View of USS Newton and USS Defiant
- Thread starter canuck87
- Start date
Not if it's still cloaked. That would get annoying.
You'd basically have to shoot the ship as a transparency or something and hope the audience doesn't wonder why the bad guys can't see the ghost-image of the ship flying around in space.
Of course, these were the same VFX guys who declined to reuse the old Constitution class because they were afraid people would think it was the Enterprise; if you assume your viewers are retards, special effects becomes tricky indeed.
You'd basically have to shoot the ship as a transparency or something and hope the audience doesn't wonder why the bad guys can't see the ghost-image of the ship flying around in space.
Of course, these were the same VFX guys who declined to reuse the old Constitution class because they were afraid people would think it was the Enterprise; if you assume your viewers are retards, special effects becomes tricky indeed.
So... What other Starfleet ships were there in STXI that we'd still need the dirt on?
The Newton appeared, and is documented seemingly accurately in this little clip (although we still miss a dorsal or ventral view). The Kelvin has been documented elsewhere, as has the new Enterprise. The Defiant apparently was never used as such, but the artists added a third, central nacelle, and that ship was seen up close in the movie. We got a glimpse of Kobayashi Maru in the movie, but she still awaits a nice three-view treatment. And then we have the three types of shuttlecraft, of which there aren't three-views yet, either.
Any others? Was anything built for the "graveyard", or were mere standard components of the above ships used? Did the giant saucer that Sulu dodges (and that supposedly reads "Farragut") have detailing that made it look giant, or was it just a Kelvin saucer enlarged?
Any further currently available resources into these things, beyond this cool clip?
Timo Saloniemi
The Newton appeared, and is documented seemingly accurately in this little clip (although we still miss a dorsal or ventral view). The Kelvin has been documented elsewhere, as has the new Enterprise. The Defiant apparently was never used as such, but the artists added a third, central nacelle, and that ship was seen up close in the movie. We got a glimpse of Kobayashi Maru in the movie, but she still awaits a nice three-view treatment. And then we have the three types of shuttlecraft, of which there aren't three-views yet, either.
Any others? Was anything built for the "graveyard", or were mere standard components of the above ships used? Did the giant saucer that Sulu dodges (and that supposedly reads "Farragut") have detailing that made it look giant, or was it just a Kelvin saucer enlarged?
Any further currently available resources into these things, beyond this cool clip?
Timo Saloniemi
Actually the Defiant type was used in the movie: it represented the three other Starfleet ships docked at the station that weren't the three-naceller or the two-nacelled-two-secondary-hulled ships. This type of ship just wasn't prominently shown.
Registry number was already assigned, but was construction was delayed for redesign and site change.
Or then the background ships in the movie didn't have the registry numbers that were stenciled onto the early sketches. Background ships almost never do; the artists like to doodle in the numbers, but they aren't the ones who control which registries and names are eventually applied.
Can you point out those types in, say, this picture?
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/spacedock-trekxi-ships.jpg
It doesn't look as if one could really discern a separate "type III" there, as opposed to a few more three-nacellers.
Timo Saloniemi
Can you point out those types in, say, this picture?
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/spacedock-trekxi-ships.jpg
It doesn't look as if one could really discern a separate "type III" there, as opposed to a few more three-nacellers.
Timo Saloniemi
Nice video clip and it was definitely cool getting to see the other ship designs. I hope we get to see something with some more details of them, in the future.
You have a sweeping shot start inside the ship, then go backwards out a window. Simple. Not good for stock footage.
About the ship designs: I see Starfleet as bieng much bigger than America on Earth (as ENT would have you believe). Different planets all with their own design philosophies using similar components (saucer, nacelles etc). Who says the Newton (or whatever) was designed by a human, or the same 'design tank' that came up with the Enterprise? Thus many different design lineages and a bigger and more varied Starfleet.
It is the "Ship Type III" in Bernd's screencap. When the ships are warping away, the scene that shows the Enterprise, the three-nacelled ship above it and one of the Newton-types below, the Defiant-type pops in to the right of the Enterprise. The three-nacelled ship and the Newton-type do not have fully circular saucers (the ends are cut), while the Type-III has a full saucer.
Hotlinker! We have your woman!
Anyone else hoping to see orthos of the Kobayashi Maru, Klingon warbirds, Narada, and all the other tiny ships on the DVD (I'm REALLY hoping they're on the DVD version, there's no way I'm going Blu-Ray).
The B-52H bomber was last built in 1962. It will be in service until 2040. The USS Kitty Hawk was launched in 1960 and served until early this year. The SAME airframe. The SAME hull Not design, like Soyuz, which is of course disposable. And note that the Kitty Hawk was not falling apart when it left service. It was retired because with finite budgets, and due to the reality of strategic shipbuilding, the best use of resources was a new nuclear aircraft carrier. For the same reason (but with opposite results), in an era of asymmetrical warfare, it is more cost effective to keep the B-52 in service than build new B-2 bombers (or a whole new design). At least until the airframes fatigue themselves to pieces, which will take a while because stuff built in the 50's was built to last.
You'd keep an Excelsior until you either had to give it up (lack of funding, treaty, or economics due to attrition) or you develop a ship that's so vastly superior it justifies scrapping an old ship and re-training a whole crew on a new design. Both situations are an unlikely scenario, as a starship is (at least they're supposed to be) extremely modular and easily allow new components with little to no tear outs to make them compatible. Also, with infinite resources, you'd just build the vastly better ship and keep the old one too. With no limits, you're not forced to choose.
Naah. I merely posted the link. YOU are the hotlinker, for clicking on it (rather than cutting and pasting the link, like one is always supposed to do).
And the TrekBBS is guilty of the offense of automatically converting the link text into a clickable hotlink. I can't help that...Timo Saloniemi
Case in point: the B52 spends more time in hangars being serviced and overhauled than it does in actual flight. I'm sure a starship would last a hundred years too if it spent sixty of those years being extensively refit in space docks. Same again for Kitty Hawk, as modern super-carriers require almost exactly as much time undergoing maintenance and refitting as they spend at sea.
Space craft are even more maintenance intensive.
Which makes sense if the Excelsior is competitive with newer designs the way the B-52 is. Otherwise, you keep upgrading them to KEEP them competitive, as in the Soyuz-TMA; once you reach the limits of the design and how far you can upgrade it, it's time for a replacement.
Is Excelsior competitive with newer Starfleet designs? Maybe. If anything it's a more capable auxiliary than the Constellations and Mirandas, whose continued service in the fleet therefore makes NO sense whatsoever; it'd be like sending B-52s to Afghanistan with B-17s as escorts. The bigger point is that these ships don't seem to simply still be in service, they also seem to still be in production if the high registry values are any indication.
Starfleet has infinite resources? Since when?
B-52's spend most of their time in hangars because they have no one to bomb right now. Carrier's spend half the year in port for the same reason. It is not because neither isn't capable of sustained operations. It's more for crew morale than engineering. Until a few years ago, ballistic missile submarines were almost constantly out on patrols, only coming home to rotate between "blue" and gold "crews." 90-120 days out, 14-30 in, for fifteen years straight until refuelings. After 9/11 the USS Abraham Lincoln spent almost a year at sea, including several weeks of high intensity operations in support for the Afghanistan invasion.
Just because a ship or plane spend a lot of time at home base does not mean it's there for maintenance reasons.
You also assume starships don't have an extensive maintenance cycle. NCC-1701 went on a 5 year mission, which included occasional repairs and refits, and at the end of it was put in for an extensive multi-year refit.
Bad analogy. B-17's aren't around anymore in war because they lack several critical technologies deemed necessary for combat roles (cabin pressurization, jet engines) and several which are obsolete (manned gun stations, ballistic armor). But combat isn't everything. The B-17 could still be an effective aircraft in other roles, and in fact they were up until the 1970's (coast guard observation, fire bombing). The lack of spare parts, and high maintenance engines relegated it to the bone yard.
A Miranda (or Excelsior, the exact model doesn't matter) uses the same basic warp technologies as a Galaxy. It has the same basic equipment. Now, a Galaxy is more suited to a combat role, or deep space, high speed operations, but that doesn't mean the Miranda isn't good for something else. Long range freighter maybe?
Given that there is no real logic in the registry values (it seems like there's 2000 ships with a 74xxx registry), nor any explanation for when, how they are designated, or if a ship can be re-registered, that issue cannot be resolved conclusively. However, for the sake of argument, we'll agree the ships you cite (say the Melbourne from Wolf 359) were new ships. It wouldn't be the first time a vehicle was cobbled together with spares. The shuttle Endeavour is a prime example, as are most vintage aircraft still flying. Or someone is still building them for other reasons. A Boeing 767 isn't a premier airliner anymore, as its higher cost of operation won't work in a low margin airline industry, but its reliability may give it a second life as a military tanker/freighter.
Again, these ships are single purpose warships. They can do other things after they're obsolete on the battlefield.
Semantics. You don't really need infinite resources. Just enough to economically sustain both the old ship and the new in both roles (which may be different if the new ship supplants the old in its primary role) without sacrificing something. I guess a better was of putting it is something along the lines of "not limited for intents and purposes." It was just a parameter for the argument.
Similar threads
