Printable View
Hey guys,
I was just on my other thread and somebody mentioned hating 3 nacelle-d ships, and I was all like, "Whaaaaaaaat?" Because man, All Good Things is my favorite episode of that series of all time ever. When Enterprise saves their asses, I jumped outta my seat. (I think. In 94 I was 10. )
Anybody else on board with this ep? Anybody like another ep/series finale better?
-M
Picard to Riker: "Will, it's like the chicken and the egg ... the chicken and the egg!" :D
Sorry, I posted this quote in another thread recently, but it makes me laugh. So there's a little love for All Good Things for you. Welcome to the boards, by the way!
Oh, and yes, three-nacelled ships bite. ;)
LQ
yep another fan here, going all the way back to the FJ's Federation class Dreadnaught!
The guy mentioning his dislike (being a better word then hate in retrospective) was me. I think the episode was great (TNG still is my favorite Trek show) but in Star Trek Starfleet ships are supposed two have two nacelles, not one, not three but two :-) Anyway I won't argue with people liking the design. Taste is a different thing for anybody, not worth fighting about :) BTW I still own a Decipher TNG CCG Premium Card of the Future's Enterprise and won't part with it for obvious reasons :D
All good things was a good episode independently of whether the Enterprise had 2 or 3 nacelles?! 'Cool' ships do not always make an episode 'cool', and vice versa.
IMHO 3 nacelle ships suck, and they don't fit with Trek mythology for many technobabble reasons :) The ship in AGT was specifically designed to show it as 'different' than the other Enterprise, and we don't know it was actually a nacelle in the classical sense anyway. While some of the things they did to the old gal were cool, at the time, in hindsight I think they ruined the beautiful clean lines of the ship, and I think the external additions to the ship were a little silly given the amount of reconfigurable internal volume to the ship: they could have fit the extra guns and such inside the ship without changing the lines.
"All Good Things" was great - it was as good as Generations should have been!
I have always liked three nacelle designs when they don't look like they don't fit on screen. I disagree that the established "Treknology" for want of a better word makes such ships impractical or improbable. I don't ever really recall on-screen discussion of why odd numbers of nacelles are impossible. I know that there has been a fair bit written about it, but this seems to be in the order of "fanon" explanations of the technology which were supposedly made necessary because of a remark apocryphally attributed to Gene Roddenberry about the Star Fleet Technical Manual. I don't really think that the technobabble explanations about even numbers of nacelles is any more authoritative than the FJ designs - it's all just fan extrapolation based on what we see on screen.
Well bottom line - what is the ratio of 3 Vs 2 nacelle ships on screen? Without counting I think it's obvious Starfleet prefers them for whatever reason 'technobabble' or the fanon explanations aside. Any Fanon explanations are purely retcon, explaining what we see on screen, but they are just that, and 3 nacelle ships are almost never seen, so take what explanations you like, but believing that thousands of them are hiding off screen is just clutching at straws frankly :P Like them or loathe them, they are barely part of the universe Canon.
The D refit, while canon of a sort is also not really 'real' as it was all part of Q's fantasy - for one, given the subsequent timelines, that eventuality can't actualy happen now, as even if they did refit the enterprise and upgrade her, there can't be 2 ships of the same name, and.... Picards crew work on the Sovereign class one now :D So in the same vein, yes, the Dauntless (in voyager) is such a cool ship but it's not an actual real starfleet ship, it's a fake.
I know very well all about the bitter acrimony between Roddenberry and Fasa/Franz Joseph. It's not his finest moment, but I happen to agree with him if only on aesthetic grounds, not business/ethical ones :D
Okay, so:
Warp theory as I understand it is basically the bending of space in a way that pushes the ship forward on the space that is now stretching back to its actual dimensions. The nacelles are the tool that forces space to make this change, creating a warp field around the ship. In that case, I'm unsure what good any nacelles beyond 2 would do. There are obviously 4 nacelled starships (Stargazer, for example), so I see where this even number argument comes from, but as far as establishing a warp field I don't know what good in terms of speed an extra nacelle would do. Especially since I've never heard anything about the Stargazer being any faster than warp 9.
Just for clarity, we're all ignoring the Voyager warp ten rule, yes?
Also: Damn the cannons, All Good Things is coming true in my little universe! But like I say, I think I'm gonna have the Relativity bop in and futz with continuity. Maybe the All Good Things Relativity sends an officer back so that they don't cease to exist when Picard solves the timerift problem. Something along those lines, just more elegant.
-M
I think the idea behind the AGT Enterprise is that since it takes place in the future, some advances in Warp Engine designs have mae a 3 nacelle ship possible. I don't see this as a problem, especially since the future from AGT isn't necessarily going to happen in TREK.
It makes sense too, since the "nacelles must be away from the body of the ship" rule has already bit the dust.
Never confuse continuity with your game :D You can have 27 1/2 nacelled ships in your own game, just don't expect hardened trek fans to buy into it, outside of that :D
I would definatelly say a 2+ nacelle ship would be more robust: you're carrying spares! and so I guess for that reason it could be justified for long range scout type vessels.
With regards to warp 10 - it's quite possible to skim ever closer to '10' Voyager herself could reach warp 9.975 or something) actual '10' represents occupying all points in space all at once, which would likelly represent a head-job for your computer, let-alone you... they were lucky they arrived back in the same galaxy! :D
For an in depth look into 'transwarp' drive based technologies, I suggest you read http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymai...scitech.php?36 - where basically transwarp velocities are recalibrated as 'warp 14' etc. It's not strictly 'Canon' but it's well thought out and better than saying "ahead warp factor 9.99999999999992" :D
Was not the Enterprise in that episode traveling beyond Warp 10, so the third nacelle may have to do to the transwarp drive (slipstream, etc.).
I have less problems with a 3 nacelle than a ship designed such that nacelles are so far back that it looks like the front of the ship is outside the warp space field sphere. "Chief Engineer, where is 10 Forward?"
When the Defiant was issued to Cmdr. Sisko, there were a lot of issues with keeping it at Warp. So I just consider it not an optimnal design but do able.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
I always thought it was a little fourth-wall 'tee hee' moment the writers were having.
First: I like All Good Things.
Second: I don't like ships with three nacelles. And not because Gene said there were no ships with an odd number (which he did), but because I think all three-nacelled ships come from the same misunderstanding of what makes the ships go.
The nacelles do not generate power, they turn the power into motion. Like more tires, more nacelles may make a ship look cooler, but they will not help it go, nor offer it more power for weapons and other systems.
So, I'm a bit at war with myself: I agree the three-nacelled Enterprise-D looked cool, but the part of me that knows that wouldn't be helpful thinks its dumb.
*SPECULATION ONLY!!!!*
The third warp nacelle, for sake of design ergonomics, was disguised as a standard nacelle. It is in FACT, some sort of new or adapted slipstream or transwarp drive, allowing the ship to move at warp 14, as according to the new warp chart.
*SPECULATION ONLY!!!!*
I dunno. I mean, I'd rather accept my favorite cannonical episode as opposed to what has been said out of series or what have you. I agree with the analogy of car tires tho. By that logic, however, why do you need two at all? I guess for a stable warp field two is necisary. Maybe three creates a field of a diffrent shape?
-M
You never had a trike as a kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by spyone
Bad news first: I don't particularily like the Future Enterprise, for various reasons. First of all it is a too militaristic design with the new "Death-Star-Phaser" and all these additions to her hull made her look "disrupted". Her elegant, majestic design is buried under unnecessary add-ons.
There is hardly any ship in any show which looks as majestic as a Galaxy-Class. Making her look military is simply odd and in vain, because there are ( at least by now ) far better military designs, like Akira, Defiant, Sovereign-Class.
Additionally the three-nacelle configuration looks not very good in my point of view. The extra pylon looks far too large and the whole position makes it appear as if it does not belong where it was put.
However, no to the good news, I escpecially like the last episode of TNG. Voyager's last episode was rather strange, too much concentration on the always troubled Borg-arc. And I always missed to see what actually happened to the crew afterwards, would have like to see that after following the crew on that journey.
DS9 at least layed out what was to happen to the characters, but since the battle for Cardassia was rather short and most parts of the episode concentrated on the paranormal "Sisko is a God"-story line, which I never particularily liked.
TOS had a standard episode as its last and ENT was, well stupid ( see the appropriate thread for my more elaborate opinion ).
TNG had a very interesting premise and I like the idea of connecting the beginning and end of the series the way they did. The only thing I did not like was that at the end there was no change in the crew or whatsoever, which called for a "break". It did not seem that this part of the story was at an end - to stop accompanying the TNG crew at this point seemed to be arbitrary...
Besides I especially like the end of the episode, where Picard joins the staff to play poker and realizes he should have done that a long time ago, since this is his family. The beauty shot of Enterprise as a last view was nice as well.
I really love the series and AGT as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyone
Uh spyone,
Look at ships and aircraft.
OCean going ships usually have propellorrs (Screws) that turn the power generated by the engines into motion, just like a starship. With ocean going ships one of the reasons why mutliple propellors is desireable is for reducancy. Another is for finer control in maneuvering. Still another is to get past the limited efficnecy of a propellor system. Once you reach a certain point, the props no longer propell the ship as efficnecy.Eventually they will either just turn the water into vapor, or wreck the screws. To get around this limit, ships have mulitple screws.
This become very important when you are working with larger, more massive vehicles. While you might not get much more speed, you do get more power. It applies to land vehciles too. Plus land vechles have things like ground pressure to consider.
For Star Trek, if the number of nacelles didn't matter, then there should be some single nacelle designs.
While warp drive is all technobabble, one explaination might be that each nacelle generates a warp field, and two or more multiple the effectiveness . That would explain why the warp scale is mostly a power function (^3 for TOS, ^ 10/3 for TNG). So single nacelle ships are not practical.
Perhaps the "in setting" reason why we don't see ships with three or more nacelees is just because they can't "balance" more than two. Maybe by the time of AGL someone figured out how?
Yeah, the Stargazer had 4, but supposedly, ships have a pair or warp coils in each nacelle, so the Stargazer was effectively a twin nacelle ship).
Freedom Class.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
"Tell me about your ship, Riker. It's the Enterprise, isn't it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
"No, the name of my ship is the Lollipop."
"I have no knowledge of that ship."
"It's just been commissioned. It's a good ship."
Quote:
Originally Posted by First of Two
But is the Freedom-class officially listed as a single nacelle ship ? There are tons of unfoffical signble nacelle designs, some quite good. But I don't think there were any single nacelle Fed ships shown on TV.
:D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
BTW, while the reference is pretty obvious to people in the late 20th century, I wonder how clear it would be in the 24th? Is it still a common pop reference, or something that Riker picked up through a history or tirva skill? Trek doesn't do stuff like that too often.
How weird is it that he'd remember it, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Or maybe he's just really terrible at bluffing outside a poker game, and shirley temple was the first thing he could think of : P
Strictly speaking the only single and triple Nacelle designs we ever saw mostly came from the Wolf 359 battle scenes - lots of old bits of models they fudged together, and later got defined as 'canon designs' by the fans :D yes while screen legal, it's not exactly much to go on... a tiny 5 pixel space debris smudge :D
Well, accepting some of the rushed models as cannon would open up a whole case of worm cans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobian
Once you accept th Star Destroyer and the F18s, the entire Trek setting gets a serious revision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Yeah, it is a case of dropping a joke that the audience would be aware of, but that the other characters would be unlikely to get. Trek usually didn't do much of that, since it works against the illusion that the series takes place in the future.
Of couse they can get away with that once in awhile.
And it was first season TNG. Things changed.
Just think how the reputation or Kirk and the TOS Enterperprise were downplayed in TNG's first season, compared to the "Starfleet Legend" he is treated later on. Kirk goes from being "a starfleet captain" to a household name.
Äh...what?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Were there ISDs and a F18 in the graveyard scene of TBOBW?:confused:
Well, the models themselves were big enough...
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/...tion_photo.jpg
If you think that's bad...Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
ps fixed the typo.
Hmm funny, I don't remember seeing those two people in the background of BoBW.... oh wait, it's not a screencap, and in fact those models were tiny fuzzy whizzing pixels in the actual show :P My point is yes, they may have been big models, but that's just the size models get made at for TV. They were just kitbash-kludges meant only to look cool for a few seconds of on-screen footage, but instead they've been analysed to death by fans with video freeze frames for 17 years :D But still that's what fans do :)
Cool, didn't know that either. That is classic BSG footage, not the new series, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Oh, I agree they might have a use.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
What I meant was that I don't think most of the people who design 3-naceleled ships see it that way. They didn't go, "We'll start with a Constitution Class hull, but we'll put in a much bigger powerplant (and thus engine room), which means we'll have to remove a lot of the science labs and such. And then, to be able to handle all that new power, it will need a third nacelle."
I'm pretty sure they went, "I want it to be just like a Constitution Class, but with more weapons and faster. So I'll give it a third nacelle."
If a kid showed you a battleship he'd drawn, and it looked just like an Iowa Class except it had more propellers, you'd probably think it was a bit goofy. If you got the idea that he thought that would make it go faster and fight harder, without any need to change the other systems within the hull, .... well, he's having fun and you wouldn't want to spoil his fun, but part of you would be thinking "That's just dumb."
And that's the vibe I get off of three-nacelle designs: They look to me like they were drawn by a kid (or kid-at-heart) who didn't understand what made the ships go. He thought they were like airplanes: the nacelle contains both the "propeller" and the engine that powers it, so more nacelles = more power/speed.
I distinctly got the impression from AGT that the future Enterprise-D got the power for the nifty new cannon because it now had three nacelles.
Its just my opinion, but I wanted it to be clear.
Except that Gene said (during development on TNG) that there would be no ships with an odd number. For whatever technobabble reason, nacelles always come in pairs.Quote:
For Star Trek, if the number of nacelles didn't matter, then there should be some single nacelle designs.
The common speculation as to why Gene made the even numbers rule is that he specificly wanted to exclude the Federation Class Dreadnaught from canon.
FASA had some single-nacelle designs, and for whatever reason those don't look nearly as goofy to me.
No, that's definitely the new series' Galactica.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut
And, IIRC, in First Contact there are a few Millenium Falcons battling the Borg at earth, just too small to make out anything other than that it is a smallish, disc-shaped ship.
Just to throw it out there, the AGT E-D did have a significantly built-up engineering section, from the close-ups and schematics I've seen.
spyone,
Oh, okay. I see your point. I agree with it too. Most of the three engine ships's I've seen, inlcuding the old Federation-class Dreadnought, don't look like they have 3 nacelles for any reason other than to look "cooler" or more powerful.
BTW, rumor has it that Gene's "no odd number" rule was created specfically to invalidate the designs from the Franz Joseph TECH MAN. Only problem is, if that was so, why did they use images from the TM on readout displays in STII?
About the only one of the rules that made sense was that you coulldn't block off the front of the nacelles (that's where the bussard scopes would be).
The art dept wanted to save time?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Because STII was where Gene started to lose control of the franchise, control he was trying to re-assert with TNG?
:)
I've read an interview with the guy who directed Wrath of Kahn (name escapes me at the moment), and he said Gene was very upset with him, saying that Starfleet was not as "militaristic" as he was portraying it.
His response was that he had watched all the TOS episodes just before doing the movie, and felt that what he portrayed was in line with what the episodes actually showed, even if that didn't seem to line up with what Gene thought they had showed.
I happen to agree.
I respect and admire Gene for coming up with Star Trek for us. That doesn't mean I think he was infalible. :)
That's what happens when Star Trek subcontracts out to Lucas (well, ILM).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyone
Nicholas Meyer? He was also repsonsible for ST VI.
Personally, I think that Gene had a point. Trek started getting a lot more militaristic after STII. Of course, Gene deserved a lot of the blame. If TMP had been a better movie Gene would have been able to have more control over the franchise. Then again, if Gene had given credit where it was due (most of the setting was invested by others), he could have avoided a lot of the problems.
I'm talking about the art dept, not the effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
What the hell did he invent of the setting, anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
"Here are some dudes on a ship. One of them has pointy ears! They have adventures!"