My only qeuston for Sean is, "What was it like working with Dr. Ra-Havreii?"
U.S.S. TITAN -- THE WINNER!
- Thread starter Marco Palmieri
- Start date
Very frustrating. He wants to rework everything. 
I don't think I understand the question.
The layout of the saucer, stardrive, pylons, nacelles... Titan's a ship akin to the Voyager and Enterprise only between the two in size. Any reason you guys didn't go for something that looked like a mid-morph between the two ships...no catamarans & pod, up-swept pylons, etc? Was the idea to pick something immediately recognizable as the Titan and not another ship?
That's what I meant by "configuration"...like the Miranda-Nebula-Akira, Constitution-Excelsior-Galaxy, Intrepid-Sovereign-Nova, Stargazer-Cheyenne...
That's what I meant by "configuration"...like the Miranda-Nebula-Akira, Constitution-Excelsior-Galaxy, Intrepid-Sovereign-Nova, Stargazer-Cheyenne...
Any reason why they would have? The references to Intrepid and Galaxy were only meant as a size comparison, and those two ships were mentioned only because they're ones that the audience is very familiar with. It wasn't meant to imply that the ship is "between" those two classes of ship in any way other than size.
I'm sure that the judges considered a lot more than just one parameter in making their decision. And beyond what was specified in the contest rules (and thus was presumably followed by every qualifying entry), I'm sure the judges did their best to avoid having any preconceived notions about what they wanted. They considered all the entries fairly and picked this one. A distinctive shape may have been one of the many factors they considered (though you'd have to ask them), but I doubt it was the decisive make-or-break factor. After all, I've seen a few runner-up designs that were a lot more unconventional in their shapes.
Let's talk "old school" again. There was a time that fandom had pretty much agreed on certain conventions. The idea was that the Reliant-type ships (Avenger, Endeavor, Cyane, Miranda, Soyuz, etc), all sharing a common general hull configuration, were considered Frigates. The Constitution-type ships (saucer at top, secondary hull behind and below, twin nacelles above that) was considered a "Cruiser." Extended versions of cruisers, usually with less cargo space and sensors but more command and control, more weapons, and a third warp nacelle, would be considered "Dreadnoughts." You also had Scouts, Destroyers, and some more specialized variants. All this was generally based upon, but much expanded from, what was done by Franz Joseph. These big ships were "Class 1 Starships." Smaller auxiliary craft, with much more specialized mission profiles, were considered "Class 2 Spaceships" and included vessels like the Grissom and so forth. (If you have a problem with the terminology, it's taken from on-screen dialog... the TOS episode with the Romans, the name of which I can't recall right now).
I know that this isn't "official" anymore (just one of the things that has been contradicted that never needed to have been). I still think in these terms, however, soo...
To me, Sean's design is basically a Frigate type vessel, built on the same general design philosophy as the Intrepid, but with some Sovereign-ish elements in the hull, and warp nacelles which seem to be from the same factory as the Akira ones.
The Nebula was basically a frigate design built on Galaxy technology.
The Reliant (Avenger or Miranda class, depending on whether or not you think that "class" always HAS to mean "what it looks like" rather than "what it's capabilities are"...) was a frigate design built on tne Constitution(uprated) technologies.
It makes sense that we'd have a frigate version... smaller, cheaper, able to perform MOST of the tasks of the bigger and more expensive Cruisers but much more economically... for any major ship concept that would come along.
So, you guys can disagree, but I see Sean's design as an Intrepid-Sovereign-Combo/Frigate.
Heh. Mike Okuda and I suggested that back in 1987 on TNG. However, the producers only rarely allowed anything with picture divisions or graphics on the main viewer. One definite side-by-side use was in "The Outrageous Okona."
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
I'm not 100% sure that this hadn't been done before... sort of... in fact, it goes back to 1965. When you look at the original Bridge design, you had a series of small displays at roughly eye-level... or more precisely, "monitor-level"... at each workstation. But you also had this big greyish overhead screen.
Some of these had two diplays. Some had one display. Some, particularly in the original pilot as I recall, had one big display and two small displays, all within this big general space.
Me, I have always visualized this a a big, configurable flat-panel display. The "default" mode is either one, or two "windows" open at once, but in theory you could have the whole space in use, or have a ton of tiny little displays.
I know, having seen high-res stills of the original bridge set later on, that each "window" was actually framed. But you can't really see that on TV. Yes, you can occasionally see what appears to be a 3D border around a "window," but we can see "3D" borders around the windows on our computers right now, can't we?
Me, I've always been surprised that no one else seemed to pick up on this. I don't know if this was the intent or if I was just reading too much into things, but seeing a configurable display didn't come as any shock to me whatsoever. Still, it's VERY nice to see it "made official." :=
I think you may misunderstand how the judging was done. Each judge scored the finalists individally, in four specific criteria. Sean's happened to be the one with the highest cumulative score. It wasn't a matter of deliberately favoring one specific approach over another.
^Soon, I hope. Just waiting for the site's admins to get caught up. (The staff of S&S Online manages the entire SimonSays site, not just the Star Trek portion, and there have been some personnel changes there recently.)
I'm pleased to announce that the top three runners-up in the Staship Titan Design contest are now up on the S&S web site.
Links to those designs can be found on the contest's main page:
http://www.startrekbooks.com/titancontest
Congratulations to Cary L. Brown of Schaumburg, IL; James Corey Dukes of West Columbia, SC; and Phillip Ridings of Southaven, MS, and thanks for particpating in the contest!
Links to those designs can be found on the contest's main page:
http://www.startrekbooks.com/titancontest
Congratulations to Cary L. Brown of Schaumburg, IL; James Corey Dukes of West Columbia, SC; and Phillip Ridings of Southaven, MS, and thanks for particpating in the contest!
^ Glad to see the runner-ups posted.
Of these three designs, I like Phillip Ridings' the most. Overall, I still think the winning design was the best. Congratulations to those involved.
Of these three designs, I like Phillip Ridings' the most. Overall, I still think the winning design was the best. Congratulations to those involved.
corey l brown's design: ick. wth is that huge thing sticking out of the saucer?!
james dukes' design: ah, saw this in trek art. do NOT like the blue bubbles. looks freakishly weird.
phil riding's design: looks too futuristic, more like an enterprise-G or H than a contempory of the E.
CONGRATS SEAN! hands down the best design of those 4.
james dukes' design: ah, saw this in trek art. do NOT like the blue bubbles. looks freakishly weird.
phil riding's design: looks too futuristic, more like an enterprise-G or H than a contempory of the E.
CONGRATS SEAN! hands down the best design of those 4.
Similar threads
