• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Drawing of Trek XI Enterprise

Jaxtraw wrote:

> People forget that it's not just about aerodynamics. There's a presumption
> that in space you can make a structure any shape you like, because there's
> no aerodynamic drag. Other factors matter though, particularly stress on
> the... er... spaceframe. Ideally you want to keep everything as close to the
> centre of mass as possible with a craft that needs to maneuver.

Depends at the rate of acceleration of its turns.

Here on Earth, a jet fighter keeps its engines close to its fuselage.
But a B-52 bomber has eight engine pods spaced all across its wing (plus
underwing missile and auxiliary tanker pylons too).  Because it's not
intended to dogfight.  The engine pods don't tear off because it doesn't
pull G's.

And neither is the NCC-1701.  On this NG, we've had this discussion half
a dozen times already--the Big E is *NOT* a maneuverable X-wing fighter
that dogfights with enemy space fighters.  It's a majestic, almost
ponderous, ship of the line, 190,000 tons displacement, more analogous
literally to a heavy cruiser in today's Navy.  It depends on long-range
firepower (photon torpedoes) to engage an enemy at standoff distances.
Let's just say it has a pretty wide turning circle.  :-)

Yes, I do agree the struts needed strengthening.  And in the TMP refit
Enterprise, as well as the subsequent A, B, C and D models, the struts
tended to get more massive.

In fact, Gabe Koerner's reimagined TOS Enterprise has strengthened
struts too.


> That thing on the front of the Enterprise engineering section doesn't look
> either. There's no reason why the ship needs a dish there- I understand it's
> been explained away as sweeping away space debris or some such piffle, but I
> presume it was originally meant to be literally a radio dish as seen on real
> space probes.

A radio dish that can only transmit radio signals in the forward
direction doesn't make much sense.

The Whitfield book has the original 1964 memo from TOS's science
consultant that insisted the Big E needed a navigational deflector
(conceived as a probing force beam) to blast micrometeorites out of its
way.  Obviously, I don't know what was going through Jeffries' head at
the time, though.


--
Steven L.
Email:  sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Antworten