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

[Finnegan]

I love the posts that start with a paragraph about how the poster is a "lifelong fan" who "saw Where No Man Has Gone Before when I was a child during the Napoleonic Wars" etcetera, as if it lends gravitas to their "take" on Trek 11. Like anyone gives a flying fuck. Well done, you had a tv in your house. Your medal's in the post.

We're all fans here, each one of us is entitled to like or loath the JJprise for whatever reason.

Who here ever said anything different? And as one of the "lifelong fans" you may be referring to, who gives a flying fuck what YOU give a flying fuck about? Not me, that's for sure. I don't want a medal for having a tv in my house. You sound both jaded and cranky--what's the matter? Did that mean old Mrs. Johnson insist on having ALL her groceries double-bagged down at the supermarket today? Why not yell upstairs to your Mom to bring you a nice hot Ovaltine? That'll cheer you up. It's getting late now, you better get those jammies on and march off to bed, you little scamp. Douchebag.

 

[archeryguy1701]

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.

I will bet you dollars to donuts that this "ILM guy" is one of our people... probably one of the regulars from the Blue Nacelles thread... I almost crapped myself when I read that though!

 

[M'Sharak]

Cool! I didn't mean to get anything stirred by reposting that. In the event it was accurate or something I just wanted to relay it. Apologies if it's inaccurate after all!

No, you're cool and this was the right place for it. I was pleased to see it handled as promptly and neatly as it was, too.

I love the posts that start with a paragraph about how the poster is a "lifelong fan" who "saw Where No Man Has Gone Before when I was a child during the Napoleonic Wars" etcetera, as if it lends gravitas to their "take" on Trek 11. Like anyone gives a flying fuck. Well done, you had a tv in your house. Your medal's in the post.

We're all fans here, each one of us is entitled to like or loath the JJprise for whatever reason.

Who here ever said anything different? And as one of the "lifelong fans" you may be referring to, who gives a flying fuck what YOU give a flying fuck about? Not me, that's for sure. I don't want a medal for having a tv in my house.

I would have preferred that this little spat be left lie way back there. However, since you saw fit to bring it up one more time, you were still mostly okay up to here.

However, here is where you started to lose it...

You sound both jaded and cranky--what's the matter? Did that mean old Mrs. Johnson insist on having ALL her groceries double-bagged down at the supermarket today? Why not yell upstairs to your Mom to bring you a nice hot Ovaltine? That'll cheer you up. It's getting late now, you better get those jammies on and march off to bed, you little scamp.

...and this...

Douchebag.

...is what earns you a warning for flaming. You really should have quit sooner.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Just one quick comment... I know you get this, but it needs clarification for the non-techy-types. You're oversimplifying.

Guilty as charged.

You're not really talking about the masses being equal, you're talking about the moments of inertia being equal. This has to do with the total mass, and the distribution of that mass relative to the line-of-action of the thrust system.

True, but as the NCC-1701 is (presumably) a rigid space vehicle design I felt that writing a treatise on inertial body-axis frames with respect to centers of mass and disturbance torques would have slightly exceeded the intended subject of this thread.

TGT

 

[Ovation]

I love the posts that start with a paragraph about how the poster is a "lifelong fan" who "saw Where No Man Has Gone Before when I was a child during the Napoleonic Wars" etcetera, as if it lends gravitas to their "take" on Trek 11. Like anyone gives a flying fuck. Well done, you had a tv in your house. Your medal's in the post.

We're all fans here, each one of us is entitled to like or loath the JJprise for whatever reason.

Who here ever said anything different? And as one of the "lifelong fans" you may be referring to, who gives a flying fuck what YOU give a flying fuck about? Not me, that's for sure. I don't want a medal for having a tv in my house. You sound both jaded and cranky--what's the matter? Did that mean old Mrs. Johnson insist on having ALL her groceries double-bagged down at the supermarket today? Why not yell upstairs to your Mom to bring you a nice hot Ovaltine? That'll cheer you up. It's getting late now, you better get those jammies on and march off to bed, you little scamp. Douchebag.

This will likely earn you a rebuke (as a newbie around here, you should know that such a tone, toward a specific poster, is not generally tolerated--though there is one forum (The Neutral Zone--you need to ask to join it) where this kind of comment would go without fear of reprimand). Just FYI.

Also, IMO, his post was directed far more at "purists" (the same group you singled out in an early post for not being open-minded about the new movie) than at you. Again, just a heads up.


Oops, too late.

 

[Sector 7]

Sorry, but this is HORSESHIT. I've seen the impulse engines in one of the clips earlier this week. They're in their usual place, at the back of the saucer.

What I'm still concerned about, nacelle-wise, it that I saw some production art that showed the fins at the back of the nacelles split in sections, with blue energy coming out. Maybe this was another ship, or maybe it's an idea that wasn't used. If it is in the film, I can't wait to see the reaction to that

Well, that is ONE small blaze put out. Now about that 80,000 acre forest fire...?
As usual, I appreciate the dose of sanity you inject here.

 

[Finnegan]

Cool! I didn't mean to get anything stirred by reposting that. In the event it was accurate or something I just wanted to relay it. Apologies if it's inaccurate after all!

No, you're cool and this was the right place for it. I was pleased to see it handled as promptly and neatly as it was, too.

Who here ever said anything different? And as one of the "lifelong fans" you may be referring to, who gives a flying fuck what YOU give a flying fuck about? Not me, that's for sure. I don't want a medal for having a tv in my house.

I would have preferred that this little spat be left lie way back there. However, since you saw fit to bring it up one more time, you were still mostly okay up to here.

However, here is where you started to lose it...

You sound both jaded and cranky--what's the matter? Did that mean old Mrs. Johnson insist on having ALL her groceries double-bagged down at the supermarket today? Why not yell upstairs to your Mom to bring you a nice hot Ovaltine? That'll cheer you up. It's getting late now, you better get those jammies on and march off to bed, you little scamp.

...and this...

Douchebag.

...is what earns you a warning for flaming. You really should have quit sooner.

Thanks for the heads up and the rationale behind the warning. Some of the posters here can be so obnoxious and dismissive of others and insulting in such a casual, offhand manner....no matter--I can easily respond and take them to task for it without getting personal.
And it was totally worth it, by the way.
Ta ta for now!

 

[Qonos]

I certainly doubt that such starship would have vectoring nacelles, even voyagers moving nacelles made no sense... We can change the shape of space but we must move physically our nacelles to get it to work... :-S

Actually they were minimizing the damage the ship caused as it punched a whole through subspace, which they found out was happening when ships went to warp in a TNG episode.

 

[Sector 7]

I certainly doubt that such starship would have vectoring nacelles, even voyagers moving nacelles made no sense... We can change the shape of space but we must move physically our nacelles to get it to work... :-S

Actually they were minimizing the damage the ship caused as it punched a whole through subspace, which they found out was happening when ships went to warp in a TNG episode.

...and I just thought it looked kool. I didn't know there was a real reason for it.

 

[Tim]

I like the primary hull, but the rest is icky. Between this and the bridge images I've seen, I think the production designers should have hired some Trek alumni. Things just look "off" to me, and that takes me out of the moment.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that the movie is at least decent regardless.

 

[Qonos]

I like the primary hull, but the rest is icky. Between this and the bridge images I've seen, I think the production designers should have hired some Trek alumni. Things just look "off" to me, and that takes me out of the moment.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that the movie is at least decent regardless.

They did hire some trk alumni... his last name is Eaves...

 

[JuanBolio]

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

How so, precisely?

TGT

Center of gravity. If impulse is pure reaction drive, the exhaust being off-axis would cause the ship to tumble when it accelerates.

Ignoring the neck and pylons for a moment, if the mass of the warp nacelles (above the impulse nozzles) equals that of the secondary hull (below the impulse nozzles) then the impulse engines would be generating a thrust vector through the ship's center of mass as it must for optimum stability.

But we've seem impulse exhausts in various places on other ships. They'll stick 'em almost anywhere so long as they're facing aft.

 

[Corran Horn]

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

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

Which makes even *less* sense since aesthetics are about a millions times more subjective than engineering.

However, the subjectivity would explain the irrationality of the responses.

By which I meant, how pointless it is that some seem to think their 'ruling' is law.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Center of gravity.

The correct term is actually "center of mass", or the point at which all the mass of a body may be regarded as being concentrated, insofar as motion of translation is concerned. On the other hand, "center of gravity" generally refers to the point of an extended body in a gravitational field through which the result force of gravity acts, although when used in the context of aerodynamics it is the reference point at which static mechanical balance of the configuration occurs (i.e., lift, drag, moments and other forces are considered to operate on this point or about it).

If impulse is pure reaction drive, the exhaust being off-axis would cause the ship to tumble when it accelerates.

I honestly had no idea. Perhaps you would care to demonstrate a numerical example? Feel free to use your choice of Euler angles (although watch out for those nasty singularities), direction-cosine matrices or quaternions to solve the necessary kinematic equations that govern rigid space vehicle attitude dynamics under constant thrust. Oh, if you're taking into account mass changes due to fuel expenditure you'd probably want to use the Ackeret equation as opposed to Tsiolkovsky's original if your example spacecraft is capable of accelerating to relativistic velocities.

But we've seem impulse exhausts in various places on other ships. They'll stick 'em almost anywhere so long as they're facing aft.

That's not my concern. I was speculating only upon the internal mass distribution of the original NCC-1701 and by extension her Refit.

TGT

 

[shipfisher]

Just read parts of a review of the German media event for the film. There's reference to the large "industrial" location used for engineering and a huge shuttlebay full of shuttles. Looking at how narrow the part of the ship traditionally housing the shuttlebay looks in the new 1701 pic, this thing must be huge compared to the scale assumed for the original.

I'm also getting the impression that the curves and sight lines in the secondary hull and nacelles will flow together much better in a full profile view. I'll give Mr. Church the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[ST-One]

I don't object to ST-One's comment, because I know where he's coming from. He's not a fan of TOS... he's a huge fan, however, of TMP, and sees that as "the yardstick." (Am I misinterpreting you, ST-One?)

You are dead wrong.

 

[Jim Steele]

I love the posts that start with a paragraph about how the poster is a "lifelong fan" who "saw Where No Man Has Gone Before when I was a child during the Napoleonic Wars" etcetera, as if it lends gravitas to their "take" on Trek 11. Like anyone gives a flying fuck. Well done, you had a tv in your house. Your medal's in the post.

We're all fans here, each one of us is entitled to like or loath the JJprise for whatever reason.

Who here ever said anything different? And as one of the "lifelong fans" you may be referring to, who gives a flying fuck what YOU give a flying fuck about? Not me, that's for sure. I don't want a medal for having a tv in my house. You sound both jaded and cranky--what's the matter? Did that mean old Mrs. Johnson insist on having ALL her groceries double-bagged down at the supermarket today? Why not yell upstairs to your Mom to bring you a nice hot Ovaltine? That'll cheer you up. It's getting late now, you better get those jammies on and march off to bed, you little scamp. Douchebag.

 

[BigC]

My childhood just came back...And shot it's self in the head.

 

[Ghostface1701]

Just read parts of a review of the German media event for the film. There's reference to the large "industrial" location used for engineering and a huge shuttlebay full of shuttles. Looking at how narrow the part of the ship traditionally housing the shuttlebay looks in the new 1701 pic, this thing must be huge compared to the scale assumed for the original

OK, that's another thing that bothers me. Apparently, they filmed at a brewery for the engineering scenes, which would explain why it just looked like a bunch of pipes and boilers rather than an advanced 23rd century engine room. It really looked out of place, and I hope there's more to it than that, because the ship deserves a cool engineering set.

As for the shuttlebay, the art I saw reminded me very much of the TMP version. Maybe a little wider, longer, and with a second floor...I think. Damn, I wish I had a photographic memory

 

[Venardhi]

Still looks wrong to me. When half the people here are all giving the same criticism of "Why is the neck attached so far back?" it isn't just fanboy bitchery.

And for all of you saying the TOS Enterprise looks out of sorts between the NX and the Refit? I hereby shun thee. SHUN! SHUUUUUNNNNN!