Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Praetor, Mar 23, 2009.
They named a ship after a character in Riker's holo-novel?
You know, a very good idea. I shall run with it. Thank you, and thank you for those crits.
kitsune, where would I be without ya? Thank you once more.
I bet you can guess which one that might be, in fact.
Okay, once more with feeling, before we delve headfirst into the war.
Praetor, I just wanted to let you know that not since the last official Tech Manual (the DS9 edition) have I been so completely engrossed by a Trek-based work. Your melding of canon events with creative gap-filling is immensely enjoyable, and well-thought out. Please continue posting new material as often as you can. It's become something I look forward to reading daily.
Chapter 8, paragraph 1,
Well, with compliments like that you bet I will. Thank you very, very much! And we haven't even got to the illustrations yet.
D'oh. It's so easy to miss the obvious. Thanks.
While we're in a momentary lull, I'd like to solicit opinions on the Melbourne.
Now, as most of you probably know, there were actually in the real world two Melbournes - one was a Nebula class study model that sported two extra smaller warp nacelles where other Nebulas have pods (for a total of four) and was glimpsed briefly as a wreck in 'Best of Both Worlds.' Later, when the Battle of Wolf 359 was restaged for 'Emissary,' they used the Excelsior model, relabelled with the higher registry number originally appropriate of the Nebula class ship - which was quite visible on the Excelsior class model when the ship's saucer was destroyed by the Borg cube.
Now, I've obviously retconned the Excelsior-class Melbourne into a refit prototype for the entire class, explaining the weirdly high number - a notion I'm quite happy with. However, I dislike ignoring the Nebula class ship - particularly after reading on Memory Alpha that is was suggested in a TNG short story that both ships were named Melbourne and were present at Wolf 359 - the Nebula being an under-construction replacement for the Excelsior, launched early to meet the Borg, and that it was the Nebula class ship offered to Riker.
I'm contemplating stating that the Excelsior class Melbourne was a 'kitbash' never intended for long-term use, much like the Enterprise-A was stated to have been retired 'early' for similar reasons. What does everyone think of all of this? (I also have a short appendix dedicated to the Melbourne in the technical section, review of which prompted me to be at this crossroads.)
Got any plans for an Excelsior-style shuttlecraft, based on the time honoured tradition that all shuttles must look like their parent ship?
Regarding shuttles, I've actually concluded that the Excelsior carries one 'executive shuttle' like the SD-103 from TUC, which was an initial outgrowth of the program, and that the shuttles from TFF were actually first developed as part of the Excelsior project, before being applied fleet-wide. I base this on the notion that the original 1701 refit carried the different shuttles designed by Andrew Probert that resembled the Vulcan long range shuttle from TMP, and that the TFF shuttle bears (to me) a striking resemblance in overall shape to Excelsior. (The ship also carries several travel pods, which serve as shuttlepods do on TNG later, as well as workbees.)
I've been toying with class names for the shuttles. Right now, I call the SD-103 shuttle a Type LW-4/LW-4 Class and the TFF type an Type SW-7/SW-7 Class. (I purposefully interchange calling them class/type to suggest a transition between TOS and TNG shuttle naming schemes.) Generally, the 'L' indicates that it's a large shuttle, and the 'W' that it is warp-capable. Similarly, the 'S' indicates that it is a small shuttle. The numbers are meant to indicate they are the 4th and 7th version of each type, respectively. (I call the Travel Pod 'T Class.') I felt these formed a nice bridge between the Class F designation of TOS and the Type-7 etc. designations of TNG onward.
I'm open to other name suggestions, though.
SD-103 doesn't really look warp capable, unless it has nacelles that could be bolted on the side, or a drive section like the TMP Vulcan shuttle.
There were also those Spacedock travelpods, which were larger and wider than the TMP versions.
It actually has two TNG-style nacelles tucked inside on the bottom:
Unconventional, I realize, and we must assume of course that they are not 'really' TNG-style nacelles, but I think it works. Plus, the design really strongly suggests a lineage with the original Galileo-7 to me.
Do you mean the travel pod set from TVH was enlarged, or do you mean the orbital shuttle? I had considered including it, but I've seen it labeled a tug shuttle elsewhere, and that seems to be a good fit for its size/configuration so I thought I'd stay away from it. It doesn't really seem to me like it would be very useful as a full shuttlecraft.
Whoah, I had no idea about the nacelles. Learn something new everyday. By the way, thanks for posting the extra information about the Enterprise-B variant earlier, I like the way you described it.
Thanks, The Beef. There are more such appendices but they're at the end of the tech part.
launched -> constructed
the Excelsior prototype -> the new Excelsior prototype
Since the USS Excelsior will always be the Excelsior prototype.
but herself would -> but would herself
Excelsior -> USS Excelsior or Excelsior herself
your verb tenses are inconsistent (were vs. are)
method of what?
I suggest: The success of the Galaxy class clearly demonstrated the efficacy of building starships that could serve the dual purposes of exploration and defense...
new more -> new, more
abilities -> capabilities
misused doesn't seem like the most appropriate word here.
Okay, Chapter 9 again:
And does anyone have an opinion on my Melbourne dilemma yet?
Even just a yay/nay would be helpful. I just can't decide.
I have no expertise in crafting a technical manual, but I would like to add some comments in relation to any drawings of the exterior that may be included.
I have yet to see a drawing of the exterior that does not have some major error in detailing. The biggest thing I see that no-one gets right are the primary hull deflector grid lines. The radial lines determine the placement of the phasers and the thrusters. I have seen various attemps to come close, but the photo of the top of the model clearly shows the lines and in measuring them, the upper surface is divided into 22 segments. That means for each quarter there are 5 1/2 division. It works out to 16.36 degrees between each, starting at the bow. The port and starbord thrusters are at 98.18 degrees from the bow. The phasers are space at 49.09 degrees. Now the bottom of the saucer is divided in a more normal division. The phasers are space at 30 degrees. This means the upper and lower phasers are not lined up. Also, the forward and rear thrusters are 32.72 degrees from the centerline. I have many pictures that clearly show all this information.
Also, there were two physical models. The second model does not have the same space as the first. I only go by the original model.
Thank you for those degree measurements! Those will prove very helpful!
(And I was planning on ignoring the Jein model for all intents and purposes, too.)
There seems to be some redundancy in this passage; "upgrading tactical abilities" is mentioned no less than three times.
Tactical upgrades mentioned yet again...
How about misappropriated for use in...? (put to a wrong use)
Or exploited for use in
simpler -> more cost-effective or prudent, perhaps?
more well -> better
Sulu's death -> his death, no need to mention Sulu's name twice
I find it very wrong to give a new starship the name of a ship still in service, even during the construction phase. It strikes me as being disrespectful somehow. If the Excelsior-class Melbourne had been mothballed prior to the Nebula-class Melbourne's construction, and was later pressed into service once more, that would be different, but there's no evidence that the Excelsior Melbourne was recently re-activated.
kitsune, my infinite thanks once again.
A very good point. Perhaps I shall avoid mentioning the Nebula-class ship altogether.
Okay, once more:
add a d to the end of that to make it past-tense.
133-year-old (since it's effectively a compound adjective)
Re: The Melbourne dilemma.
It's a shame they didn't just give the Excelsior in Emissary a different name, rather than confusing matters, as I don't think the Melbourne was even mentioned in that episode. It was just a nod to the fans who might have remembered the ship from BoBW.
Your explanation for the high-numbered Excelsior is fine, so it's the Nebula that poses the problem. Given we've never seen another one with those stubby auxiliary nacelles (apart from the ship on Sisko's desk), I'd assume they were a failure. What if the Nebula-Melbourne was a very early prototype, which was initially intended to be the next USS Melbourne. She was a disaster, left in dock, and her name and number reassigned to this newly refitted (or constructed) Excelsior class ship: a fine, state-of-the-art ship suitable for Riker. Nebula-Melbourne stays in dock, untouched and unloved, until the Borg invasion. She's rushed out, with a skeleton crew, and quickly sliced apart. Her replacement didn't do any better, and William T. Riker was left with a very guilty, if slightly smug, sense of schadenfreude.
If you want to explain Sisko's model, perhaps he was on the team that designed the Nebula in the first place, back in the 2350s? Later he left to join the Saratoga, eventually becoming first officer, only to return to Utopia Planitia to build the Defiant after Wolf 359.
Edited to fix.
This, I like. So Sisko's model would only have been a concept from before the name was transferred to the Excelsior prototype, and presumably it had a different registry number. We might pretend the actual Nebula-class ship we saw had a differently labeled (or unlabeled) hull in 'reality' when it was destroyed by the Borg...
Separate names with a comma.