not allowed to be critical, and because some race in the show like to put IDIC in some of their icons, we must applaud anything different no matter how horrible it is.

Well, no. As Trek fans, we're critical of what comes out, because Star Trek has already degenerated into idiotic laughing stock with Voyager and Enterprise, and we don't want to see it degenerate into an even greater pile of junk.

After reading most of the comments here, I'm really floored at just how incredibly close-minded and anal some of the posters are. Really virulent
haters, in my opinion. And over what? The nacelles look different, or the
main deflector dish sticks out "too far"? Gimme a flipping break! The re-imagined Enterprise is beautiful to behold!

No, actually, it's ugly as shit. Like it came out of someone's constipated asshole.

At least we HAVE a new Enterprise to drool over and wonder about--at least there is some new TREK on the way!! But that's not enough for some. No, some of you would rather get into shouting matches over 3 digit registry numbers vs. the established "cannon" of 4 numbers. There is simply no pleasing some people, I guess.

Indeed, it's not enough for me. You see, I actually want something GOOD. I much rather see a beloved show or franchise end, that watch it continued with crap so that crap can be dumped all over the good stuff I once enjoyed watching.

But hey, that's just me. If you like to watch crap just because it has the Star Trek name on it, keep watching it.

The refit (movie) Enterprise was different than the original, and you survived.

The refit was beautiful, and it did not overwrite the old one by saying it never existed.

So who cares if they have some big bucks, some renewed studio interest, and have updated and streamlined the old girl a bit? Chillax, people.

I care because it looks like a mismatched turd.

If they happen to show a washroom in STXI, some of you will be howling
because they never showed Uhura or Bones taking a dump on national television in 1969--so therefore toilets cannot exist in the Trek universe because it's against "cannon". That's how ridiculous some of you are. THAT is how small-minded and petty some of the posters here are, at least in my opinion. So get bent.

I LOVE TREK, and I say (and agree) that some of you really do need to get a life, kiss a girl, and move out of your parents' basements. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, but sweating such small details and flaming
off on each other and the new movie before the trailer is even out just strikes me as so sad. Some new Trek is on the way, and you act like it's the end of the world.

No, actually, none of us give a care if they show toilets in the movie or not. But keep insulting, denigrating, and attempting to make anyone with a critical voice look bad. I'm sure that is much more satisfying to you than kissing a girl.

 

[Kanenas]

Don't like the nacelles. They connect too far back to the secondary hull. They are too short and not in proportion to TOS or all the movies. (too much next generation)

Also don't like how the secondary hull has become anorexic in the back.


Is this "it" or is it a teaser since this is comming out in may?

 

[DeafPoet]

You mean this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qonos

Scientificly the new engines work via the same physics as a jet engine. The large bussard scoops pull in particles and as they are forced out the back the tapering helps speed up the particle stream.. You know how a jet works with water and air. Particles are matter and when you compact them in a stream they move faster.. This is called thrust.


um. no. just no.

I like to avoid contempt when expressing an opinion but I just can't help myself here:

Okay, smart guy, how does a real warp engine work?

Oh. There isn't any such thing? Fine. Let's look at an in-universe, on-screen established definition. Well, it mixes matter and anti-matter. That's a given. It creates a 'warp field' which somehow facilitates FTL travel. According to Tucker, it "violates the laws of motion."

Um, what more do we know than that? How does any of this stuff move the ship? Does it matter? I dunno.

How is Qonos's explanation bullshit, exactly? Sounds as reasonable to me as any other explanation.

Sometimes I think Trekkies forget that the Enterprise and the principles that power her are devices for telling stories, and not gospel realizations of what the 23rd century will really be like.

To be fair, sojourner, I'm mostly going after folks who have raised similar concerns here. But your post just seemed to give me the opportunity to do so.

You're no more or less guilty than anybody else who thinks that a deconstruction of a plot device like this is a worthy reason for derision.

 

[Gepard]

Going by the comments posted by Dennis from the designer, I bet the nacelles get, um, circumcised somewhere along the way.

*winces*

Look, can we all agree the cowls look like, um...you know, and leave it at that? My crotch hurts just reading this thread!

 

[sojourner]

The movie has been done for a couple months. Remember it was originally scheduled to come out near thanksgiving/Christmas until the Studio Execs decided they needed something for next summer. This is it, but not completely. As Ryan Church intimidated, the ship changes appearance some through the course of the movie. My guess is the engine "cowls" come off sometime after the initial launch into orbit.

 

[Psion]

I want a genuine reboot of the show, with almost everything rethought from the ground up. A fresh, new look at the original premise, and almost none of what we know today remains true.

And in spite of that, I'm not liking this new Enterprise. At least not from this angle. It's graceless and unbalanced. The design ethos of the major sections (primary hull, dorsal, secondary hull, and nacelles) don't match ... it's like the starship Platypus. Maybe it's just a bad angle. Enterprise-D had some angles that didn't look right because Trek fans needed to get used to an elliptical primary hull instead of a circular one. With luck, that's what's going wrong here.

 

[DeafPoet]

In case you hadn't notices - well, you're new here - most of those who do not like what we're seeing, are pro change, and have been clamoring for change for a while now.

<Snip for brevity, though the rest of the post is relevent>

You're really going to rip on the new guy for expressing his point of view? Jesus, no wonder everyone looks at the fanbase as elitist nerds.

Besides, if you're really "pro-change" what the hell's your problem with the new film? That may have sounded snarky, but I'd really like to hear your answer.

 

[trevanian]

I'll keep my comments brief, but I would like to say, love the ship or hate it, it's pretty damn classy for John Eaves to post and give people some perspective on the photo that has been released.

As for the ship, love that they've kept much from the Refit (my favorite ship in the fleet). Not crazy about the neck being so far forward but that'll pass in time.

The excitement grows...

Ryan Church is the designer and commenter, not John Eaves. But we knew what you meant.

Church is the commentator, and he has been IDENTIFIED as the designer on trekmovie, but he didn't put it that way in the comment he made. I stand by the notion that this is Eaves, or at least 1/3 Eaves. Unless they're just having him do interiors, which I doubt.

 

[sojourner]

You mean this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qonos

Scientificly the new engines work via the same physics as a jet engine. The large bussard scoops pull in particles and as they are forced out the back the tapering helps speed up the particle stream.. You know how a jet works with water and air. Particles are matter and when you compact them in a stream they move faster.. This is called thrust.


um. no. just no.

I like to avoid contempt when expressing an opinion but I just can't help myself here:

Okay, smart guy, how does a real warp engine work?

Oh. There isn't any such thing? Fine. Let's look at an in-universe, on-screen established definition. Well, it mixes matter and anti-matter. That's a given. It creates a 'warp field' which somehow facilitates FTL travel. According to Tucker, it "violates the laws of motion."

Um, what more do we know than that? How does any of this stuff move the ship? Does it matter? I dunno.

How is Qonos's explanation bullshit, exactly? Sounds as reasonable to me as any other explanation.

Sometimes I think Trekkies forget that the Enterprise and the principles that power her are devices for telling stories, and not gospel realizations of what the 23rd century will really be like.

To be fair, sojourner, I'm mostly going after folks who have raised similar concerns here. But your post just seemed to give me the opportunity to do so.

You're no more or less guilty than anybody else who thinks that a deconstruction of a plot device like this is a worthy reason for derision.

No problem Deaf Poet. Because I was commenting on how Qonos' explanation is just a normal newtonian physics based reaction drive. Not very close to any of the "in canon" explanations or the real world theories. If you are interested in seeing some of the articles on the real world ideas here are a few links posted by someone else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_metric

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...lcubdrive.html

http://www.earthtech.org/publication...nference_2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9907019

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/07/29...1th-dimension/

http://www.analogsf.com/0002/av0002.html


And you can always use google on "warp drive" to find more actual science behind something that started as fiction.

 

[3D Master]

You mean this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qonos

Scientificly the new engines work via the same physics as a jet engine. The large bussard scoops pull in particles and as they are forced out the back the tapering helps speed up the particle stream.. You know how a jet works with water and air. Particles are matter and when you compact them in a stream they move faster.. This is called thrust.


um. no. just no.

I like to avoid contempt when expressing an opinion but I just can't help myself here:

Okay, smart guy, how does a real warp engine work?

Oh. There isn't any such thing? Fine. Let's look at an in-universe, on-screen established definition. Well, it mixes matter and anti-matter. That's a given. It creates a 'warp field' which somehow facilitates FTL travel. According to Tucker, it "violates the laws of motion."

Um, what more do we know than that? How does any of this stuff move the ship? Does it matter? I dunno.

How is Qonos's explanation bullshit, exactly? Sounds as reasonable to me as any other explanation.

Sometimes I think Trekkies forget that the Enterprise and the principles that power her are devices for telling stories, and not gospel realizations of what the 23rd century will really be like.

To be fair, sojourner, I'm mostly going after folks who have raised similar concerns here. But your post just seemed to give me the opportunity to do so.

You're no more or less guilty than anybody else who thinks that a deconstruction of a plot device like this is a worthy reason for derision.

You know, maybe because it's not a, oh, I don't know, a WARP drive. You know, as in WARPING space and time, to circumvent the lightspeed barrier?

Something that pulls some particles in and forces them out the back would be THRUST drive, an Ion drive, or rather an ordinary conventional kinetic... wait for it, IMPULSE drive, as in a SUBLIGHT drive that cannot break the lightspeed barrier.

It's probably just me, but when I hear a WARP drive, I'm expecting space and time to be WARPed by it. But you know, like I said, probably just me.

In case you hadn't notices - well, you're new here - most of those who do not like what we're seeing, are pro change, and have been clamoring for change for a while now.

<Snip for brevity, though the rest of the post is relevent>

You're really going to rip on the new guy for expressing his point of view? Jesus, no wonder everyone looks at the fanbase as elitist nerds.

Besides, if you're really "pro-change" what the hell's your problem with the new film? That may have sounded snarky, but I'd really like to hear your answer.

Because change, isn't good in and of it self. We are for GOOD change. But when we se BAD change, we say so.