At least with the 1701-D, there was the stated logic that the technology was advanced to the point that such considerations were not always binding -- "technology unbound" or some such was the term Roddenberry and Probert used IIRC.
Miranda Class - Original Design Intention
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I think the actual term was "technology unchained".
Oh, the excuse that if it looks cool we can use it.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Sure, but the right-angled nacelle pylons which originated at ILM still look like crap - at least to me - even if 24th century materials science, SIF technology and propulsion engineering have evolved to the point where Starfleet designers can safely ignore issues of tensile strength and mass ratio optimization for impulse maneuvering. As for the Abramsprise... this is what happens when you let failed automotive stylists redesign MediaSF spacecraft that originally incorporated at least a minimal touch of real-world speculative astronautics.
TGT
The Bridge of the Nebula-Class is out of the way of ANY weapons on the ship. The forward photon launchers on the Sutherland fired the torpedoes clear of the top of the Bridge.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
The question just struck after reading this (half) sentence: How is the saucer section of the Miranda Class supposed to make emergency planetfall if it is fused with the decidedly unaerodynamic "boxy-structure" containing the shuttlebays, photon torpedo launchers, intermix reactor and - one may assume - the other mechanisms that aboard the NCC-1701 Refit were placed inside the secondary hull? In the event that functionality was removed by Starfleet for whatever reason, then the retention of the volume-eating undercut which would otherwise generate aerodynamic lift during atmospheric flight is a rather unforgivable design oversight. Hehe, 27 years later and I am still finding new reasons to despise ST:TWOK. Thanks, Andrew!
TGT
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The question just struck after reading this (half) sentence: How is the saucer section of the Miranda Class supposed to make emergency planetfall if it is fused with the decidedly unaerodynamic "boxy-structure" containing the shuttlebays, photon torpedo launchers, intermix reactor and - one may assume - the other mechanisms that aboard the NCC-1701 Refit were placed inside the secondary hull? In the event that functionality was removed by Starfleet for whatever reason, then the retention of the volume-eating undercut which would otherwise generate aerodynamic lift during atmospheric flight is a rather unforgivable design oversight. Hehe, 27 years later and I am still finding new reasons to despise ST:TWOK. Thanks, Andrew!
TGT
What, you can't have explosive bolts or the sort to separate the superstructure from the saucer? and Ditto for the nacelles? Or are you guys saying this is like the Pompidou plaza, where the structure linking nacelles and torp launcher passes THROUGH the saucer? If the latter is the case, then I reluctantly agree with you as to it being dumb. Otherwise, I still like RELIANT.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
^ I don't see even the faintest separation lines on the miniature, and if that was the intent of Mike Minor - and I am quite certain it wasn't - such a procedure would mean dumping the impulse engines along with the remainder of the aft section thus leaving the Miranda's saucer equipped with only RCS and therefore a vastly lower Delta-V capacity in an emergency.
TGT
TGT
It might explain why they have those huge escape "craft" as seen in DS9.
Perhaps this ship isn't designed for "deep space exploration" as the Heavy Cruisers of the Connie and Enterprise class are, and while they used some of the "off the shelf" structural material for the saucer "section" thus retaining the undercut on that portion of the ship, it doesn't serve a purpose on this design.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
So then why not take full advantage of Matt Jefferies' modular space vehicle design paradigm and fabricate a "clip-on" secondary hull which attaches directly to the rear of an existing saucer? I imagine it would be faintly rectangular-ish with mount points for warp nacelles, navigational deflector, weapons pod, etc. and a central cutout giving the saucer's impulse engines bells unobstructed exposure to the space environment.
TGT
While you guys are busy getting your wank on hating over the Miranda-class, might I add that the saucer still has the four rectangular landing pad hatches as seen on Probert's Constiution refit?
Who's hating? I'm just picking nits.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Are you certain that they are not the airlock hatch covers?
...as seen on Probert's Constiution refit?
Jefferies'/Minor's/Jennings'/Taylor's/Probert's Constitution Refit, actually.
TGT
Jefferies'/Minor's/Jennings'/Taylor's/Probert's Constitution Refit, actually....as seen on Probert's Constiution refit?
TGT
Meh. Accuracy shmaccuracy.
Pretty certain:
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
I, uh, I don't think I've ever seen a less technical post from you.
It's embarrassing enough to justify - with varying degrees of success - some of the more questionable creative decisions made by Gene Roddenberry on TOS (S1&S2), TAS (which I still haven't made my mind up about), The God Thing (from what little I know about it), Phase II (in the form of scripts, treatments, production memos and artwork) and TMP (or such as it could have been under competent studio management), so I am sure as fuck not going to squander what miniscule level of self-respect I have left by cleaning up after Harve "Time Trax" Bennett.
TGT
The question just struck after reading this (half) sentence: How is the saucer section of the Miranda Class supposed to make emergency planetfall if it is fused with the decidedly unaerodynamic "boxy-structure" containing the shuttlebays, photon torpedo launchers, intermix reactor and - one may assume - the other mechanisms that aboard the NCC-1701 Refit were placed inside the secondary hull? In the event that functionality was removed by Starfleet for whatever reason, then the retention of the volume-eating undercut which would otherwise generate aerodynamic lift during atmospheric flight is a rather unforgivable design oversight. Hehe, 27 years later and I am still finding new reasons to despise ST:TWOK. Thanks, Andrew!
TGT
Possible simple answer (not meant to be glib...)
Aren't all ILM movie-era designed trek ships rather sloppy (or creative) in respect to "technical cannon"?
Like the Grisson, Excelsior, BOP, etc...they were designed to look cool
in camera by people working on a film, who may not have known or cared (or were directed by people who didn't know or care) what a "proper" ST universe ship should look like?
Personally I always thought those ships had a rather "star wars" greebled look to them.
Which has made it more difficult (or fun) to "re-explain" the into acceptable
"cannon".
Just an opinion.
Also, why did I get a post error that said:
"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters."
what the hell does that mean?
