Maybe, but I'm curious if. What did Jefferies think on the matter when he drew it? And writers in the room talk. FX artists and producers. I wonder what they did discuss as the series went along. How many parallel universes of might have beens we could come up with from their discussions, as we can from bits of dialogue, story, images, and literature from the franchise over the decades. I'm inclined to treat that as I do lithium crystals -- an early or creative incongruity. You could argue that firing multiple phasers simultaneously might be fruitless if they're all drawing from the same power source, but torpedoes are another matter, unless you imagine they're armed at the time of need from the same power source. I think there's plenty of reason to think that Kirks ship didn't have at least six forward torpedo tubes. The Refit and everything that came after suggest a different convention. That ENT retconned TOS a few years after the intro of the Scimitar doesn't fly. Sure there could be fifty hidden phaser banks, torpedo tubes, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters that we just never saw for various reasons, but, meh, I don't buy it. Nah, ENT gave us phase pistols (phasing tech) and focused only on them. It left it open for the diehards to conjecture that lower-tech lasers ("They're not lower tech!") were then introduced at whatever point in the timeline that the show itself (Star Trek) wasn't going to present, but the point of ENT to keep the Trek casual fans were comfortable with as they took another trip to the well. DSC is a parallel universe, or the Prime Universe is ever-changing to meet our needs. It's a TV show, so either work for me.
Quite so. But in practice, this probably doesn't matter. People agreed the ship should have rayguns. Other people shot footage of her firing rayguns. The footage existed, and was used, and that was that. Most of the show exists outside what is shown, though. And I don't mean backstage. I mean the fictional universe is built out of the random comments and the bits left unsaid. Why, when it's only datapoint to the issue? Why dismiss the only thing we have? Well, there's no doubt they are armed at the time of need: every firing is preceded by an arming or other such preparation in dialogue. If arming a torp takes place in a tube (or launcher, or whatever you call a single unit of torpedo armament), then having six ready to fire calls for six tubes (or whatever). If there's a nice rotary magazine for fifty armed torps behind your single tube, less so. But in the specific case of TOS, there's no advantage to thinking Kirk had just a single tube. We already must accept he had many phasers, and that he always fired from a single spot (which was explicitly stated to feature four banks in "Paradise Syndrome", even). The same default assumption could be made about his torpedoes, then. The bit I don't find attractive is complicating things while simultaneously ignoring dialogue or visuals or both. Why not accept it all at the same time? As far as I can see, it leads to no problems whatsoever. The people who actually make Trek seem to agree. You disparage them for "retconning". They see themselves only writing in one and the same fictional universe where everything fits. With their added bits, it fits better. Why discard bits of TOS dialogue for the sole purpose of arguing the new bits don't fit? (Indeed, it makes no sense to use ST:TMP as part of this argument. If any, that one is a parallel universe, a piece of fiction sharing some of the characters or at least their names and actors with TOS. TMP wanted to break with Star Trek, thinking this might be a good thing. The later spinoffs no longer do.) Timo Saloniemi
I don't see any reason to think the TOS-E didn't have six torpedo tubes. If anything it's a sign of an older technology, which makes the refit, with her completely new system, more of a breakthrough. The Enterprise-D only had two tubes (plus the never seen nor used saucer tube) but no one would suggest she is less well-armed than Kirk's ship.
FWIW, we see a linear trend here, literally: in ENT, the supposedly older Intrepid has just two bow tubes, while the Enterprise there has two pairs of them (plus perhaps special photon torpedo tubes between each pair). And DSC now does its damnedest to suggest that Kirk's Enterprise is ancient technology in the 2250s already, sporting an engine shape half a century out of vogue and all. Perhaps Starfleet went for eight tubes next, and then ten? Certainly the DSC hero ship seems to spit torpedoes out of a dozen different places! Timo Saloniemi
There’s plenty of reason to discount the one random lime of dialogue that was never followed up on again. The main one from TOS series itself is the fact that in all the scrapes they got into, they never fired the 6 forward, 32 port, 32 starboard, and 4 aft torpedoes, never mind any one of the 82 anti-spacecraft phaserguns, or the space-plank. They had lots of reasons to, they just never did. And EVERYTHING that came after from the Refit to the D and beyond back that up. It wasn’t until ENT came along, after NEM and the new Crotch-Replacement Era came along, that they went back forty years to revive the abandoned ideas. ENT, like DSC, to me is a parallel universe. I think the different series in the franchise are best appreciated that way — again, different series or episodes in, even. It explains all the different Bonaventures, why “Unnatural Selection” is kosher post DS9’s genetic-engineering ban, why the NX, why Ezri came to DS9 when we know joined Trill aren’t supposed to relive their previous lives, etc, etc, etc, etc. I’m always pulled out of the narrative when asked to do cartwheels to make things fit that aren’t intended to, when Byzantine or unlikely rationalizations are presented as though we don’t already know the reasons for countless and unending changes to Trek. So I prefer a more fluid appreciation of the universe/s.
To the contrary, we can see they never fired the port, starboard, midships or aft phasers, let alone in combinations, even though they were constantly being referenced - so a clear pattern is established about this being the wrong thing to do when you are a professional Starfleet helmsman pressing firing buttons. Each and every show keeps up that good thing: firing from two embankments at the same time is unprofessional. So, no reason to discount one random line, let alone the half a dozen. It would be a bit different if there were a random line suggesting there aren't six forward tubes, or aft phasers. We could then start arguing statistics: two counts of yea against three of nay, how goes the vote? But there isn't such a line. Yes, everything backs up the fact that you only fire one weapon at a time. Even in ENT and NEM. That's simply how you do it in Star Trek. Timo Saloniemi
So, for yourself, you're rationalizing that the reason the random line from the 60's didn't pay out is because of your fan rule that firing more weapons (of the dozens or scores or more we now may have) somehow, strangely, isn't helpful. That it's not just FX budget, or conventions of drama from the time which were probably convened because of the FX budget. So they just sit dormant for forty years til a new generation of PTB that like astronomical weapons complements now let them fire left and right and on top of each other. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because you were waiting for that ever since TOS, and were pondering when at last the extra weapons were going to be fired?? Lol, nah, I'm good bro. You can watch Trek your way and I'll watch it mine. I'm also less interested in discussing this than I am preparing a few more posts on the Galaxy Class itself, alien ships of its era, and maybe some more fleshed-out original doodles, among others. Any you'd like to post on styles and design examples and mentalities from the Galaxy Era (both in-universe and in the real world around it), would be fascinating. I'm also a little curious what you all thought of my Celestial Class Spacedock (linked in my OP), as that may start me another thread discussing Federation space stations.
Hey Arpy, do you have image collections from some of the 'unseen' ships in TNG (such as the Bradbury, Wambundu, et all). Been going through TNG recently and I was curious what everyone's favorite depictions were. For me, I'm really digging this Bradbury. Looks very First-Contact like out of the nacelles (Similar to the Steamrunner) while still maintaining early TNG aesthetics.
I don’t, but I’ll keep an eye out for them now that you’ve brought them to my attention. I don’t know much about them at all in fact, but they sound fascinating. Check Pinterest — it’s really a delight to go down the rabbit hole on, and you’ll find lots of amazing images to marvel at even if not the one(s) you went looking for that specific day. I found images of the original Ambassador Era Pegasus they were going to use for the episode before reusing an Oberth. I may look for them later, as I’m out now, and you may have seen them already, but the idea was to kitbash a Sternbach Ambassador into a Nebula-like shape, with nacelles dangling from the saucer like a Curry.
Hey @Norsehound, I didn't find much at all. Is there a list of 'unseen' ships in TNG you know of? Or an article about unseen ships in Trek overall? There's something romantic about unseen ships, lost eras, and might-have-beens. I did find these on the version of the Bradbury you like: SciFi Forums thread on it. Video of it exiting warp (short). Trekyards episode (they mostly bash it). Drydock. Paint ortho. Original Pegasus I mentioned earlier (can't say I'm a fan lol): Sternbach sketch. Ortho. I'm not a fan of the Sternbach Ambassador Era...too anachronistic and...obtuse....hotdog buns everywhere. But here's one fan's version of the unseen Korolev. EDIT: The U.S.S. Salvation by DonMeiklejohn. A four-nacelle tug described as "TNG era." The coloring says Sternbach Ambassador Era, and it may be too large and high-tech-looking for a tug, but, with minor changes, the shape easily says Galaxy Era organic. Really interesting design.
There isn't a long list anywhere is there? At least not on Memory Alpha... my approach was to go to Memory alpha's federation ship category page and try to find entries with no pictures. There's also an image file talking about Starbase Operations that lists a number of classes which have relatively gone unseen. This is what I've got, at least for now: Bradbury Class Korolev Class Merced Class Renaissance Class Yosemite Class Rigel Class
Huh, never seen that Sternbach sketch of the Pegasus before. I love how I'm still discovering new things after all these years! I quite like the ship, and it's completely logical that the Ambassador would have a sister ship, like the Miranda, Curry or Nebula.
I admit, I've always had somewhat mixed thoughts on these since they seem to have mainly been added for the Encyclopedia and are not referred to in any canonical form. I tend to view the W359 ships in a somewhat different perspective, because in that case you have a class name (not directly spoken, but still a means of identification) and a physical model for many ships (even if they only appeared as wrecks for a few seconds onscreen). As I recall, the Last Unicorn Games Trek game did have several designs for a few of these classes.
The Merced-class and Rigel-classes identified as an older corvette similar to the Norway-class cruiser (which is actually more of a frigate for its era) but with upward-facing nacelles and an older scout similar to the Saber-class "cruiser" (again more of a frigate) respectively.
The U.S.S. Brilliant by Simon Lissaman In Construction. I think this could have made for an interesting contemporary of Sternbach's Ambassador, just before the Galaxy launch. Maybe it was the losing Boeing X-32 competing design to the Sternbach Ambassador's winning Lockheed Martin X-35? Or maybe, given the trillion citizens and 10,000 worlds of the Federation, it's one of many Ambassador-comparable ships in the vast fleet.
Been browsing Memory Alpha recently, and it's interesting that one of the LCARS displays actually lists the USS Aries as being a Renaissance class (albeit too small to be seen in only a few seconds, only possible in a screencap). The same list also includes the New Orleans class name.
Ever since I was a kid and could doodle different Starfleet ships, working out different configurations of saucers, stardrives, and nacelles, I’ve thought about how diverse the fleet might look. It’s part of why the DS9 battles don’t work for me (other reasons include so-so CG, silly battle tactics, and inconsistent presentation of technology), because there should just be a lot of other ships in those full-on fleet battles, from every power, including models we’ve already seen and not including models we did see. I have little problem accepting unseen Renaissance, Rigel, or R’kan-t’tl’plx Class out there too, even if they weren’t mentioned for whatever real world reason. It follows that they’d be out there.
Same! With going through TNG again I find I'm interested in all the transitional designs between 2290-2360, apart from the temp holdovers. Ambassador can't just be a one-off of her era, not while contemporary classes to the hero ships share components.
I've never been able to get into the exact years like that lol. Okay, upon some quick Googling, I see you mean between STVI and TNG. Yeah, in fact, as much as I love Probert's Ambassador (my head canon "real" esthetic of the period), I kind of think the E-C Era should have been radically different. The Refit doesn't look like a mix of the Excelsior and TOS-E. Why should the C look like a mix of the D and the B? In the real world, we had the Excelsior and then the Galaxy. There's little similar between them. I think there's a fantastic alternate E-C Era to explore for the creative.