USS Kelvin

[Vance]

* shrugs * I don't really know. I got the impression from reading the interviews with Andrew Probert that Gene had had that idea early on, because he thought it necessary for the ship to make a stable warp field.

Yeah, sadly GR would be full of ca-ca if he ever claimed that going THAT far back. The first 'news' of this was in the later 1970s, well into the 'stop the Technical Manual' phase of Trek history.

The details of Warp Drive didn't even originate with him, and, in TOS, the guides basically say 'magic box'. Hell, the original pitch for Star Trek had the Yorktown with nuclear rockets that took the ship from planet to planet (or, more specifically, Earth colonies) within our solar system.

But as far as Gene having a vendetta against FJ, I've heard differing accounts of that so I don't comment on it. Probert didn't give a specific timeframe for when Roddenberry mentioned that idea to him.

I don't know if 'vendetta' is the right word, as more of GR playing "It's MY Star Trek, dammit" with pretty much everyone. FJ was far from the only 'victim' (to use the term somewhat liberally), but FJ's work was easily the most well known at the time. Hell, for many fans of the 1970s and 1980s, the TM was the definitive Star Trek work.

Without turning this entirely into a GR-bashing fest, I'll just sum up by saying that crediting GR with any realistic knowledge or wisdom on the 'treknical' aspect of the franchise, much less inventing it, is laughable.

 

[Vance]

If a space rock comes at the ship from above the saucer, then it is obscured by the saucer. From it's position on the ship, it only deflects a small part of the stuff in the way. It also deflects a lot of stuff that is in no way going to hit the ship, since it is so far from the center line.

In TOS (and, indeed, in most of the movies), the dish was not the deflector. It was the main sensor transciever. The deflector grid was tied into the shield network, mentioned in dialog more than once, and finally shown explicitly in TWOK.

All these 'experts', and not a one appears to have watched the show. :P

 

[Jimmy_C]

If a space rock comes at the ship from above the saucer, then it is obscured by the saucer. From it's position on the ship, it only deflects a small part of the stuff in the way. It also deflects a lot of stuff that is in no way going to hit the ship, since it is so far from the center line.

In TOS (and, indeed, in most of the movies), the dish was not the deflector. It was the main sensor transciever. The deflector grid was tied into the shield network, mentioned in dialog more than once, and finally shown explicitly in TWOK.

All these 'experts', and not a one appears to have watched the show. :P

LOL I'm no expert. Didn't a deflector beam come from that area of the ship in "The Paradise Syndrome"? I thought it was right below the dish. In TMP, wasn't the big thing in the middle the deflector dish (hence why it kept changing colors - it was being being activated and deactivated). I don't see why there can't be a main deflector and a deflector grid. Just like you have lights and your have lasers. One does not negate the other.

 

[Vance]

LOL I'm no expert. Didn't a deflector beam come from that area of the ship in "The Paradise Syndrome"?

Nope.

I thought it was right below the dish. In TMP, wasn't the big thing in the middle the deflector dish (hence why it kept changing colors - it was being being activated and deactivated).

The 'original crew' movies didn't explicitly say what it was. The first official mention is actually in 'Mr. Scott's Guide' which does indeed label it as a 'navigational deflector'... but that book was written, oddly, with Trek IV and TNG both in mind.. as well as FASA.

I don't see why there can't be a main deflector and a deflector grid. Just like you have lights and your have lasers. One does not negate the other.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the TOS dish wasn't for that, so an argument that it wouldn't work because the saucer blocked it isn't valid. Even if it WERE the main deflector, you're talking such huge distances that your deflector beam would have an insanely tight dispersion angle - it would never come NEAR the saucer. It just needs line of sight roughly straight-foward.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

If a space rock comes at the ship from above the saucer, then it is obscured by the saucer. From it's position on the ship, it only deflects a small part of the stuff in the way. It also deflects a lot of stuff that is in no way going to hit the ship, since it is so far from the center line.

Jefferies assigned the dish the role of "main sensor" according to his illustrations reproduced. It was retasked into a navigational deflector by Franz Joseph and that designation stuck for the subsequent installments. The TOS deflector field probably emanated from the hull lines in order to provide protection from every direction.

So? If a shuttle loses control and smashes into that bulkhead... You lose your warp reactors? If a terrorist smuggles a small bomb onboard a shuttle... then it disables the ship? If an enemy shoots right into the shuttlebay, then that bulkhead should be as strong as the outer hull if it is to protect the structural integerity of those struts. That seems like a waste. And what about moving all those supplies and equipment that you bring aboard the shuttlebay... right past such a critical part of the ship. If anything, the shuttlebay should be in its own nacelle in case of an accident.

Jefferies designed the warp nacelles to be self-contained units (as the repeated references to "anti-matter nacelles" suggest), so presumably there was no risk of a containment breach in the event of a shuttle crash or terrorist attack.

In Obsession, radioactive waste was vented from the impulse engines.

"Captain, I cleaned the radioactive disposal vent on number two engine, but we'll be ready to leave orbit in a half hour."

"Open hatch on impulse engine number two."
"Mr. Scott was doing an A.I.D. cleanup on it."
"We won't be using the impulse engines. Turn the alarm off."

"When it entered impulse engine number two's vent, it attacked two crewmen, then got into the ventilating system."

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/48obsessiontrans.htm

And there doesn't have to be a major accident. What if the accident occurred during the cleanup procedure?

The fact that Starfleet stuck with the embedded impulse engine design well into the 24th century strongly implies that such risks are minimal.

What about a glancing shot? Or simply moving from the bridge to other areas of the ship. If you need to get to the bridge, it will take longer than necessary.

See above.

And so, Matt Jefferies wasn't perfect. Neither are the producers for the new show.

Possibly not, but he and GR were designing a technological universe from the scratch. J.J. Abrams isn't.

Is there even room to get there?

There certainly is for a crawl-way.

Why waste bringing life support up that far in the ship's structure.

The aforementioned crawl-way would be connected to the habitable parts of the engineering hull, so the only dedicated life-support requirement would be ventilation fan.

Don't have remote cameras in the 23rd century?

Sure they do, but there is nothing wrong with a Mark I Eyeball backup.

Couldn't that use some "subspace technobable field" to scan with?

Possibly.

The Enterprise has FTL sensors.

Yes, but it also uses standard EM and particulate sensors when appropriate, such as employing infra-red detectors to search for warm bodies from orbit in Mudd's Women.

Why do you assume that sensor only detects gamma rays?

I made no such assumption.

That's why the the heat sink in my computer case is directly exposed to the atmosphere and is not inside any case whatsoever. Right?

Computer heat-sinks use convective cooling, not radiative.

And why doesn't the impulse engine get a heat pipe?

The same reason present-day rocket engines don't need a separate cooling system: The exhaust product removes excess heat from the thrust chamber.

Or the refit Enterprise?

The Refit employs planar radiators on the outboard surfaces of the nacelles, as Matt Jefferies was aware that STS which was being developed at the same time would use planar radiators in the cargo bay doors for thermal control.

Or the 1701-D?

No idea, but then I haven't expended much thought on TNG since it was cancelled.

And if those "fins" on the refit Enterprise are heat pipes...

They aren't

...why can't the fins on these craft be heat pipes too?

The TOS NCC-1701 employed heat pipe radiators. ST:XI is set in the TOS time frame, therefor in my humble opinion the Kelvin - being a Starfleet design - should have used heat pipe radiators as well.

Then why do you gripe about the new 1701 which likewise could have a radiator the size of a penny. Don't criticize the ship and compare it to the 1701 when it can likewise have just as many flaws with just as likely fixes.

Fine. Consider my arguments unreservedly ceded.

In TOS (and, indeed, in most of the movies), the dish was not the deflector.

It was in ST:TMP, as its presence on the Kimble blueprints (and Ilia's mention of "navigational deflector inoperative" during the wormhole sequence) demonstrate.

TGT

 

[Vance]

It was retasked into a navigational deflector by Franz Joseph and that designation stuck for the subsequent installments. The TOS deflector field probably emanated from the hull lines in order to provide protection from every direction.

Not quite. The 'navigational deflector' was actually only on the DN, and it was one of the side dishes next to the forward main sensor. The first time 'officially' that we see the repurposing of the dish for the Enterprise is Mr. Scott's Guide.

 

[Vance]

It was in ST:TMP.

As I said, I've got nothing to back that up. The first mention is Mr. Scott's Guide, which is an oddity on its own right, and well after TMP itself. Believe me, I've been looking.

 

[Jimmy_C]

If a space rock comes at the ship from above the saucer, then it is obscured by the saucer. From it's position on the ship, it only deflects a small part of the stuff in the way. It also deflects a lot of stuff that is in no way going to hit the ship, since it is so far from the center line.

Jefferies assigned the dish the role of "main sensor" according to his illustrations reproduced. It was retasked into a navigational deflector by Franz Joseph and that designation stuck for the subsequent installments. The TOS deflector field probably emanated from the hull lines in order to provide protection from every direction.

I must be losing my mind. I just watched the scene in question and the visual is only from the screen. Well that deflector beam came from somewhere. I must have imagined it coming from right below the dish.

So? If a shuttle loses control and smashes into that bulkhead... You lose your warp reactors? If a terrorist smuggles a small bomb onboard a shuttle... then it disables the ship? If an enemy shoots right into the shuttlebay, then that bulkhead should be as strong as the outer hull if it is to protect the structural integerity of those struts. That seems like a waste. And what about moving all those supplies and equipment that you bring aboard the shuttlebay... right past such a critical part of the ship. If anything, the shuttlebay should be in its own nacelle in case of an accident.

Jefferies designed the warp nacelles to be self-contained units (as the repeated references to "anti-matter nacelles" suggest), so presumably there was no risk of a containment breach in the event of a shuttle crash or terrorist attack.

You would activate the warp drive with the possibility that your nacelle might separate from the ship? Even if it was self-contained, that's still highly dangerous. And if that's where the main power was generated, the power running through them to the ship itself must be a lot. You wouldn't want that power junction hit by a shuttle. It would cause an explosion. Not every failure has to be caused by a containment breach.

The fact that Starfleet stuck with the embedded impulse engine design well into the 24th century strongly implies that such risks are minimal.

It is still a design flaw as Matt Jefferies made it. It is a design flaw that stuck for traditional reasons. Like bright uniforms on away missions. You are nitpicking and missing my point from my post. The point is that Matt Jefferies was not God, and his ship had flaws too. To criticize the Kelvin because it doesn't have the same HYPOTHETICAL heat dissapation system as the 1701 is nitpicking. The 1701 herself changed radically over the series. She got a dilithium circuit in main engineering, a big tube thing on the side, etc. The 1701 went from vents on the back to ball things, lost antenna on her nacelle caps, etc.

Look, I like Matt Jefferies's design more. I'm not a big fan of some of the changes in the new movie's ships. But instead of justifying your dislike for the design, you're rationalizing it. That's unfair. You don't have to like the Kelvin's design, but using rationalizations of the form which could apply to Matt Jefferies's original design is hypocritical. You completely ignore the point and nitpick my argument instead of arguing it. That is very dismissive and frankly disrespectful! I tried to show it to you by relying in the form you relied to me. :-(

 

[Vance]

Jimmy,
Actually, you're assumption about the impulse engines seem to be off based on the EXTERIOR designs of the ship. The linear rail assembly seems to be pretty well 'isolated' with serious bulkheads and structures which make the impulse area as contained in the saucer, but a distinct entity on it.

On the refit and excelsior, the deflection crystal assembly housing seem to function as a similar purpose, a 'hardened' area for the impulse assembly that's very distinct from the rest of the saucer.

TGT,
I stand corrected on the blueprints. I only owned them for a short time before their unfortunte demise. So, yes, they're the first mention of the 'dish' (or recess, in this case') as a deflection emitter. Still, it stands to reason that the radically different nature of the beast for TMP means that it's function may not be the same as it was on TOS.

 

[Christopher]

The 'original crew' movies didn't explicitly say what it was. The first official mention is actually in 'Mr. Scott's Guide' which does indeed label it as a 'navigational deflector'... but that book was written, oddly, with Trek IV and TNG both in mind.. as well as FASA.

Sorry, that's not correct. See The Making of Star Trek, p. 191, para. 2:

The starship's main sensor-deflector (a parabolic sensor antenna and asteroid-deflector) is located at the front end of the secondary hull.

That was published in 1968, nearly two decades before Mr. Scott's Guide.

 

[Vance]

That was published in 1968, nearly two decades before Mr. Scott's Guide.

I don't know. The 'Making of Star Trek' has so many issues on it, and has a LOT of 'make crap up to pad the book' that I honestly never took it seriously. I'll take your word that that's what that book says (and is the first reference), but we really don't have a 'canon' mention of the nav- deflector as the dish until TNG, and, in fact, have just the opposite in TWOK.

 

[Christopher]

That was published in 1968, nearly two decades before Mr. Scott's Guide.

I don't know. The 'Making of Star Trek' has so many issues on it, and has a LOT of 'make crap up to pad the book' that I honestly never took it seriously.

^^I find that a surprising attitude. TMoST was written by an author who had direct access to TOS production materials and staffers while the show was in production. It's as close as a secondary source can get to being primary. It was also the first behind-the-scenes book ever written about ST, so many ideas that showed up in later works had their origins there, regardless of whether they originated with Whitfield or with Matt Jefferies.

I'll take your word that that's what that book says (and is the first reference), but we really don't have a 'canon' mention of the nav- deflector as the dish until TNG, and, in fact, have just the opposite in TWOK.

I don't dispute the claim about canon; I dispute the claim that Mr. Scott's Guide was the first reference. TMoST was the first, and it was far from the only one. Right now I'm looking at my David Kimble ST:TMP blueprints from 1980, and right there on sheet 3, there's a callout labelling the big dish as "NAVIGATIONAL DEFLECTOR." Also, in Todd Guenther's Federation Reference Series from 1985, the dishes are labeled as "MAIN SENSOR AND NAV. DEFLECTOR."

 

[Vance]

^^I find that a surprising attitude. TMoST was written by an author who had direct access to TOS production materials and staffers while the show was in production.

Yet it still managed to get a lot wrong. Keep in mind, when TMoST was being written, it was before Star Trek became a phenomenon, and when the the TV tie in books were.. shall we say.. not given a whole lot of importance. It's a good book for some behind-the-scenes info, but I don't use it as a source of 'treknology canon'. I mean, right off the bat, WHAT class is the Enterprise listed as in the book?

I don't dispute the claim about canon; I dispute the claim that Mr. Scott's Guide was the first reference. TMoST was the first, and it was far from the only one. Right now I'm looking at my David Kimble ST:TMP blueprints from 1980, and right there on sheet 3, there's a callout labelling the big dish as "NAVIGATIONAL DEFLECTOR." Also, in Todd Guenther's Federation Reference Series from 1985, the dishes are labeled as "MAIN SENSOR AND NAV. DEFLECTOR."

Guenther's work doesn't remotely count, and you should know better. I'll cede the ST:TMP blueprints, as I already ceded, because I completely spaced them. (I only owned them for a short time.. poor things... )

But, again, the POINT of the 'argument' is that the dish has to be there, and there's more canon evidence that it does not than it does. Simple as that.

 

[Praetor]

That arrangement was also used in Archer's time, at least judging by the various readouts that we saw in the Enterprise's engineering room that depicted the warp coils.

I believe it was explicitly stated and shown that the NX-01 had 'asymmetric warp coils' which were one piece units, larger on the outside profile and smaller on the inside profile like this: {>

I also believe that while ships of Kirk's time and later clearly don't need a big round dish like the Enterprise, there are probably sensor and performance advantages to having one.

 

[Maurice]

In TOS (and, indeed, in most of the movies), the dish was not the deflector. It was the main sensor transciever. The deflector grid was tied into the shield network, mentioned in dialog more than once, and finally shown explicitly in TWOK.

Explicit in that the word is never used in the film? Again...there's no mention of deflectors in TWOK, just "Energize defense fields" and we see the "Intruder alert" diagram. You want explicit? A moment later, the Deflector Screen panel is seen briefly and all the red lights for it are OFF.

 

[starburst]

^^I find that a surprising attitude. TMoST was written by an author who had direct access to TOS production materials and staffers while the show was in production.

Yet it still managed to get a lot wrong. Keep in mind, when TMoST was being written, it was before Star Trek became a phenomenon, and when the the TV tie in books were.. shall we say.. not given a whole lot of importance. It's a good book for some behind-the-scenes info, but I don't use it as a source of 'treknology canon'. I mean, right off the bat, WHAT class is the Enterprise listed as in the book?

I think this is one of the best examples about how 'Trek canon' evolved, the book would have been written with what they had to work with at the time and some things would have been added to explain things which didnt have an explanation. Some time after a later production and accompanying material changes some of the terminology and the 'canon' evolves.

 

[JNG]

Was it Probert who joked that the one-nacelled ships would fly in a circle?

I doubt it. That wouldn't make any sense, because it's based on the false assumption that a warp engine generates conventional thrust. It doesn't; it warps spacetime.

And yet he did in fact joke this; it was in his 2005 Trekplace interview.

Just FYI, many jokes don't "make any sense" when analyzed pedantically.

 

[Christopher]

^^I find that a surprising attitude. TMoST was written by an author who had direct access to TOS production materials and staffers while the show was in production.

Yet it still managed to get a lot wrong. Keep in mind, when TMoST was being written, it was before Star Trek became a phenomenon, and when the the TV tie in books were.. shall we say.. not given a whole lot of importance. It's a good book for some behind-the-scenes info, but I don't use it as a source of 'treknology canon'. I mean, right off the bat, WHAT class is the Enterprise listed as in the book?

How do you define "wrong?" TMoST was the definitive reference source at the time it came out (and the only one for a number of years); it couldn't be called "wrong" because there was nothing else to compare it with. Yes, some of its assertions and conjectures were disregarded by later canon, making them retroactively "wrong;" but it makes no sense to say that TMoST itself was somehow sloppy or incompetent just because later creators chose to take different approaches to certain things.

Your "right off the bat" question is anachronistic and invalid, because the class of the Enterprise hadn't been defined officially at that time. Yes, there was one production graphic from "The Changeling" that labeled it "Constitution Class," but its own dedication plaque on the bridge simply said "Starship Class," and the Trimble Concordance called it the Constellation Class. You can't rationally blame Whitfield for failing to report a "fact" that didn't even exist at the time the book was written.

TMoST was the book that started the whole industry of behind-the-scenes and technical Trek books. Heck, it was a seminal work in the field of "Making of" books about film and television in general, and has been used as a text in film classes for four decades. Saying that it's an erroneous and unimportant work is like saying that Shakespeare was a bad writer because his spelling and grammar were all wrong.

Guenther's work doesn't remotely count, and you should know better.

How are you defining what "counts?" I'm not talking about what's "real" or "official," because it's all made up. You claimed that Mr. Scott's Guide was the first-ever reference to the dish as a navigational deflector, so any earlier reference to the idea does, in fact, "count" in disproving that claim. That's the only point I'm making here: where and when the concept originated.

 

[Vance]

Okay, Christopher, I ceded your argument twice now... so what the fuck do you want from me at this point?

 

[Manticore]

Out of curiousity, what did TMOST say was the Enterprise's class? Starship class?