How Was U.S.S. Hood Damaged?-The Ulimate Computer

[The Squire of Gothos]

cooleddie74 said:We see almost no visual damage to the other starships save for the Excalibur drifting and spinning powerless after the Enterprise and M-5 deliver the death blow to the ship

It's always bugged me to see the ship like that, I've no idea what would have killed the crew but kept the ship structurally intact to such a degree.

Perhaps they were running on a minimum crew who were only manning the bridge and engineering, which would be logical places for the M5 to target.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Knock out life support and power, then blow holes in the hull. If those emergency bulkheads don't close, you'll kill most of the crew in pretty short order. And those that you don't kill that way were probably already dead from the initial attacks on the power systems and life support.

 

[Dayton3]

The Squire of Gothos said:

cooleddie74 said:We see almost no visual damage to the other starships save for the Excalibur drifting and spinning powerless after the Enterprise and M-5 deliver the death blow to the ship

It's always bugged me to see the ship like that, I've no idea what would have killed the crew but kept the ship structurally intact to such a degree.

Perhaps they were running on a minimum crew who were only manning the bridge and engineering, which would be logical places for the M5 to target.

I originally thought it was the Potemkin that was damaged without being hit and that was the one I worried about mispelling.

After it is hit for the final time, the Excalibur flares briefly.

I always wondered if that could be some kind of radiation burst brought on by damage to the antimatter reactor and that was what killed the crew.

 

[M'Sharak]

NiteTrek said:

Dayton3 said:
I might've mispelled the ship name.

But in The Ulimate Computer how does the U.S.S. Hood get damaged?

You might have misspelled "Hood?" Man, it doesn't get any easier than that.

Yeah, it's exactly the same as the other Hood -- piece o' cake, really. :thumbsup:

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

A beaker full of death said:

Plecostomus said:
I like to think the Excalibur wasn't really destroyed or it's entire crew killed,

Oh yes they were.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_z3xhiKVI

We have only M5's word that there was "No life". In dialogue, the captain and first officer were confirmed dead, but that's it. We don't know specifically what happened to the rest of the crew. They could have abandoned the ship in lifeboats or shuttlecraft, I suppose.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Radiation from the wrecked warp core could be obscuring the life readings from the three or four survivors huddling in airtight closets, but for all intents and purposes, the crew of the Excalibur bought it.

 

[Michael]

aridas sofia said:
No warp core ever mentioned on Constitution class vessels...

Maybe an intermix chamber. Certainly several M/AM reactors. Definitely an "engineering core" if you count TAS.

But no warp core.



I would have avoided even the possibility of another one of these discussions, but I have this congenital thing that forces me to not let the "warp core in TOS" stuff slide.

Well, no Constitution class vessel ever mentioned on TOS. I just have this congenital thing that forces me to not let the "Constitution class in TOS" stuff slide.

 

[Michael]

@ aridas sofia: Huh, where's your post?! It was there a moment ago!

 

[aridas sofia]

I decided to avoid the inevitable conflict over a thorny issue. And I remembered the "engineering core" from TAS which made me decide to just shut up.

But... there was a "Constitution class" in TOS.

On the phaser schematic seen in "Space Seed". It identified the phaser as being from

PRIMARY PHASER L, R
STAR SHIP MK IX/01
CONSTITUTION CLASS

That's where it all started.

 

[Michael]

^ Was that really readable? Memory Alpha doesn't think so.

[Image from "The Trouble With Tribbles".]

As an aside, I really call it Constitution Class myself. I was just being nitpicky ... So maybe we should "avoid the inevitable conflict over a thorny issue".

 

[aridas sofia]

^ You're right about the whole "Constitution class" business. The fact it was on that diagram only means that that phaser was on the Constitution class, and not anything about what that class looked like. Jefferies thought Enterprise was the first ship of its class, and rationalized his numbering the ship 1701 as being the "seventeenth starship design, first built[/i]".

The presence of the similar-looking Constellation with its lower number makes one wonder why, if it wasn't "Enterprise class" it wouldn't be "Constellation class[/i]".

But in the end, "Constitution class" is the road FJ took, based on that diagram from -- you're right -- "Trouble with Tribbles". That's what has been established by long usage, and it's the way it is.

Of course, if you are JJ Abrams and can change everything about the look and feel of the series, you can change this too.

 

[Michael]

aridas sofia said:
Of course, if you are JJ Abrams and can change everything about the look and feel of the series, you can change this too.

Yes. But I doubt JJ Abrams will make the ship class of the Enterprise a major plot point in Star Trek (2009).

 

[cooleddie74]

I always conjectured that the Eagle(NCC-895?)and Constellation(NCC-1017)got such low registry numbers because they were randomly selected by brass at Starfleet Command and other numbers in the 1700-1799 range had already been preselected for other ships of different classes being built and commissioned.

 

[ancient]

The easiest way to kill the whole crew the fastest would probably be to knock out the inertial dampners and then jar the ship really hard with a hit. Smush the whole crew at once. That's the sort of dirty, cold-hearted thing a computer would do, and it leaves the ship largely intact.

 

[cooleddie74]

Belar said:

aridas sofia said:
Of course, if you are JJ Abrams and can change everything about the look and feel of the series, you can change this too.

Yes. But I doubt JJ Abrams will make the ship class of the Enterprise a major plot point in Star Trek (2009).

So long as he keeps her a Constitution-class ship I could care less about any stupid minutae.

 

[AC84]

cooleddie74 said:
I always conjectured that the Eagle(NCC-895?)and Constellation(NCC-1017)got such low registry numbers because they were randomly selected by brass at Starfleet Command and other numbers in the 1700-1799 range had already been preselected for other ships of different classes being built and commissioned.

I never did like the silly low registry number of the Constellation. It was one of the things I wished the Trek Remastered crew over at CBS Digital had changed. I really wanted to see something like NCC-1705. To this day, I try and rationalize the registry number by assuming that the ship was really old and got refitted....like five times.

 

[cooleddie74]

AC84 said:

cooleddie74 said:
I always conjectured that the Eagle(NCC-895?)and Constellation(NCC-1017)got such low registry numbers because they were randomly selected by brass at Starfleet Command and other numbers in the 1700-1799 range had already been preselected for other ships of different classes being built and commissioned.

I never did like the silly low registry number of the Constellation. It was one of the things I wished the Trek Remastered crew over at CBS Digital had changed. I really wanted to see something like NCC-1705. To this day, I try and rationalize the registry number by assuming that the ship was really old and got refitted....like five times.

Meh. It was 1967. And the limited budget of the f/x crew and having a plastic toy starship model with just four digits to rearrange on the saucer section didn't leave them with many options.

 

[NiteTrek]

Meh. It was 1967. And the limited budget of the f/x crew and having a plastic toy starship model with just four digits to rearrange on the saucer section didn't leave them with many options.

1710 was an option they could've used.

 

[AC84]

Matt Jefferies also wanted them to keep his 1700 registry number for the Constellation. They could have easily made a number 5 decal using the letter "s" in USS for an idea as to how the lower half would have looked. They also could have used 1700, 1707, 1711 and the more obvious suggestion made by NiteTrek, 1710.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think the concern had nothing to do with the decal. It was a concern that Constellation, if it had any number that in any way resembled "1701," would be mistaken for Enterprise. They wanted it close enough to make clear that it had once been every bit as capable as Enterprise, without there being any confusion whether or not Enterprise herself had been severely damaged.