Page 56 of 167 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106156 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 1668
  1. #551
    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    You said conspiracy I didn't.
    I'm just calling it what you're describing.

    Who gives a crap. This topic is about the toys anyway.
    We have the Picard Maneuver, the Riker Maneuver, the LaForge Maneuver (and for Star Wars fans the My Little Maneuver of the Battle of Tanaab fame) and now the Rent a Mod Maneuver as ways of attempting to gain tactical advantage.
    Member 104 of the SWC forums . . . but it's good to be back.

    Good traders: DarkJedi5, jediguy, Jedi_Master_Guyute, jedimastergeorge06

  2. #552
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom-like Menace View Post
    I'm just calling it what you're describing.



    We have the Picard Maneuver, the Riker Maneuver, the LaForge Maneuver (and for Star Wars fans the My Little Maneuver of the Battle of Tanaab fame) and now the Rent a Mod Maneuver as ways of attempting to gain tactical advantage.
    Whatever that means. Lazy bastard maneuver.

  3. #553
    Ex Astris contradicts itself in the consitution article. He specificly says the old nacelles are larging by saying the new nacelle housing is smaller yet superimposes smaller TOS nacelles in the double ship comparison picture. Therefore that little article isn't exactly reliable. I'll stick to the picture comparison I provided at least it doesn't BS. Just for kicks the picture I mentioned before.

    http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w...comparison.png

  4. #554
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue2th View Post
    I love the shape of the "Refit" Enterprise. It seems more streamlined than the original which is almost stick-figured in comparison. Though I love them all. Say isn't the "Refit" exactly like the 1701-A? or are there slight differences? Or is this another Blue2th stupid question?
    Yeah, that's my favorite Trek ship of all time by a LARGE margin. The -A is the same model, they just repainted the model's registry numbers. The scene at the end of ST5 when she warps out is actually recycled from ST1.

    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    New Force Comics has them, I preordered mine over a month ago.
    Thanks for the 411 on that, Rick at NFC is cool, I just checked the site and they were going up so I ordered one, Rick sent it out the next day.

    Where did Probert say it?
    I can't find it in my personal library, I might have read it in the Phase II book which I only borrowed and don't own, but I did find this quote:
    http://www.trekplace.com/ap2005int01.html
    (accents are mine)
    When I first got onto Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I was told by my art director, Richard Taylor, that he wanted me to design all the humanoid spacecraft. That way there would be a perceived visual continuity between all the hardware. And then another team would design V'Ger. My designs actually started with the Space Office Complex, but when it came time to design the Enterprise, he requested that I delegate the job of designing the warp engines to him, because he had these ideas that he wanted to put forth about bringing an art deco look to the new Enterprise. He also instigated the look of various sets of parallel lines around the ship to enforce that theme. So while he was doing the engines, I wanted to actually go larger on the size of the ship, not realizing at the time that the Enterprise was originally in drydock for a refitting. Richard felt we should stay with the proportions that we had inherited from Matt Jefferies and Joe Jennings, when they'd designed it for Star Trek: Phase II. So with that as our starting basis. I lengthened the ship to a thousand feet, just a few feet longer than it was, and enlarged the saucer, eventually adding an updated superstructure to the top and bottom of it. I came up with new photon torpedo tubes and redesigned the whole navigational deflector dish area, updated the impulse engine, and added phaser banks around the ship, visible for the first time, along with a reaction control thruster system to the ship -- those were there for the first time too, designing them in a way that the ship could operate as two independent entities, being the primary and secondary hulls, or as a combined Starship unit.
    BTW, that's a great interview on that page overall, lots of nifty pics. That sphinx pod is WAY different from the final one we got.


    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    They have 1701(in stock) and TWOK BD for preorder plus the other two ships BD 1701 TWOK and BD 1701-E for preorder as well.
    I saw them, I was tempted to preorder the Wrath of Khan Enterprise right now, but I won't be sure of my funds till it comes in so I'm gonna wait.


    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    In the picture you can see the very front of the saucer has odd blue lines all over the place. I don't know what the hell those are for.
    Yeah, that looked rank, my only guess is that they went with a "post-battle-damaged" look where they're rebuilding the ship, something dumb like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom-like Menace View Post
    Yeah, but given that there is the extra length on the Miranda saucer, I prefer to just go by the nacelles.
    The Miranda-class saucer from the bridge forward is supposed to be identical to the Constitution-class saucer, this isn't the case with the Constellation-class saucer where they added more saucer around the rim (including shuttlebays on the rim!).


    the description of the interior habitat modules of the Enterprise-D makes it pretty easy to assume they are fairly easy to remove.
    The battle-bridge is the best one, they literally HAD to say it was a swap-out job since the set was different from season to season.


    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    Ex Astris contradicts itself in the consitution article. He specificly says the old nacelles are larging by saying the new nacelle housing is smaller yet superimposes smaller TOS nacelles in the double ship comparison picture. Therefore that little article isn't exactly reliable.
    What are you talking about? The TOS nacelles in the superimposed image are bigger: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...perimposed.jpg
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  5. #555
    The image didn't work, sorry I wasn't clear the page says the older nacelles are larger and the new ones are smaller yet the image shows vice versa. That excerpt works for me. Btw he talks about the large windows at the rear of 1701-D's saucer, to my knowledge that window is where the arboretum gardens are. On 1701-A its in the secondary hull right behind the deflecer on both sides. 997 feet/303.8 meters 1701 TOS 1701 Reft 1000 feet/304.8 meters. He said a few feet which few is three feet.


  6. #556
    Quote Originally Posted by JediTricks View Post
    Yeah, that's my favorite Trek ship of all time by a LARGE margin. The -A is the same model, they just repainted the model's registry numbers. The scene at the end of ST5 when she warps out is actually recycled from ST1.
    I'm too much of a modern Trekker. Tell me I have no taste if you like, but I like the -E. The -D just always looked odd to me, but I liked the arrangement of similar parts into the Nebula.

    Quote Originally Posted by JediTricks
    What are you talking about? The TOS nacelles in the superimposed image are bigger: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...perimposed.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    The image didn't work, sorry I wasn't clear the page says the older nacelles are larger and the new ones are smaller yet the image shows vice versa.
    I can't speak for JT, but I'm in need of a link directly to the image your referencing. Also, given the superimposition clearly, explicitely showing the proper relative size of the nacelles, could your image simply be an error?

    Quote Originally Posted by James31278
    That excerpt works for me.
    And if we can completely put this to bed for good . . .

    From an email with Eric Kristiansen aka Jackill:

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom-like Menace
    Hello, I was wondering if you would be able to answer a couple of questions for me. I've been shown this image http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w265/BMWM3E92/1701vs1701-A.jpg which I'm told is one of yours.

    I'm curious if that picture is meant to be an accurate representation of the comparative size of the two ships. If so, given the sizes of 289 meters and 305 meters for the original and refit respectively as given by Michael Okuda et al. do you support a refit that is shorter than the original version? If that picture does represent your assessment of the comparative length, would it be possible--if it doesn't take too much of your time--to explain to me the basis for that comparison?
    In answer:
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Kristiansen
    Someone took those from two different web pages on my web site and combined them into a single image.


    They were not drawn to scale to each other on the web pages. The Refit should be larger than the Classic
    Also, in the interest of full disclosure regarding any possible bias on my part for the much maligned Ex Astris Stercus Tauri, I got an email out of nowhere from Bernd Schneider a couple of days ago asking if I wanted to be involved in a project he's working on. It's unrelated to his Ex Astris Scientia site, but apparently I should count myself a little higher than friend of a friend from years back, though I'd be inclined to believe my email just never got deleted.
    Member 104 of the SWC forums . . . but it's good to be back.

    Good traders: DarkJedi5, jediguy, Jedi_Master_Guyute, jedimastergeorge06

  7. #557
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom-like Menace View Post
    I'm too much of a modern Trekker. Tell me I have no taste if you like, but I like the -E. The -D just always looked odd to me, but I liked the arrangement of similar parts into the Nebula.





    I can't speak for JT, but I'm in need of a link directly to the image your referencing. Also, given the superimposition clearly, explicitely showing the proper relative size of the nacelles, could your image simply be an error?



    And if we can completely put this to bed for good . . .

    From an email with Eric Kristiansen aka Jackill:



    In answer:


    Also, in the interest of full disclosure regarding any possible bias on my part for the much maligned Ex Astris Stercus Tauri, I got an email out of nowhere from Bernd Schneider a couple of days ago asking if I wanted to be involved in a project he's working on. It's unrelated to his Ex Astris Scientia site, but apparently I should count myself a little higher than friend of a friend from years back, though I'd be inclined to believe my email just never got deleted.
    As stated by Probert the refit is three feet longer. The image I'm talking about is on the ex astris site in the Constitution article, this image. The picture is a little off too if the very tip of the saucers were lined up the refit would be alot more than three feet longer.

    "
    [FONT=Arial]Nacelles[/FONT][FONT=Arial] Most obviously, the old cylindrical nacelles (length: 156m, diameter: between 13.2m and 16m) were replaced with new angular ones (length: 152m, width: 12m, height: 15.6m). Since rather the propulsion technology than only the mechanical outer surface would be subject to change, we may safely conclude that the warp coils and everything else inside the nacelles are new as well. It is questionable anyway if the old components would still fit into the new (smaller) housing. The new glowing warp field grille is another sign that there are new warp coils. The most obvious evidence, however, is that the Miranda class seems to employ exactly the same nacelle type. No matter if the Miranda was developed before or after the Constitution refit, the nacelle appears to be a new standard type and not a modification of the original Constitution nacelle."[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial]
    [/FONT]

    http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...perimposed.jpg


  8. #558
    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    As stated by Probert the refit is three feet longer. The image I'm talking about is on the ex astris site in the Constitution article, this image. The picture is a little off too if the very tip of the saucers were lined up the refit would be alot more than three feet longer.
    I still see no page anywhere on that site where the classic nacelles are represented as being shorter than the refit nacelles. As far as how much longer the Constitution refit is than the classic, you'll have to take that to Okuda. Unfortunately I haven't had any clue how to reach him for the last few years nor have I tried.

    So relevant to my post:

    • refit is longer/shorter than the classic
    • classic nacelles are shown to be longer/shorter than the refit in one/every picture on Ex Astris Scientia
    Not relevant to my post:
    • refit is exactly x number of units of measurement longer than the classic as opposed to y number
    Member 104 of the SWC forums . . . but it's good to be back.

    Good traders: DarkJedi5, jediguy, Jedi_Master_Guyute, jedimastergeorge06

  9. #559
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom-like Menace View Post
    I still see no page anywhere on that site where the classic nacelles are represented as being shorter than the refit nacelles. As far as how much longer the Constitution refit is than the classic, you'll have to take that to Okuda. Unfortunately I haven't had any clue how to reach him for the last few years nor have I tried.

    So relevant to my post:
    • refit is longer/shorter than the classic
    • classic nacelles are shown to be longer/shorter than the refit in one/every picture on Ex Astris Scientia
    Not relevant to my post:
    • refit is exactly x number of units of measurement longer than the classic as opposed to y number
    I'm not gonna count on talking to Okuda and I probably wouldn't even if I had the chance because when talking to famous people it's usually a waste of time. Probert's comments officially/unofficially makes the 1701 TOS 304m. I wonder if any of the blueprint makers actually have/had a license to make those blueprints back them. Mandel didn't when he created the "Imperator Class" blueprints.


  10. #560
    Check out Probert's models, I don't think they've gotten beyond that shuttlecraft, but it's really nice and he hand-signs the boxes which have a nice piece of source art:
    http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_STO...IT_Models.html
    And the art's available as a really keen print too:
    http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_STO...usOutPAGE.html
    That piece of art is so much more Trek than the entire "Enterprise" series IMO. Looks like what McQuarrie did for SW, Probert did a little for Trek.


    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    Btw he talks about the large windows at the rear of 1701-D's saucer, to my knowledge that window is where the arboretum gardens are. On 1701-A its in the secondary hull right behind the deflecer on both sides.
    There's some debate about that, one of the early sets of blueprints out there claimed they were the arboretum even though it didn't match the set at all, and others have said the arboretum is on the underside of the ship just like on the Refit 1701/A (the arboretum is DEFINITELY on the underside of the refit, it's what those blue windows are). Anyway, he'd know what those windows are originally for since he personally designed the Ent-D.

    997 feet/303.8 meters 1701 TOS 1701 Reft 1000 feet/304.8 meters. He said a few feet which few is three feet.
    Everything I've read says the TOS Enterprise is 289 meters, not 303.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom-like Menace View Post
    I'm too much of a modern Trekker. Tell me I have no taste if you like, but I like the -E. The -D just always looked odd to me, but I liked the arrangement of similar parts into the Nebula.
    What does it mean to be a "modern" Trekker anyway, now that Berman's ruined that with a cruddy prequel? I'm a TNG-era Trekkie first, but the Refit 1701/A is far and away my favorite design. I like the E over the D too, but the D's a much more important character to me. I agree with what you're saying on the Nebula class, that rearrangement of elements looks far better than the bloated lines of the Galaxy-class.

    BTW, way to go to the source on that one, good call, it never would have occurred to me for some reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by James31278 View Post
    As stated by Probert the refit is three feet longer.
    No, you're interpolating that statement without proper foundation, Probert says it's a "few" feet longer and you merely assumed that it meant 3. When you say:
    He said a few feet which few is three feet.
    there's no actual basis in fact to your statement there, the word "few" in Probert's usage means small in amount but not specific. "Few"'s usage is generally three or more, but it can be even as low as two, or as high as a million if the greater number is significantly higher than a million. 16m is just a few meters longer in comparison to 289m, just 5.5%.

    (you know, this highlights one of the reasons I consider myself a Trekkie first and a SW fan second, the ability to discuss this stuff with precision, even when we disagree, it's part of the "science" in science fiction. There's no such aspect to Star Wars since it's pretty light on the science aspect of the science fiction, it's much more space fantasy - like the poor Millennium Falcon being multiple sizes.)

    The image I'm talking about is on the ex astris site in the Constitution article, this image. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...perimposed.jpg
    I don't see how you can claim the TOS nacelles are being shown SMALLER in that image when they're physically taller and longer from the tip, plus we know they're also wider and round so they take up even more space.

    The picture is a little off too if the very tip of the saucers were lined up the refit would be alot more than three feet longer.
    Again, that's because the refit isn't 3 feet longer, the TOS Enterprise is 289m and the TMP Enterprise is 305m, that's a difference of 16m, which that image is showing.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO