Oberth Class – the missing link between Enterprise and Reliant

[Robert Comsol]

It's definitely an interesting rationalization, but if omitting the "thermocoat" is such a fuel saver, why not apply it to all vessels?
Looks like Mr. Johnson should have mentioned why a thermocoat is still necessary for smaller but apparently not for larger vessels.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

I wasn't aware that ships of a same period have to look alike.

And I wasn't aware that ships of the same time period all have to have aztec patterns. But that's what you're basing your opinion on about the Oberth being older.

 

[Robert Comsol]

There is a difference. All saucer vessels of the late 23rd Century look different, yet they share the same kind of exterior hull (coating) and/or color scheme, indicating some kind of advantage for these ship designs.
Grissom, however, does not feature it.

Bob

 

[Blip]

There is a difference. All saucer vessels of the late 23rd Century look different, yet they share the same kind of exterior hull (coating) and/or color scheme, indicating some kind of advantage for these ship designs.
Grissom, however, does not feature it.

Bob

All saucer vessels of the late 23rd century have a deflector dish, except that the Oberth and Miranda don't.

All saucer vessels of the late 23rd century have black bussards, except the Excelsior and the Oberth don't.

All saucer vessels of the late 23rd century have red-orange impulse drives, except that the Enterprise-A didn't for one movie.

All saucer vessels of the late 23rd century have pearlescent aztec hull patterns, except. wait. Only the 1701 had that (briefly).



Just apply some common sense, chalk it up to a real life production error and be done with it - you'll find life is much easier that way.



FWIW, I personally adhere to the "Oberth was an old design subsequently heavily refit" ala the Constitution. See here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.parker197/titan_model.html

 

[Robert Comsol]

Just apply some common sense, chalk it up to a real life production error and be done with it - you'll find life is much easier that way.

Why should I chalk it up as a production error, when Grissom's hull could be just another helpful element to support the theory that the Oberth Class is a pre-TOS design?

Because of all the observations I posted at the start of this thread, I'll find life much easier thinking of the Oberth Class as an older design. YMMV

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

You can think whatever you want. It's obvious you've already made your mind up about the subject. However, I personally don't find your justifications (i.e. that you thought ILM thought STIII was a prequel; that the Grissom has a different paint job, etc.) to be anywhere close to solid evidence of an older ship. You also seem to want to ignore my justification, such as the design having lots in common with the Excelsior study models (any one of which Nimoy could have chosen to be the new ship, as ILM did not in fact think STIII was a prequel).

 

[Blip]

Why should I chalk it up as a production error, when Grissom's hull could be just another helpful element to support the theory that the Oberth Class is a pre-TOS design?

Because most of your "helpful elements" thus far have been refuted by others throughout this thread.

Regardless of which, the photo on Page 15 actually does show signs of aztec textures on the rear hull. There are also various photos in this very thread that show the lower forward pod, where the panelling can be easily made out thanks to the dark grey paint used.

I suspect that ILM's preference for dulled, washed out paint jobs, so as to make filming easier, may be the root cause here as to why we can't see it consistently, although I'm squeamishly tempted to accept that a "separable saucer" might be coated ala smaller shuttlecraft and atmospheric vessels -- that however puts it squarely post-TOS IMO.

Incidentally:

The hydrodynamic streamline shape of the large pod and the sturdy round caps of the warp nacelles suggest a design that’s rather based on passive than active deflection (i.e. generated shields) of space particles and debris.

Having a hydrodynamic shape isn't going to protect you from space dust at Impulse, any more than it would against super-luminal particles.

 

[Robert Comsol]

It's obvious you've already made your mind up about the subject.

Actually, the whole thing started as a "What if" excercise. When I sat down and took the time to analyze the Oberth Class design in detail all these little hints - that could suggest otherwise (i.e. not a late 23rd Century design) - showed up.

I'm unable to see how Blip could possibly arrive at the conclusion that my observations/alternate suggestions had been "refuted throughout this thread", on the contrary, a few more hints popped up.

So yes, I made up my mind about the subject because I see more hints suggesting an early 23rd Century design than a late one.

However, I personally don't find your justifications ... to be anywhere close to solid evidence of an older ship.

I presented the observable facts and interpreted these. You disagree with the interpretation, that's fine. I also never said there is solid evidence. But since we are talking about evidence: Where is your evidence that it is/has to be a design of the late 23rd Century?!?

Fact is you have none. All you can offer is a widespread and apparently popular assumption that is neither backed by onscreen dialogue or monitor readouts.

You also seem to want to ignore my justification, such as the design having lots in common with the Excelsior study models.

I thought I'd be doing you a favor but since you asked for it, here we go. All the ST III study models show an obvious retro look with various extending fins at the stern of the warp nacelles which moviegoers and model builders usually associate with spaceship designs from the "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Roger" series from the 1930's, add to this the abundance of rectangular elements featured with the Alka-Selsior. The design of "The Rocketeer" and (SW) Clone Trooper helmets are a testament to that design language.

Fortunately Leonard Nimoy realized that this was somehow not going where he wanted to and asked for a design change. IIRC, both the Grissom and the Merchantmen vessel studies remained essentially intact.

So what does the Merchantmen vessel look like or resemble? Something between a horseshoe crab and a trilobite, one a living, one an extinct fossile but both with an undeniable archaic connotation.

If you feel that these ST III prototype models represent credible designs of technolgical evolution paving the way from the Enterprise-A to the Enterprise-D I won't be standing on your way, but I feel these qualify better as design studies for pre-TOS ships, Grissom included (and regardless whether ILM thought ST III would be a prequel or not).

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

Actually, the whole thing started as a "What if" excercise. When I sat down and took the time to analyze the Oberth Class design in detail all these little hints - that could suggest otherwise (i.e. not a late 23rd Century design) - showed up.

I'm unable to see how Blip could possibly arrive at the conclusion that my observations/alternate suggestions had been "refuted throughout this thread", on the contrary, a few more hints popped up.

So yes, I made up my mind about the subject because I see more hints suggesting an early 23rd Century design than a late one.

I have no problem with "What-if" scenarios. I have no problem with you having an opinion of your own. Actually, I don't have a problem at all. I'm just pointing out that I simply don't buy your justifications about the Oberth class being older than it is. I've read and contributed to this thread, and have come to the conclusion that your evidence is lacking.

I presented the observable facts and interpreted these. You disagree with the interpretation, that's fine. I also never said there is solid evidence. But since we are talking about evidence: Where is your evidence that it is/has to be a design of the late 23rd Century?!?

Technically I don't have to give you any evidence whatsoever, as this was your supposition, not mine. And I never said that I had irrefutable proof that the Oberth wasn't older; I simply disagree with your reasoning behind that idea.

Fact is you have none. All you can offer is a widespread and apparently popular assumption that is neither backed by onscreen dialogue or monitor readouts.

And all you can give is your erroneous opinion that STIII was a prequel, and that the paint job is different. And then there's this...

I thought I'd be doing you a favor but since you asked for it, here we go. All the ST III study models show an obvious retro look with various extending fins at the stern of the warp nacelles which moviegoers and model builders usually associate with spaceship designs from the "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Roger" series from the 1930's, add to this the abundance of rectangular elements featured with the Alka-Selsior. The design of "The Rocketeer" and (SW) Clone Trooper helmets are a testament to that design language.

Sorry, but that's complete supposition on your part. Those study models don't look anything like "Retro" to me. Other people in this thread haven't seen that either, but you're conveniently ignoring that because it doesn't jibe with your own personal feelings.

Fortunately Leonard Nimoy realized that this was somehow not going where he wanted to and asked for a design change. IIRC, both the Grissom and the Merchantmen vessel studies remained essentially intact.

So you and Leonard are buddies and he told you this? Or is this just more supposition on your part?

So what does the Merchantmen vessel look like or resemble? Something between a horseshoe crab and a trilobite, one a living, one an extinct fossile but both with an undeniable archaic connotation.

Yet again, supposition. Maybe they just thought the design was cool, and that was the extent of their logic in choosing it. And I'm not sure what the design of the Merchantman has anything to do with the design of the Oberth, since one was a relatively insignificant ship on screen for a few seconds, while the Grissom was a major Starfleet vessel.

 

[Maurice]

If I wanted to bother him, I could ask Bill George to chime in on this supposition about what ILM "thought", but I'm not going to waste his time. But I will relate this, when I asked Bill if the "fins" atop the Excelsior impulse engine had any purpose, he replied "to look cool!" Take that for what you will...I know Robert Comsol will certainly interpret it to mean something.

 

[Blip]

Actually, the whole thing started as a "What if" excercise. When I sat down and took the time to analyze the Oberth Class design in detail all these little hints - that could suggest otherwise (i.e. not a late 23rd Century design) - showed up.

Not at the point of posting it here, it wasn't. You stated at the very beginning of the thread that you had already done your "analyses" and planned to publish them to a website. You further summarise with a proposal based on those flawed assumptions.

So, yes you clearly had made your mind up about the subject. Cleverly wording your responses doesn't change that Bob, so kindly drop the pretense.

I'm unable to see how Blip could possibly arrive at the conclusion that my observations/alternate suggestions had been "refuted throughout this thread"

Of course, you're "unable to see". I sat reading through this entire thread before posting that buddy, and believe you me, it was painful viewing. You've repeatedly ignored any instances of evidence that outright contradict your viewpoint, so your response here doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Right, I think that's quite enough of yet another OCD obsessive fan's warped viewpoint for one month; I'm off to start a thread on the biology of tribbles.

 

[Robert Comsol]

And all you can give is your erroneous opinion that STIII was a prequel, and that the paint job is different.

Anyone who makes the effort to revisit the beginning of this thread has the opportunity to read that neither my later thought ("ST III mistaken to be a prequel?") or the paint job was "all I can give".

Those study models don't look anything like "Retro" to me. Other people in this thread haven't seen that either, but you're conveniently ignoring that because it doesn't jibe with your own personal feelings.

If the study models don't look archaic to you or others but instead like the latest in late 23rd Century ship design, that's fine, but you can't seriously expect everyone else to think like yourself.
Apparently the design elements look archaic to other fans which would explain why some other trekkers, long before I posted my treatise, also think it's a much older ship design.

So you and Leonard are buddies and he told you this? Or is this just more supposition on your part?

Very "mature" and most revealing. Leonard Nimoy saw the prototype's and obviously didn't like him. IIRC he picked the one Bill George had designed, which doesn't surprise me because it looked modern and conveyed a next credible step in starship evolution.

When I asked Bill if the "fins" atop the Excelsior impulse engine had any purpose, he replied "to look cool!" Take that for what you will...I know Robert Comsol will certainly interpret it to mean something.

Thanks for this fact! But since you couldn't help it to just leave it at that, I will return the "favor": I understand that you just can't leave the "fault finding" to others.

I'm unable to see how Blip could possibly arrive at the conclusion that my observations/alternate suggestions had been "refuted throughout this thread"

Of course, you're "unable to see". I sat reading through this entire thread before posting that buddy, and believe you me, it was painful viewing. You've repeatedly ignored any instances of evidence that outright contradict your viewpoint, so your response here doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

It would help if you were actually able to list a few instances of "evidence" I supposedly repeatedly ignored. Regarding the hull coating King Daniel presented an alternate interpretation, which I obviously did not "ignore" but which still entitles me to ask questions, right?

Right, I think that's quite enough of yet another OCD obsessive fan's warped viewpoint for one month; I'm off to start a thread on the biology of tribbles.

Good thing then, that this is not for you but the Trek BBS moderators to decide. If you don't like my threads you are free to participate in others.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

If the study models don't look archaic to you or others but instead like the latest in late 23rd Century ship design, that's fine, but you can't seriously expect everyone else to think like yourself.

Emphasis mine. That's all I have to say about that, really.

Apparently the design elements look archaic to other fans which would explain why some other trekkers, long before I posted my treatise, also think it's a much older ship design.

Who said the study models looked "archaic" other than yourself? I'm pretty sure the only reason that other people in the past have assumed the Grissom might be older is its low registry number. I'd bet that if ILM slapped NCC-2101 on the ship instead of 638, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Leonard Nimoy saw the prototype's and obviously didn't like him. IIRC he picked the one Bill George had designed, which doesn't surprise me because it looked modern and conveyed a next credible step in starship evolution.

Again I have to ask my "mature" question: How do you know this? How do you know that Nimoy didn't pick the George model simply because he liked it the best? Maybe he absolutely loved the other models, but thought George's was the coolest-looking of the bunch? Bob, unless you were there, you simply don't know, do you?