The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Logic Dictates that the sequel will be about establishing a new Vulcan Colony
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-19-2009, 11:09 PM
Captain Pike's Avatar
Captain Pike Captain Pike is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burbank
Posts: 399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futureguy View Post
Could it be that not "all" avaliable Starships left for Vulcan? Could those (five?) plus the Enterprise have been the only ones to leave? The others going to the more distant system where the rest of the fleet was?

Perhaps some of the characters that were seen, one green-skinned Orion in particular, may be off in another part of the universe.

That one big saucer of a ship that was destroyed at Vulcan that the Enterprise scraped a nacelle on...did not see it at space dock...where did it come from?
Your right about the Orion Gala. She could have went to another ship. As far as that giant saucer goes, that could have been the ship that we saw a split second shot of the saucer that cut in front of the camera when the cadets were headed to their designated ships in the shuttles.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-20-2009, 02:56 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4 View Post
Oh I admit that in the movies.
The whole moronic class thing was taken to extremes later.
The refit could certainly be of some named "class" such as "C" Class [shudder], but does not warrant the entire type being of that "class", especially so after extensive refit.

Example:
Enterprise is originally Starship Class [should technically be "type"]
What the refits are is another matter.

Realistically, a type can have multiple classes, of which there may be as little as a single vessel or multiples especially in a refit situation.

Thankfully, Star Trek isn't realistically portrayed as much as the Nacelles Monthly crowd would like it to be.


I think you have that backwards.
Type is say; Frigate (or in TOS... Starship)
Class is a specific role of that type.
A <blank> class Fast Frigate, or a <blank> class Anti-Submarine Frigate.

What Trek does is stipulate that classes act functionally as types, and then fans go on to expound upon subtle variations as still more classes [aka redundant types]. Again, this has its roots in the Franz Joseph Tech Manual and has been abused ever since.

Incidentally, these are the fans that absolutely and irrationally abhor the new Trek because it destroys their world view and crappy derivative creations.
I can't fault some fans for using their imagination to entertain themselves beyond what the series offer. If some take it too seriously that's their own business.

Ok, so the writers reversed class and type - probably because this is the kind of detail that TOS never went into. I believe the same things can be said about their rank and organisational structure as well.

With a fresh canvas in the new universe maybe all that will be corrected. Or more likely, it won't be.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-20-2009, 04:15 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
With a fresh canvas in the new universe maybe all that will be corrected. Or more likely, it won't be.
More likely is right.

I was happy to notice that those ships were all different, so that's something (and as I mentioned the noticeable lack of a Kelvin-type ship configuration while several other ships having that same level of tech are present).

It may mean that every single ship is different and unique and just labeled "Starship" (no class need apply)!

Or
that as a fleet, sub-fleet or grouping, there are multiple configurations of ships for multiple purposes (the type approach; cruiser, destroyer, frigate, etc -- the lack of the Kelvin type may have a negative bearing here).

Or
that it doesn't mean anything other than to be visually stimulating by showing variety and doesn't need or want a further "official" explanation.

Personally I'm shooting for option 3 (I'd settle for option 1 as an alternative), but having that stupid dossier for existing fans mucks up my hope of avoiding the option 2 Nacelles Monthly crowd sniffing around again.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-20-2009, 04:44 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

I think it's certainly a neat idea that no two starships in the fleet may necessarily be the same, makes for a more visually interesting mix indeed. It's very unlikely though unless Starfleet had truely limitless resources. I would expect if the new universe goes on enough, that we will see ships that are alike.

I would take indeed that they are all 'starships'. It's the equivalent of saying they are all 'spaceships' 'space vessels' etc.

But by the same token I have no real problem with (and I suppose prefer) the idea of them building 50 ships of the same general design, like say the US navy would do in the present (i.e the Arleigh Burkes) and also have a rarity (i.e the Zumwalt) and giving them a class name (like the Nimitz Class carriers, of Gerald R. Ford replacments) as depicted in the fleet in TNG/DS9 era Trek.

They could have a mix of one-off ships for unique missions and also some built on the equivalent of a production line for basic use.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 07-20-2009 at 06:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-20-2009, 06:09 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

I see a new Vulcan colony, maybe even a reunifaction with the Romulans, or at least an "olive branch" from them.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-20-2009, 06:53 AM
TGElder TGElder is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 1,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I think it's certainly a neat idea that no two starships in the fleet may necessarily be the same, makes for a more visually interesting mix indeed. It's very unlikely though unless Starfleet had truely limitless resources. I would expect if the new universe goes on enough, that we will see ships that are alike.

I would take indeed that they are all 'starships'. It's the equivalent of saying they are all 'spaceships' 'space vessels' etc.

But by the same token I have no real problem with (and I suppose prefer) the idea of them building 50 ships of the same general design, like say the US navy would do in the present (i.e the Arleigh Burkes) and also have a rarity (i.e the Zumwalt) and giving them a class name (like the Nimitz Class carriers, of Gerald R. Ford replacments) as depicted in the fleet in TNG/DS9 era Trek.

They could have a mix of one-off ships for unique missions and also some built on the equivalent of a production line for basic use.
Have you driven on the roads lately. All the cars look alike. Why is that? Because as engineers study function and form they come up with similar design styles so what works for GM also works for Toyota.

It would be foolishly stupid to exhaust all the manpower and research and development to build just one ship of a particular style. What is more prudent would be to build an entire group of ships based on the technology that allowed you to build one and spread out the production cost over a larger span.
__________________
TGElder NCC 1701-E
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-20-2009, 06:54 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGElder View Post
Have you driven on the roads lately. All the cars look alike. Why is that? Because as engineers study function and form they come up with similar design styles so what works for GM also works for Toyota.

It would be foolishly stupid to exhaust all the manpower and research and development to build just one ship of a particular style. What is more prudent would be to build an entire group of ships based on the technology that allowed you to build one and spread out the production cost over a larger span.
I believe that's why I said it would be a neat idea.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-20-2009, 09:41 AM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGElder View Post
Have you driven on the roads lately. All the cars look alike. Why is that? Because as engineers study function and form they come up with similar design styles so what works for GM also works for Toyota.

It would be foolishly stupid to exhaust all the manpower and research and development to build just one ship of a particular style. What is more prudent would be to build an entire group of ships based on the technology that allowed you to build one and spread out the production cost over a larger span.
I'm going slightly off topic here, but you are correct about production costs in that aspect. If our current (NASA) space program had, strictly for example, stuck with the base Apollo hardware while continually modernizing and upgrading it as technology progressed, while keeping the gradually modified "base" designs for production purposes over a long time, we would already be on Mars. There could have been "leaps" in design technology that would have allowed for integration into the existing base. IE: a shuttle could have been designed to launch atop a modified Saturn booster as well as the core parts of a Mars mission. We are just now only trying to attempt to return to the point where we can even think about going to the moon. It's been some 40 years since we have even had a manned launch beyond low earth orbit.

Sorry for the rant, but what you have been saying about production costs, applied to the current space program, are so true. There have been "ships" with too short of a production run on each to have brought them to their full potential, especially, in my opinion, with the Saturn. It is from there I feel that we took a giant step back in human potential. A program like going to the Moon or Mars should have had long-term applications of hardware and technology instead of just being locked into mission specific tasks and being discarded at their end.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:49 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.