Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C - CLOSED - DO NOT RESTART TOPIC

[Dukhat]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Yeah, this "self-appointed high priest of a religious sect" is henceforth just going to ignore Mr. Comsol's further ranting and raving.

 

[STRenegade]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Time to close this thread. Turned into a thread slinging insults at each other.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Guys, just let him blather on in his original thread. People can go into that thread and get a chuckle or two.

Thanks for the recommendation. And I hope people get a chuckle or two when they read the inevitable aftermath of the Battle of Narendra III (had a few good laughs myself writing it).

Bob

 

[Kemaiku]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Pity none of it matters, but there you go.

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

What, Star Trek? strange thing to post in a Star Trek forum, but IDIC all the way my friend...

 

[Squiggy]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Regarding the discrepancy with the shuttlebay inner/outer doors, I had a magazine from the late 80s (with pullouts) that postulated two separate doors. Makes sense to me.

As to why we don't see any of the external door bulkheads etc? Well, the exterior surface of the enterprise seems to naturally exhibit some weird light-bending features. Why else would we be able to see nothing but stars out of the observation lounge windows? The saucer on which it sits is huge and fairly flat, we ought to see at least something! Probably something to do with that funky 24th Century warp field.

At least the view out of the Nutrek Enterprise bridge window is more believable.

Someone modeled the ship in 3D. You wouldn't see the ship out the windows unless you were right up against the glass and looking down, which the camera never was.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

You definitely should have on the Enterprise-E. Click!

 

[STRenegade]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

You definitely should have on the Enterprise-E. Click!

I'll 1-up you: (picture courtesy of IRML)

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

...the exterior surface of the enterprise seems to naturally exhibit some weird light-bending features. Why else would we be able to see nothing but stars out of the observation lounge windows? The saucer on which it sits is huge and fairly flat, we ought to see at least something! Probably something to do with that funky 24th Century warp field...

Someone modeled the ship in 3D. You wouldn't see the ship out the windows unless you were right up against the glass and looking down, which the camera never was.

Ooh really? I'd love to see some of those images, if you can remember where they are. Images such as this one seem to be crying out for some part of the saucer visible in the middle distance. I'm pretty certain there are other shots where the camera looked down on the windows as well, but TNG is not really my best field. Having said that, the theory in general is one that's been knocking around in my head for while, so I am happy to be proved wrong here.

Great picks of the Enterprise-E guys, thanks!

 

[lewisniven]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

It was me, here's a wireframe from sketchup, you can see that the nacelles are far lower than you'd expect;



you may possibly of been able to see the top of the main shuttlebay depending on camera angle, but for the most part im willing to let that slide.

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Thanks for posting this, it's interesting how little of the saucer is actually visible (presumably due to the slope of the hull). If I read your wireframe correctly the top of the shuttlebay doors comes up about a third of the way up the left window, is that right?

 

[blssdwlf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think that's what Mytran was getting at (note he doesn't mention warp nacelles only the saucer) and that you confirmed. You should be able to see the top of the saucer and/or main shuttlebay unless the camera was zoomed in or positioned low and aimed up to avoid bringing the saucer into the field of view.

 

[Rarewolf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Fact remains that we never saw this Enterprise-C in “our”, the “real” TNG universe.

No, it is NOT a "fact," it is just your opinion, which you've based on 5 pages of a self-indulgent "treatise" with convoluted leaps in logic and a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who disagrees with that "logic." And pasting large photos of the sculptures into your posts ad nauseum doesn't change that.

First, I'd would be helpful if you were actually discussing some of these "convoluted leaps in logic". You did good at the beginning when we discussed the "wrapping" but it seems like that was it. To claim that it is fact that we saw the Enterprise-C in "our", the "real" TNG universe would require that the alternate reality of "Yesterday's Enterprise" is really, just and only an alternate timeline (in "our" universe), but ....



...David Carson, the director of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and its 'sequel' "Redemption, Part II" said “I particularly liked the challenge of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” because we were creating the Enterprise in a different and parallel time line: An Enterprise at war.” (Starlog ST-TNG magazine Vol. 19, Spring 1992).

A "parallel time line" is not "our" time line, it's parallel to ours (which was my suggestion at the end of Part II of the treatise), and as such it is practically indistinguishable from an alternate universe. Looks to me as if David Carson took a good look at the plotholes, and then arrived at the conclusion that the best way to make sense of the events and their aftermath was a parallel time line or universe.

If they had a different design of Enterprise C in the Parallel time line, it stands to reason they'd have had a different Enterprise D too - the technology would follow that different path. But despite being built for very different requirements, externally at least the ship was the same. But there's no reason to suppose history had flowed differently before that, during the Ambassador class' construction.

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

FWIW, I think the Enterprise-D should have changed in external appearance as well - it still looks like the floating hotel it was originally designed to be! Do all those pretty windows really make for an efficient warship?

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

FWIW, I think the Enterprise-D should have changed in external appearance as well - it still looks like the floating hotel it was originally designed to be! Do all those pretty windows really make for an efficient warship?

Actually, there should have been all kinds of differences. In a timeline where there had been 20 years of war with the Klingons and the Feds are losing, not only would the Enterprise-D have looked completely different (and would have been built under completely different circumstances and at a completely different time), but there's no way in hell that Riker, Geordi and Data would still have been serving with Picard. These are top-of-the-line officers, and they all would have had their own commands by that time. And why would Guinan have even been there? The Enterprise-D was supposed to be a warship! What point would a civilian bartender (or any civilian personnel) serve on a military vessel in wartime? The answer of course, is that they're all there and the Enterprise looks the same because it's a fictional show that isn't based in any kind of reality at least as far as this alternate history is concerned. That's why it's so futile to try to make any kind of sense of it just to justify incredibly minor things.

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

That's a fairly long list of "incredibly minor things" you've given! At least Troi was absent from the bridge in this timeline

However, there is at least a precedent set for having our regular group of characters appear in wildly irregular surroundings - the TOS Episode "Mirror Mirror". Logically, there's no way that should appear as is, either!

I guess, sometimes the universe is just massively coincidental like that.

 

[Psion]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

FWIW, I think the Enterprise-D should have changed in external appearance as well - it still looks like the floating hotel it was originally designed to be! Do all those pretty windows really make for an efficient warship?

Actually, there should have been all kinds of differences. In a timeline where there had been 20 years of war with the Klingons and the Feds are losing, not only would the Enterprise-D have looked completely different (and would have been built under completely different circumstances and at a completely different time), but there's no way in hell that Riker, Geordi and Data would still have been serving with Picard. These are top-of-the-line officers, and they all would have had their own commands by that time. And why would Guinan have even been there? The Enterprise-D was supposed to be a warship! What point would a civilian bartender (or any civilian personnel) serve on a military vessel in wartime? The answer of course, is that they're all there and the Enterprise looks the same because it's a fictional show that isn't based in any kind of reality at least as far as this alternate history is concerned. That's why it's so futile to try to make any kind of sense of it just to justify incredibly minor things.

You're absolutely right, but there appeared to be subtle differences in personality in the alternate timeline. Picard and Riker, for example, didn't appear to get along well.

My point being that maybe these officers weren't top-of-the-line and considered deserving of their own commands in a war-time setting.

 

[Squiggy]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Images such as this one seem to be crying out for some part of the saucer visible in the middle distance.

Pretty sure that image or angle never appeared in the series.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

If they had a different design of Enterprise C in the Parallel time line, it stands to reason they'd have had a different Enterprise D too - the technology would follow that different path. But despite being built for very different requirements, externally at least the ship was the same. But there's no reason to suppose history had flowed differently before that, during the Ambassador class' construction.

Thanks for bringing this up. I believe even in the alternate universe of "Yesterday's Enterprise" lagging behind ours, the war effort would speed up the development of military designs at the expense of civilian ones and scientific vessels, so the arrival of the Galaxy Battleship Class could have happened at the same time as ours.

As an analogy we may take a look at our history where until the 1940's we still had plenty of biplanes and within only a few years the first jet planes arrived. War apparently speeds up those developments.

I don't see the point why the design of the Galaxy Battleship Class should be significantly different.

Instead of families residing in the saucer, we have, according to Tasha Yar "Forty two decks. Capable of transporting over six thousand troops."

Since the Battleship Enterprise-D functions as a troop transporter (saucer separation to land and deploy troops?), I see little reason why the design should be significantly different from the Starship Enterprise-D.

I had failed earlier to notice (and mention) that we did have solid evidence that "Redemption II" relocated events featured in "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a parallel or alternate universe. Here is my latest post in the TNG thread that wraps it up: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=9342559#post9342559

So while the "real" look of the Enterprise-C in the alternate "universe at war" is known, the "real" look of the Enterprise-C in our universe is (or more correctly) became conjectural when "Redemption II" aired.

Nevertheless, the conference lounge wall of the Enterprise-D provides the clear answer how the "real" Enterprise-C from our universe, before it was displaced into the future, must have looked like and it happens to be the Probert design.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

That's a fairly long list of "incredibly minor things" you've given!

My "incredibly minor things" statement was not referring to the things I wrote in my post.

However, there is at least a precedent set for having our regular group of characters appear in wildly irregular surroundings - the TOS Episode "Mirror Mirror". Logically, there's no way that should appear as is, either!

Exactly. The only way that "Mirror Mirror" could have logically worked the way it did was if the Federation turned evil almost overnight. The fundamental differences between the two universes (and how long those differences have lasted), would have made the mirror universe almost unrecognizable.

I guess, sometimes the universe is just massively coincidental like that.

Well, no, like I said, it was that way for a reason. Just not any kind of logical, realistic reason.

You're absolutely right, but there appeared to be subtle differences in personality in the alternate timeline. Picard and Riker, for example, didn't appear to get along well.

My point being that maybe these officers weren't top-of-the-line and considered deserving of their own commands in a war-time setting.

Whether they got along or not was irrelevant. Riker was a full commander in Starfleet. There's no way he wouldn't have had his own command by then.