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

[Jim Steele]

I just don't think its inherently better because it has a more "modern" aesthetic.

Not at all, I completely agree.

 

[M'Sharak]

Hey mod...I run that site with the Gatchaman images. Please put them back.

The URLs were still there in the place you originally posted them, and I have restored those to inline images, but not yet to the places where they were quoted downthread. Sorry for the inconvenience, but the webmaster name on the main site was Wendy and I didn't think that was you.

 

[Devon]

This was posted on the original source article's talkback section:


http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008...rek-first.html



I work for ILM.
The reason for the nacelles and the support struts is that the nacelles rotate to alter the direction of the impulse engines which are housed inside the nacelles.
In other words the nacelles vector the thrust from the impulse engines.
This is why they are lumpy at the connecting points as this houses the pivot mechanism which rotates the nacelles.
I hope this explains the nacelles and why the saucer is back,this to balance the thrust through the center of gravity of the ship thrustwise.

 

[Tomalak]

Can you have a centre of gravity in space?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Oh fuck.

It's the goddamned vectoring nacelles!

Uh, no offense Vektor.

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=36770

 

[shapeshifter]

I don't believe it!!!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

It's the goddamned vectoring nacelles!

They're baaaaaaack.

 

[starburst]

Id forgotten about that...ah well 3 more days then I just have to get to 2pm and I can try and watch the trailer, should be an agonising wait.

At least its almost over, will be nice to have some sort of concrete feel for the film to be able to say ye or ne on

 

[trevanian]

You are making no sense at all.
Or do you honestly believe that today's audience would accept a vision of the 23rd century as seen through the lenses of 1966?
The visual aesthetics you would like to see are those of the 1960s.

I wish I remember which thread I replied to this in (maybe TECH?), but the visual aesthetics of the 60s are in some ways still very futuristic looking. RE-interpretting that design aesthetic is one thing, something I'd be cool with. Pissing on that design aesthetic doesn't work for me. And what I'm seeing inside and out reeks of urine.

You are over doing the Hyperbole. It looks fine, its just not what you wanted.

Thanks, may I quote you? There are about fifty posters who are 'over doing the Hyperbole' (sounds like a new dance move) for how great the sucker looks, and any such comment is equally viable there.

If it looked 'fine' I'd be 'fine' with it. I hoped it would be 'so fine.' It is not.

Geez, I'm beginning to write like the James Spader character on BOSTON LEGAL talks.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

It seems like a bad idea to have large moving pieces on a ship operating in space.

What if it gets stuck or something? Also I'm not seeing any part of the nacelle that looks like it could move.

 

[Tom Servo]

Oh fuck.

It's the goddamned vectoring nacelles!

Uh, no offense Vektor.

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=36770

I can't believe its back! Augh!

Not my favorite idea in the world, however, it does make sense in the idea for the ships center of gravity. They way the impulse engines have been positioned before would cause the ship to spin over and over itself in space.

 

[Qonos]

I wish I remember which thread I replied to this in (maybe TECH?), but the visual aesthetics of the 60s are in some ways still very futuristic looking. RE-interpretting that design aesthetic is one thing, something I'd be cool with. Pissing on that design aesthetic doesn't work for me. And what I'm seeing inside and out reeks of urine.

You are over doing the Hyperbole. It looks fine, its just not what you wanted.

Thanks, may I quote you? There are about fifty posters who are 'over doing the Hyperbole' (sounds like a new dance move) for how great the sucker looks, and any such comment is equally viable there.

If it looked 'fine' I'd be 'fine' with it. I hoped it would be 'so fine.' It is not.

Geez, I'm beginning to write like the James Spader character on BOSTON LEGAL talks.

go right ahead, though I like it, it could be better

 

[Ptrope]

The reason for the nacelles and the support struts is that the nacelles rotate to alter the direction of the impulse engines which are housed inside the nacelles.
In other words the nacelles vector the thrust from the impulse engines.
This is why they are lumpy at the connecting points as this houses the pivot mechanism which rotates the nacelles.
I hope this explains the nacelles and why the saucer is back,this to balance the thrust through the center of gravity of the ship thrustwise.

Which, generally, is probably a really bad idea; if you start vectoring the nacelles (and why the heck would they also contain the impulse engines, anyway?), you actually radically throw the thrust off the ship's center of gravity, giving you little more than a whirling dervish. Much better to locate the impulse engines solidly, only allowing them to pivot (if at all) somewhere near their actual center of thrust; the best approach would probably be to leave them in place and use RCS thrusters for altering the ship's forward vector.

Whoever decided upon this explanation for vectoring the nacelles was just bs'ing a reason for vectoring the nacelles, apparently because they or someone else thought that was 'kewl,' rather than coming up with a sound engineering approach. Sorry, but now the design makes even less sense than before.

 

[Sector 7]

This was posted on the original source article's talkback section:


http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008...rek-first.html



I work for ILM.
The reason for the nacelles and the support struts is that the nacelles rotate to alter the direction of the impulse engines which are housed inside the nacelles.
In other words the nacelles vector the thrust from the impulse engines.
This is why they are lumpy at the connecting points as this houses the pivot mechanism which rotates the nacelles.
I hope this explains the nacelles and why the saucer is back,this to balance the thrust through the center of gravity of the ship thrustwise.

"It's like throwing gasoline on a fire."-Alan Rickman, GalaxyQuest

 

[trevanian]

Whoever decided upon this explanation for vectoring the nacelles was just bs'ing a reason for vectoring the nacelles, apparently because they or someone else thought that was 'kewl,' rather than coming up with a sound engineering approach. Sorry, but now the design makes even less sense than before.

Most days I'm really glad you're a mod, but I'm glad EVERY day that you post here. My head hurts a little less now.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This was posted on the original source article's talkback section:


http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008...rek-first.html



I work for ILM.
The reason for the nacelles and the support struts is that the nacelles rotate to alter the direction of the impulse engines which are housed inside the nacelles.
In other words the nacelles vector the thrust from the impulse engines.
This is why they are lumpy at the connecting points as this houses the pivot mechanism which rotates the nacelles.
I hope this explains the nacelles and why the saucer is back,this to balance the thrust through the center of gravity of the ship thrustwise.

"It's like throwing gasoline on a fire."-Alan Rickman, GalaxyQuest

God, what else can they come up with to piss off the purists?

I suspect that this post over at EW is really just our old friend StarTrek11 plowing new and fertile soil.

 

[Tom Servo]

This was posted on the original source article's talkback section:


http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008...rek-first.html



I work for ILM.
The reason for the nacelles and the support struts is that the nacelles rotate to alter the direction of the impulse engines which are housed inside the nacelles.
In other words the nacelles vector the thrust from the impulse engines.
This is why they are lumpy at the connecting points as this houses the pivot mechanism which rotates the nacelles.
I hope this explains the nacelles and why the saucer is back,this to balance the thrust through the center of gravity of the ship thrustwise.

"It's like throwing gasoline on a fire."-Alan Rickman, GalaxyQuest

True, true.

Well, the impulse engine placement has always been wrong, if you believe it is a thrust based drive system. But still, the decision to have vectoring nacelles is odd.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, the impulse engine placement has always been wrong, if you believe it is a thrust based drive system.

There's a lot about the Enterprise that's never made engineering sense anyway.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Well, the impulse engine placement has always been wrong, if you believe it is a thrust based drive system.

How so, precisely?

TGT

 

[scotthm]

I cannot believe how irrational some of the responses to this ship are.

Perhaps you don't understand that the discussion is more about aesthetics than engineering.

---------------