• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers The Ships of Lower Decks

Although as long as the bridge is a bubble atop of everything else, why not give it side and rear windows, too? Situational awareness is not the same thing as tunnel vision.

Timo Saloniemi
 
They are conveniently missing from the MSD, which only shows centerline things at that location. The pod, also hidden in the MSD, might also contain some, being the only other part of the ship with blank forward-facing near-vertical surfaces... Although it has significantly less of that.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Or "Year of Hell". The placement of the most important room on the ship is stupid. If you're gonna have it so exposed, might as well make it a lookout with a legit window, and all the cool zoom in-out shots we got in the Kelvin movies and Discovery.
One of Roddenberry’s arbitrary “rules” of starship design, sadly.
 
None of the shots of the view screen seem to have any reflection like you'd see on the other windows in the franchise (or even this show), you also can't see the saucer out of it.
 
The more I look at that ship, the more I’m thinking that the class is a mid-point between the Ambassador and the Galaxy. It’s got the round Ambassador saucer but the deflector of the Galaxy. The nacelles are unique though and not evocative of either class. But then again we’ve seen other nacelle designs like the Cheyenne class and the Raven type that aren’t the same as the Ambassador or Galaxy types.

Alternate hypothesis: Maybe the California class is to the Ambassador class as the Nebula class is to the Galaxy class, or as the Miranda class is to the Constitution class: The smaller workhorse version of the larger design, using just the saucer and no engineering section. Maybe the California was introduced around the same time as the Ambassador -- so, early-to-mid-2340s. The Cerritos could be 35-40 years old.

Oh...great...

Why does "real Star Trek" have to be the catch phrase? Like, did people treat TNG and TMP as not real Trek? I'm sure they did...:sigh:

There were indeed people who claimed that TMP and, later, TNG, were not "real" Star Trek.
 
Everything after "The Cage" has been unreal by definition.

Except for DSC S2 where we get to see the Real Pike again, of course.

Timo Saloniemi
 
...And supposedly is vertical, so not the thing we see in the MSD, in the lower pod, just barely peeking above the top of the nacelle?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Wondering if those three rows of "lights" along the rim of the saucer are actually sensor pallet placements...?
 
Alternate hypothesis: Maybe the California class is to the Ambassador class as the Nebula class is to the Galaxy class, or as the Miranda class is to the Constitution class: The smaller workhorse version of the larger design, using just the saucer and no engineering section. Maybe the California was introduced around the same time as the Ambassador -- so, early-to-mid-2340s. The Cerritos could be 35-40 years old.



There were indeed people who claimed that TMP and, later, TNG, were not "real" Star Trek.
I prefer my "senior/junior" class ships have related names
Constitution/Miranda
Galaxy/Nebula
Ambassador/Envoy
Dauntless/
Intrepid
Zodiac/Constellation
Sovereign/Regent
America/
California
:)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top