www.ditl.org

Atekimogus wrote:Actually if I am not wrong he is the author of the original TOS Enterprise blueprints. FYI here is a link, altough most pics are only thumbnails please notice the last picture of the warp nacelle complete with dilithium crystals, m/am reactor chamber, fuel tanks and other technobabble so I guess it is at least fair to assume that up until TMP the idea was that all this dangerous stuff goes into the nacelles.

Certainly that could be what they were thinking. However we have no actual evidence as to how the ship is laid out in regards to these components.

A canon explanation? Absolutly not. A fun speculation tying the FJ TM to canon without violating it? I think so. As I said only a speculation which I think is rather reasonable so no harm done imho. If you want to point out flaws in my speculation except "we never saw it" please do so.

Well like it or not, "we've never seen it" is the big black line that seperates canon from noncanon. Having the warp core in the nacelle doesn't mesh with what we have seen of how Starfleet builds their ships. Therefore I don't like it because I like things to fit into the canon universe. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it makes sense or not, doesn't mean shit in this case. I think it would makes sense if Starfleet had competant security personel, put at least minimal security on ship's computers, bothered to give their ground troops even a little training, and gave their ships multiple warp cores since they seem to get FUBAR'd all the time. No matter how much I might to think all that stuff happens, none of it fits with the canon universe. So if I'm going to sit down and claim it was all done at some point in Trek, like during late TNG/early DS9 time frame, when it obviously never was before and wasn't after, that's going to be a pretty damn hard sell.

I have also pointed out reasons that I don't like it that go beyond the warp core in the nacelle issue.

Mikey wrote:Even assuming that the core can't be contained within the nacelle (which I agree with,) why can't we - if we wanted to rationalize the FJ designs - assume that the lower crew complement and expected mission duration of a Saladin compared to a Connie means that enough space could be cleared from the saucer/upper neck to accomodate the core?

You can, and guess what, I agree that you probably could do it. My issue is that we see virtually nothing changed (yes, fewer windows in the neck but that does not a significant alteration make) in the ship. Hell, I'd probably shut up if there was even a couple meter high "hump" between the bridge dome and the impulse engines or a highly modified or totally different interconnect between the primary hull and the nacelle.

Just for fun, I'd like to introduce Dr. Franz Saladin


Finally, just for the hell of it, a Saladin I'd shut the hell up about:

Tyyr wrote:

A canon explanation? Absolutly not. A fun speculation tying the FJ TM to canon without violating it? I think so. As I said only a speculation which I think is rather reasonable so no harm done imho. If you want to point out flaws in my speculation except "we never saw it" please do so.

Well like it or not, "we've never seen it" is the big black line that seperates canon from noncanon. Having the warp core in the nacelle doesn't mesh with what we have seen of how Starfleet builds their ships. Therefore I don't like it because I like things to fit into the canon universe. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it makes sense or not, doesn't mean s**t in this case.

Well it is a matter of opinion then since from my POV the FJ designs do fit into the canon universe quite nicely since I have no problem believing that inuniverse designs might change during the decades. To be fair your "doesn't mean s**t " comment would then also apply to your opinion because one might point out that extrapolating designs decades appart on a few choice examples is in no way more likely than assuming otherwise.
On the other hand, on the level were everyone points out to the other that his/her opinion means s**t because we don't see it in canon, one might also stop to discuss.

Mikey wrote:Even assuming that the core can't be contained within the nacelle (which I agree with,) why can't we - if we wanted to rationalize the FJ designs - assume that the lower crew complement and expected mission duration of a Saladin compared to a Connie means that enough space could be cleared from the saucer/upper neck to accomodate the core?

That would also be my guess and contrary to Mr. Tyr I do indeed not see the need why the ship should change that much externally since there is obviously more than enough space available, which I believe was originally my point I was trying to make.

Perhaps Starfleet's design team just liked the saucer-and-nacelle look and decided to incorporate those features into their future designs, with the interior being different?

Awwww, yet another debate around canon. Just sit back and watch the stupidity flow...

Deep, the debate was over almost a month ago.

Umm, yeah, got that part by the dates on the post. But thank you...

Well, I wasn't too sure.

You know, something I've often wondered about. Were the origianal 12 Connies EXACT carbon copies of each other, or were they sligtly different? I mean, modern ships are designed slightly different, but in Trek ships seem simply to be photocopies.

Anyone have any insights?

They were probably fairly similar. I imagine that the younger ones may have some minor internal upgrades that the others didn't get.

What about internal changes.....such as differing deck plans?

Possibly.

Take a look at the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Three different blocks and the external changes are not huge. If you know what to look for you can spot it pretty quickly, at a glace though all three blocks look very similar.

Don't some of the Nimitz carriers have slightly different designs depending on age? I can see the same happening to the Connies as problems are found in the designs of the older ones and word is sent down to modify X and Y and to replace Z with A, etc, in the newer models.

It's possible that they may have varying deck plans, but I doubt there'd be major changes.

I'm sure there had to be quite a bit of development between the USS Constitution and the (does anyone know the LAST Connie built before the refit?). The interior structure would almost HAVE to be somewhat different.

It came to mind watching the Doomsday Machine. It seemed a bit unrealistic (IU) that the Constellation and the Enterprise would be completely identical.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:You know, what are the other ships that they use besides the Connies back then? They have to control thousands of light years of space after all.

Well to answer this in disregard for the several pages of debate about non-canon things, and to verily raise from the dead a horse that was not beat enough--the Oberth and Miranda are reported to be the eldest of designs viewed in TNG and DS9 and those two were seen in droves. Next in line would be the Excelsior.

To my knowledge, no Constitution class Star Ship was ever shown in either series (except for time travel). Since we also know from TOS that there were very few Constitutions about the obvious answer is that the Constitution was an endurance jogging scientist, with a Slim Pickens sprinter alter ego. Which is to say that Constitutions were kept on the borders and frontiers, and in the event of war were expected to dash into the enemy territory and visit strategic devastation upon them, knowing full well it was a one way trip to prepare time for the rest of the fleet. Recollect, if you will, the period in which this Television Show was conceived and it makes sense. (I guess the USS Me was a Connie?) Recollect, if you will again, that a certain NCC-1701 had a certain ease and natural quality about her dash raid into the Romulan Empire.

Considering that there exists a certain design similarity between the Miranda and Constitution-TMP, and to some extent one can envision this ethos in the Oberth, I feel confident in asserting that a Miranda TOS form was around defending the interior from war and natural disaster, while an Oberth TOS form fleet was also present bringing the mundane cargo, wares, and missions to their destinations. Obviously, then, the actual displayed Oberths and Mirandas certainly functioned that way during the "movie years".

The Excelsior must then be a realization by SF that it was spread to thin and that a resurgent Romulan Empire (with other undiscovered threats) needed a large cruiser force, not merely a blitzkrieg raider + angry cow herd. Certainly there seems to be a recurring pacifist and hawk element in SF's internal discourse. I think the immediate aftermath of the Excelsior build up constitutes the appeasement to the Cardassian menace and others in which Jean Luc Picard's command of the Stargazer featured so dimly. This era of mellow feelings resulted in the (few in number) grandiose Galaxy class which were intended to regally criss cross the Federation when needed and deal with the unwashed mass of frontiersmen when so called upon.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Don't some of the Nimitz carriers have slightly different designs depending on age? I can see the same happening to the Connies as problems are found in the designs of the older ones and word is sent down to modify X and Y and to replace Z with A, etc, in the newer models.

It's possible that they may have varying deck plans, but I doubt there'd be major changes.

The the base each Nimitz class carrier is the same. If you been one before, you'll know your way around on the others as well. In fact you'll know your way around other non-Nimitz class carriers as well. Except the Enteprise. She's just different, oddball of the fleet.

There are two maybe three basic blocks of Nimitz class. CVN-68 to CVN-70 are the first block. CVN-71 to perhaps CVN-75 are the second block. CVN-76 and the CVN-77 could be the last block. They're all the same, but because the USS Nimitz was commissioned during the 1970's and the Big Grey Bush (USS Bush) was commissioned in 2009, they're different enough. Of course over the past 35 years the USS Nimitz has undergone numerous drydocks to upgrade systems and whatnot to the standards of the newer carriers.