Re: Drawing of Trek XI Enterprise

Plus the face, and correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't aerodynamics work if
there's AIR. Size or design wouldn't matter that much in a vacuum.

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SMCdndumOfm-vLrVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:43:16 -0400, "Steven L."
>> <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [if you've already seen this, my apologies in advance]
>>>
>>> Some fans made this drawing of the Trek XI Enterprise, based on Bad
>>> Robot's Trek XI trailer that was released a couple months ago:
>>>
>>> http://i29.tinypic.com/f9guo7.jpg
>>>
>>> It's not an official drawing; but from what I can tell, it seems to
>>> accurately interpret the appearance of the Big E in the trailer.
>>
>> Ugh, I hope not. The forward end of the nacelles are just too bulky,
>> and what's with those Cadillac fins on the nacelles? I think these
>> fans used some vivid imagination if they claim that drawing is based
>> on the BR teaser.
>
> Look closely at the Trek XI trailer again.  The nacelles really are
> bulbous (compare their size to a front view of the old TOS ship).  And the
> nacelles really do have these wide flaring fins on the back, instead of
> the intercooler pipes on the TOS ship.  See the fins sticking out?
>
> http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/enterprizebig.jpg
>
> In fact, there's a closeup shot in which a couple of workmen are walking
> on the top of a nacelle between the fins.
>
>
>> - Get rid of the radar/deflector dish. That design was obsolete by the
>> time TOS went on the air in 1966.
>
> Carl Sagan disagrees with you.  In his novel "Contact," he had the
> ultra-advanced space aliens still using a radio dish to send messages to
> Earth.  Because no matter how advanced they are, the concept of a
> parabolic reflector is mathematically optimal for focusing and
> transmitting electromagnetic energy.
>
>
>> - Enclose the deflector dish. It doesn't need to be all glowy, that
>> can be left as a TMP-era advancement, but some reworking is necessary,
>> maybe a streamlined nose cone, the way jet fighter radars are behind
>> pointy (and radar transparent) nose cones?
>
> You say that parabolic reflectors are obsolete, but streamlined nose cones
> are futuristic for the 23rd century?  Why does anything on a deep-space
> starship have to be streamlined?  Jet fighters have pointy nose cones
> because they have to reduce atmospheric drag.  But if you have a
> navigational deflector as the Big E does, you don't worry about drag from
> micrometeorites because you're constantly blasting them out of the way.
>
>
>> - Phaser and torpedo launchers. TOS just kinda ignored the problem of
>> where they were. TMP fixed this. Trek XI needs to somehow show where
>> the phaser banks and torpedo launchers are without looking too much
>> like the TMP Enterprise.
>
> The photorp tubes are clearly visible in the Trek XI trailer.
>
>
>> - Spread out the windows. I never liked the TOS/TMP saucer's
>> "clustered windows" concept, it didn't make any sense to me.
>
> It makes perfect sense if you remember that much of the saucer consists of
> crew cabins which don't have windows.  (Notice there's no window in Kirk's
> cabin or Spock's cabin or Uhura's cabin.)
>
> The only windows are in viewing ports, recreation decks, etc., which
> occupy only a small portion of the saucer area.  If you spread out the
> windows, then you have to assume windows in many crew cabins on the outer
> rim of the saucer.  You can't much reduce the number of crew cabins on the
> outer rim and still have enough cabins for 430 crewpersons.  (Unless you
> want to have bunks like in submarines)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email:  sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]