Agreed. And sometimes, we'll just have to accept our baby isn't growing up to be as beautiful, clever and intelligent as we thought it would be, compared to the next generation.
I think you've missed the point entirely. Yes, you can deliver massed troops for a military engagement, exactly as you describe. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about researching an entire environment... and entire ecosystem... and possibly an entire civilization. That's what I'm talking about. Do you REALLY think that a job like that can be done by a single ship, in a short period of time? No chance. No matter how technologically advanced they may be, it would take a tremendous amount of time and manpower... and years, or even decades, worth of work.
Do I really think that a ship can deliver a huge number of researchers to a planet in a short period of time? Yes. Do I really think that a ship can support the efforts of those researchers for a sufficient enough time that they can become at least short-term independent? Absolutely yes. At issue here is whether the ORIGINAL ship could have accomplished this as well as the new one given its much smaller size. I explained why I don't think so, because the original would be extremely limited in the extent and thoroughness of its report and in any case doesn't have the capacity to land and support an operation this size; indeed, it doesn't seem to be DESIGNED for that anyway. Invading countries doesn't take a short period of time either, and yet we still send amphibious warfare ships to do that job. Why do you think that is? Could it be that such vessels are extremely useful in the first stages of a landing operation where the expedition still needs to unpack its equipment, establish fortifications, test its gear, get the lay of the land, talk to locals and generally pave the way for the continuation of their mission? Could it be that the exploration of a planet is a kind of "peaceful invasion" where your scientists carry tricorders and drilling rigs instead of rifles and tanks, and similarly require enormous logistical support in order to be performed properly? I think the new Enterprise is big enough to make an interesting platform for this type of mission. It is NOT a mission the original Enterprise would have been up for, nor is it a mission the Kelvin could have performed. I think it may be something an Excelsior or an Ambassador might have pulled, and in the new timeline that functionality was needed much earlier than expected.
Not designing rationally is illogical. But if that is not "kewl" throw reason out? If seems that "leaked" numbers point to
Kind of like the TOS producers doubling the size of the original Enterprise after the model had been built.
The prettiest of babies do that too, as you may find out one day. Except, of course, for the Original Dancing Baby, because he's CG.
We get it, Dennis. You don't like the Original Series. Can ya shut up with the non-sequiter attacks on it now, or do you need a few more threads to get it out of your system?
Well if you treated them with the attitude you've been displaying in your posts these last few months, I can see why they no longer want anything to do with you.
Oh my, that's a long time ago. I just had internet back then; a 14k4 modem that made a horrible noise and a huge telephone bill.
Heh... that IS kinda funny. I wonder if Mandel got fired for starting some kind of "It violates teh canon!" argument with Abrams?
Well here's something else that I found online it's a cutaway of the new Enterprise done by Robert Saint John based on the 725m size. From what he's done the size seems to make sense and it puts the deck count at 33. http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7485&page=9
Nice speculation, but no dice. Many times there is a bit of bowing/scraping/sure-no-prob you go through before you get what you need, but past a certain point, it falls as an ethical obligation to call the other guy on his bullshit if he's not owning up, unless there is a legal issue binding on disclosure. Example: there was a company that did incredible maps of Earth from space, and they subcontracted a lot of planetscape stuff from ILM in the late 90s and early 2000s (GALAXY QUEST was one of them, I don't remember which others.) They got next to no publicity for it, and I don't remember if they even got screen credit. They sent me a bunch of their materials and I was supposed to interview their president for a Space.com article, but then it became a matter of something akin to 'maybe publicity isn't okay on this stuff' and it didn't happen. Well that's fine, it could have been an agreement between ILM and this company (and I don't remember their name or I'd list it here, which is a shame because one of their earthscapes hung on my office wall for 6 years) that they were silent creative partners. Same sort of thing informed ILM articles about their computers for any number of years, that you could mention the SGI systems but you couldn't mention that they used MacIntosh computers (even on shows where they did a huge amount of their work on Macs.) We could kind of skill our way around that, by referring to the Rebel Mac unit as ILM's Rebel unit, or second line of computing systems, and if it wasn't in regard to fullscreen effects -- like TPM monitor burn-ins on the pod racers -- we could even mention Macintosh or Apple by name. There's a level of obfuscation, but it isn't being outright deceitful. Plus softwar companies supporting Mac like Electric Image could take out advertisements in the same issue, stating how they were used to make the Enterprise go to warp or to do the big space battle at the end of ep1, so folks could assemble an overall picture if they looked carefully. But on this, invoking something vaguely akin to 'don't ask/don't tell' with respect to Kerner Optical seems pretty weird. Kerner does all sorts of work on plenty of OTHER shows, some of which are ILM projects. lt is something that could have been addressed up front, like 'Production elected not to go forward with their elements,' and if that were the case, that would be fine. But instead they just continued to prevaricate, and when I called the guy on it, a couple months after the whole process began (and began with an inquiry at Kerner, NOT at ILM), a ways after the article had been cancelled, THAT is when all the venom/backlash hit. EDIT ADDON: DARKWING, pls take the relevant parts of this as a belated and sadly underinformed answer to your query from a page or two back.
It is of no small interest to me that most of your posts concerning STAR TREK, something you have been a part of and know something about, are very short on content, but when it comes to subjects you don't know (like myself), you seem to be more verbose. Does that mean you would still be considered a writer of speculative fiction? In the course of these threads, I've noticed that whenever I qualify my views by bringing up CG work that I find to be excellent, the thread usually dies or the point is ignored. There are probably a hundred of these threads that have me invoking Cinesite's imagery for SOLARIS as an example of CG spaceship work that doesn't give me a moment's pause in accepting the imagery as beautiful and credible. Instead, the focus is always on the part where I say, 'this CG doesn't look as good as a well-done miniature' ... so it seems like it is a very selective and biased OPPOSITION to what I post that is being highlighted here, rather than my apparent antique notion of visual credibility. I'd really like to believe Christopher Nolan and Tom Tykwar are on the right track with respect to bringing back a sense of high quality imagery, with the use of IMAX for parts of TDK and 65mm for parts of THE INTERNATIONAL (the movie QUANTUM OF SOLACE probably wanted to be, which may explain why SONY bumped INT'L back and let QUANTUM come out ahead of it.) People respond to high-quality imagery, and I think it is even more true in an era when stuff is being outpur more and more at a 2K level, which is prehistoric compared to most of the last century of 35mm product. It'd be nice if they can repudiate the sad Trumbull quote from several years back that '2k is enough' given the current audience standards. Likewise, Moore's GALACTICA, a show I admire and love, will probably date badly in terms of visuals because the look -- while appropriate to the show -- is still not as rich as it could have been, and might fall into the 'everything was very monochromatic back then' niche that CSI and many other shows now in vogue will occupy. The first time we saw inside the basestar (beginning of 3rd season?), I thought, 'this is almost like watching the 6MillionDollarMan eps where Lee Majors meets Stephanie Powers and Bigfoot inside an alien spaceship' just because of the low-budget look of the presentation. I'm sure this matter of visual treatment and presentation will become even more heated and divergent after the Cameron picture comes out. He seems to be almost a zealot with respect to eliminating any sense of blur in his work, and 120hz TV sets that seem built to deliver images on these same lines are making imagery look -- to my eye -- a little Ray Harryhausen-like, since blur is a part of the visual process (look up John Huston's quote about panning and blurring vs blinking and cutting to show basic physiological ties to film language) and eliminating it seems like choosing to look with different eyes ... but not better ones.
Thanks for sharing the link - seeing the number of decks in the cutaway makes you realise how huge the new ship is ... I wonder how many bowling alleys this ship has ...