• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Drawing of Trek XI Enterprise

In article <jeCdnVuT0N4OGrbVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"80 Knight" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:482a86b3$0$10643$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> > 80 Knight wrote:
> >> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in
message
> >> news:482a77d4$0$2486$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>> Steven L. wrote:
> >>>> GeneK wrote:
> >>>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote...
> >>>>>  > The Whitfield book covered some of the Jefferies design
process
> >>>>> tht
> >>>>>> resulted in the NCC-1701.  Jefferies was just playing
around with
> >>>>>> all kinds of 3-dimensional geometric shapes--spheres,
cylinders,
> >>>>>> etc.--trying to come up with a modular combination that
looked
> >>>>>> appealing.  You've seen his first attempts, like the
spherical
> >>>>>> module in front.  He just kept throwing up ideas till he
hit upon
> >>>>>> the idea of a saucer connected to a cylinder, which
Roddenberry
> >>>>>> approved. (Interestingly, in his first sketches, the
nacelles were
> >>>>>> on struts connected to the saucer, not the cylindrical
module.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, we know that in the real world the shape was selected
> >>>>> primarily on the basis of looks.  And I don't see any reason
> >>>>> why its fictional design couldn't have been equally influenced
> >>>>> by the same goal.
> >>>>
> >>>> That might explain the NCC-1701, but not the NCC-1701-D.
> >>>> Esthetically, the ship looks out of kilter, with a relatively
> >>>> enormous primary (saucer) hull and a flattened secondary hull.
> >>>> Functionally, it was necessitated by the requirements of
supporting
> >>>> families (kids need lots of room)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Even if that looks over the rather greater functional requirement
> >>> that
> >>>
> >>> YOU DON'T PUT KIDS ON A BATTLESHIP
> >>
> >> The E-D was not a Battleship.  It was a "ship of peace", as
Guinan
> >> once said.  The TNG episode "The Bonding" (IIRC) deals with this
very
> >> issue.
> >
> > It was a ship of peace with phasers and photon torpedoes and shields,
> > which
> > operated in unknown or hostile territory. It was a ship operated by the
> > military, whose personnel carried sidearms. It was a ship which could be
> > ordered into combat at any time. How many kids died on the starships
> > destroyed at Wolf 359, one wonders?
> >
> > In times of peace, military ships are still military ships. British or US
> > Navy ships are often on peaceable missions even in this day and age. They
> > may just be on patrol, or on a humanitarian mission. But that doesn't mean
> > they aren't battleships. The ships of the federation have a number of
> > different roles, but one of them is clearly military. These ships are
> > frequently pounded with phasers and disruptors, captured by godlike
> > aliens,
> > threatened by mysterious forces. They are perilous places to be.
> >
> > Being a "ship of peace" is aspirational. Nobody in their right mind
would
> > put families on a ship that routinely runs into Klingons, Romulans and the
> > Borg.
>
> I understand what you are saying, but in the Trek universe, being on a
> planet isn't always much safer.  How many colonies did the Borg destroy?  Or
> the Crystalline Entity?

With Picard's help.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

Antworten