NCC = Not Constitution Class?

[F. King Daniel]

Perhaps Mike Okuda or someone else on the TNG staff could pop in and give their side of the story? GR approved FJ's stuff when it was drawn/written - whatever their status now, they were at one time considered as official as the later TNG manuals became. Was there a specific dictate to ignore FJ's manual and blueprints or not, and if so who did it come from?

 

[blssdwlf]

Didn't the original Mudd's Women ship have no nacelles? And the Tholians and First Federation? And didn't the XCV ship on the TMP rec deck wall only have a single effective ring (yeah, it's 2 rings back to back, not side to side.) Wouldn't Roddenberry had to have approved those non-two nacelle side by side designs?

 

[Robert Comsol]

• Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship
• Tholian ship - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion but could accomodate warp coils in two of its wings
• First Federation vessel Fesarius - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion
• XCV-330 Enterprise ringship - form of propulsion unknown and conjectural (interplanetary or interstellar vessel?)

Even when I just look at Matt Jefferies' early TOS Enterprise designs - especially the TOS Enterprise "ringship" - it really looks like a warp engine pair was the one thing "written in stone" by Gene Roddenberry from Day One on and long before FJ showed up with his one-engined designs.

Bob

 

[Unicron]

I agree with Robert that I haven't seen a lot of evidence for the "anti-FJ" conspiracy. I've gotten the impression that insofar as needing paired nacelles, which is the only true "Roddenberry Rule" that I know of, there exists evidence that Gene had that preference outside of FJ's work and believed that single or odd arrangements wouldn't work, because of the codependency. It's certainly logical to assume that paired nacelles are more efficient in some ways than odd-numbered arrangements.

There's also an interview with FJ himself (which I'd have to dig up) probably around the movie era, and he stated that he didn't feel any specific bias from Gene or Paramount regarding his work, and also that he would have happily changed anything had the request been made. Some of his comments and opinions don't jive with those expressed by his daughter in the later interview, but I'm sure they were both honest and saw different aspects.

 

[blssdwlf]

• Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship

We saw the stern and stern quarter view. Its enough to rule out any obvious nacelles on it.

• Tholian ship - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion but could accomodate warp coils in two of its wings
• First Federation vessel Fesarius - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion

Although we do see in these early sketches a 3-part configuration which would suggest that MJ looked at more than 2 nacelles or parts but didn't explore 1 nacelle too much. Didn't some of his interviews mention that his aircraft background influenced him to design for at least 2 engines to give it redundancy?

• XCV-330 Enterprise ringship - form of propulsion unknown and conjectural (interplanetary or interstellar vessel?)

Even when I just look at Matt Jefferies' early TOS Enterprise designs - especially the TOS Enterprise "ringship" - it really looks like a warp engine pair was the one thing "written in stone" by Gene Roddenberry from Day One on and long before FJ showed up with his one-engined designs.

The ringship also featured in MJ's sketches as well with the rings back to back which is more inline with a single engine (but two rings for redundancy?) approach.

The existence of ships that do not have two side-by-side nacelles in TOS would point to Roddenberry forming his rule after the series, IMHO.

 

[Mytran]

The issue of redundancy is a strong candidate for having more than one nacelle - why take the risk of being stranded utterly compared to limping home on half power?

 

[Albertese]

• Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship

We saw the stern and stern quarter view. Its enough to rule out any obvious nacelles on it.

What? Seems to me that the image of Mudd's ship is the only image we ever see of the ship. And we never get any other angle on it. And given the shape of this angle on it, I would assume it's the port (maybe starboard?) side of a ship that might be a large cousin to a shuttlecraft. Not unlike the FASA Tavares-class freighter. That ship has twin nacelles, so I can't agree that the image we see of Mudd's ship rules out it's having nacelles.

(Though Mudd's ship from STID is another ball game... Honestly I forgot what that looked like as I only ever saw the movie once in the theater and that was a while ago now...)

The issue of redundancy is a strong candidate for having more than one nacelle - why take the risk of being stranded utterly compared to limping home on half power?

This is a reasonable argument, though it suggests that single nacelles are perfectly capable of being used by themselves. If indeed they are required to be paired, then the pair should be considered a single operational unit and you would need a ship with four nacelles (Constellation-class) to get a redundant design...

--Alex

 

[F. King Daniel]

I believe Mudd's ship from Into Darkness is an extrapolation from the original shape seen in "Mudd's Woman", minus the golden glow (a raised shield?):

(the ID ship is upside down)

 

[Robert Comsol]

Looks like I'm a minority here, but I could swear that the original VFX footage clearly suggested we were looking at the stern of Mudd's ship. That would apparently make it asymetric (i.e. higher components on the port side), but that's exactly what another freighter from another famous franchise is.

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

• Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship

We saw the stern and stern quarter view. Its enough to rule out any obvious nacelles on it.

What? Seems to me that the image of Mudd's ship is the only image we ever see of the ship. And we never get any other angle on it. And given the shape of this angle on it, I would assume it's the port (maybe starboard?) side of a ship that might be a large cousin to a shuttlecraft. Not unlike the FASA Tavares-class freighter. That ship has twin nacelles, so I can't agree that the image we see of Mudd's ship rules out it's having nacelles.

Based on that view of Mudd's ship on the view screen it looks like the stern/port stern quarter view of a disk-like object with a wedge rear-end. There are no nacelles on the sides in a 2-nacelle configuration. The only obscured view is the starboard and bow and unless they were short and stubby and placed directly in front or on the starboard of the ship in a very narrow configuration I'm maintaining that the ship could does not have any nacelles

 

[Robert Comsol]

Maybe the nacelles are covered by exterior panelling, maybe the nacelles sit on top but are close to the body like a Klingon Bird of Prey, maybe it's a ship of an alien design Harry Mudd somehow acquired. Any conclusions will be conjectural.

OTOH, all the warp capable TOS ships we saw close enough to make a determination (including the Romulan BoPs in "The Deadly Years") had a pair of warp nacelles.

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

Maybe the nacelles are covered by exterior panelling, maybe the nacelles sit on top but are close to the body like a Klingon Bird of Prey, maybe it's a ship of an alien design Harry Mudd somehow acquired. Any conclusions will be conjectural.

OTOH, all the warp capable TOS ships we saw close enough to make a determination (including the Romulan BoPs in "The Deadly Years") had a pair of warp nacelles.

With the exception of the Orion ship from "Journey to Babel" that we couldn't see clearly, all the FTL-capable ships we saw in TOS had a variety of setups. Some had a pair of warp nacelles like the Enterprise, the Aurora and the Klingon warship. The Tholians, Mudd's ship, the "Spock's Brains" ship, and Fesarius did not. There wasn't anything in TOS to preclude the existence of a single nacelle warp or FTL ship, IMHO.

 

[Manticore]

According to the late Franz Joseph in his USS Enterprise blueprints, it was "Naval Construction Contract". Later one of the unlicenced fan technical books (Ships of the Star Fleet?) used the term "Navigational Contact Code" which has a nice ring to it.

NX was assumed to be experimental until Star Trek: Enterprise established it originally as a starship class designation, like DY or J-class. I think now it just means "ships to cool for C's"

I never had any trouble believing that Earth Starfleet could use a different class/registry system than the Federation Starfleet that it eventually grew into.

 

[Robert Comsol]

The Tholians, Mudd's ship, the "Spock's Brains" ship, and Fesarius did not. There wasn't anything in TOS to preclude the existence of a single nacelle warp or FTL ship, IMHO.

Again, three of these are definitely of alien design which is also possible for Mudd's ship. And the vessel in "Spock's Brain" had some form of advanced propulsion that got Scotty excited.

We might as well take another look as TAS and will also see that all FTL Federation vessels have paired warp engines.

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

Again, three of these are definitely of alien design which is also possible for Mudd's ship. And the vessel in "Spock's Brain" had some form of advanced propulsion that got Scotty excited.

We might as well take another look as TAS and will also see that all FTL Federation vessels have paired warp engines.

If other races had FTL ships that didn't require paired, side-by-side engines why must we assume that you must have a pair of warp engines for FTL? Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?

Because there is no onscreen precedent (prior to nuTrek) suggesting otherwise?

Again, what or whom are we talking about? A man who wasn't a Star Trek fan by his own admission and was not anywhere involved with the actual production of Star Trek, yet and despite what had been suggested in TOS and TAS (i.e. Federation FTL ships have paired warp engines) somehow felt the need to "re-invent the wheel". If I were to start messing around in somebody else's "sandbox" I'd ask for the playing rules first.

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?

Because there is no onscreen precedent (prior to nuTrek) suggesting otherwise?

Mudd's ship was regulated by Federation law so we do have precedence that other ships in the Federation could have non-paired warp engines. And since you mentioned nuTrek (and thus expanding the places we can look), you could look at ENT and the Vulcan Ring ships or the Vulcan freighters from TNG's "Unification" with their non-paired warp engines.

Again, what or whom are we talking about? A man who wasn't a Star Trek fan by his own admission and was not anywhere involved with the actual production of Star Trek, yet and despite what had been suggested in TOS and TAS (i.e. Federation FTL ships have paired warp engines) somehow felt the need to "re-invent the wheel". If I were to start messing around in somebody else's "sandbox" I'd ask for the playing rules first.

I'm just talking about the evidence onscreen we have and being accurate about it. I don't particularly care whether FJ was right or not in this case but it just shows that it's a poor case if evidence is ignored to prove a point, IMHO.

 

[QuinnTV]

Why also assume that all the races in the Federation must use warp engines (that must be paired)?

Because there is no onscreen precedent (prior to nuTrek) suggesting otherwise?

What about the Merchantman freighter?

 

[trevanian]

What makes you think it had FTL capability?

 

[QuinnTV]

That scene in STIII always struck me as being out in deep space, on the far reaches of normal traffic. Meeting the Klingons with such sensitive information, I figure impulse alone wouldn't get you out to where you can have some interstellar privacy.