The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Where were the escape pods located on the Enterprise?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-19-2010, 11:10 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
Unlike 24th-Century ships in which you see almost everything on the hull, one old idea is that 23rd-Century ships concealed a lot of stuff on their hulls--either with a layer of insulating thermocoat or behind hatches that are flush with other hull plates and are only visible when opened. Lifeboats probably fit under the latter category and on the nuEnterprise could be pretty much anywhere near key crew sections of the saucer, interhull, and engineering sections, IMO.
Fanwank.

The correct answer is: We don't know.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-19-2010, 11:14 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chator View Post
Yes, the one that lauches naughty-boy Kirk onto Delta Vega.
It was especially designed for him.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-19-2010, 11:44 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore
Unlike 24th-Century ships in which you see almost everything on the hull, one old idea is that 23rd-Century ships concealed a lot of stuff on their hulls--either with a layer of insulating thermocoat or behind hatches that are flush with other hull plates and are only visible when opened. Lifeboats probably fit under the latter category and on the nuEnterprise could be pretty much anywhere near key crew sections of the saucer, interhull, and engineering sections, IMO.
Fanwank.

The correct answer is: We don't know.
No, the correct answer is: I couldn't care less what Saquist says.

People are free to speculate on whatever they want and since no one is declaring it as actual fact (since it can't be proven or disproven), then it remains plausible speculation like most comments here are about Trek.

FYI, the idea that the original Enterprise had features hidden in its hull is indeed keeping with Matt Jefferies' original philosophy behind the ship:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tos_1.php
Quote:
Even when the shape was approved, that was not the end of Jefferies’ efforts. He theorized that since space was an extremely dangerous place, starship engineers would not put any important machinery on the outside of their vessel. This meant that, logically, the hull would be smooth. Not everyone agreed with Jefferies and he had to fight his corner. “I constantly had to fight anyone who wanted to put surface details on the thing,” he says.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-19-2010, 11:54 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Indeed. In my opinion, the Jeffries design philosophy is nicely contrasted in ENT where the guts of the NX-class are visible, e.g. open nacelles with visible warp coils, the grappler or phase guns on the hull. And of course there are some fan designs, e.g. of the Daedalus-class, which sketch the transition from the "open guts" to the Jefferies period.

Last edited by horatio : 01-19-2010 at 11:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-19-2010, 12:56 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
No, the correct answer is: I couldn't care less what Saquist says.
Correction, Commodore, that is a retort or reply not a correct answer.

Quote:
People are free to speculate on whatever they want and since no one is declaring it as actual fact (since it can't be proven or disproven), then it remains plausible speculation like most comments here are about Trek.
The only correct answer to the question is "we do not know" There is nothing wrong with declaring your ignorance on a subject. There is nothing wrong with being truthful. There is also nothing wrong with speculation either in the proper setting.

This isn't a peer review secession, there is no proven or dis-proven only canon (officialism) . If it doesn't happen then it doesn't exist officially.

Quote:
FYI, the idea that the original Enterprise had features hidden in its hull is indeed keeping with Matt Jefferies' original philosophy behind the ship:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tos_1.php
I am well versed in Jefferies designs. I am not contradicting you.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-19-2010, 01:21 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

You just don't get it at all. You always miss the point.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-19-2010, 01:25 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I assure you I almost always understand points of contention. I defer, though, to relevancy when making reply.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-19-2010, 01:30 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

You don't even understand what you're saying half the time, so it's not so surprising that you don't get what others say.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-19-2010, 01:32 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
You don't even understand what you're saying half the time, so it's not so surprising that you don't get what others say.

Although you speak with authority you do not have it, Commodore.
Your confidence is not an acceptable substitute.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-19-2010, 01:36 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

That statement means absolutely nothing and is quite illogical.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
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 11:04 AM.


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.