• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Drawing of Trek XI Enterprise

Steven L. wrote:
> Jaxtraw wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I thought the original mission of the Enterprise-D was primarily
> exploration, not war.

Not really the point. It's a matter of potential danger. The Federation
might be pacifists, but they're in a hostile galaxy. It's obviously a ship
with a high probability of engaging in combat.

> Back here on Earth, the pioneers brought their kids with them.  There
> were plenty of kids on board the Mayflower, and on those covered wagon
> trains that crossed the Plains.  And yes, quite a few died--maybe one
> in three.  Victims of starvation, Indian attacks, disease, etc.

The pioneers and settlers weren't explorers, let alone military personnel on
military vessels. The Mayflower was a colony ship, not an exploration ship.

>> 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'll bet that combat wasn't Roddenberry's original conception.  The
> Borg weren't invented till season 2 or 3.  The first block of TNG
> episodes had no space wars.

Roddenberry's conception wasn't particularly riveting TV. Stories need
tension, danger and conflict.

> There was probably some "mission creep" as TNG progressed.  They
> started having some real shoot-em-up space battles and outright wars,
> which made having kids on board less credible.

It wasn't credible in the first place. Putting your kids on such a ship
would be downright negligent.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

Antworten