The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Is it the same Enterprise??????
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:11 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

It is a superflous design but yes I feel it could easily be refited down to the slimmer Constitution.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:24 PM
Dragonsblade777's Avatar
Dragonsblade777 Dragonsblade777 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by matty View Post
i think you and a few others are finding this new trek movie a little hard to understand. The original model was a sleek beasty, but the times have changed, we have moved on, we are in 2008 and a new trek is coming. we have the characters and a ship, with some subtle tweaks, we shall see how it all pans out. If you want to use a car analagy, check out the original dodge charger, and then the latest version. Same car, moved with the times..something that sometimes its a good thing to do...
Personally, I'd go with a Dodge Challenger analogy. The new Challenger resembles the old one, but with a more modern look. I don't like the new Charger, because it looks nothing like the old one. The new Enterprise reembles the old one, with a few modern tweaks, much like the Challenger. Besides, I really like the new Challenger and I like the new Enterprise.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:43 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcatjosh View Post
I'll Take What We Get
I'll get what I insist on; and if I don't, I create it myself.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:44 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Theres that "TREK at ALL COST" attitude Tom.
If you take crap you'll get more.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:45 PM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjcrawford View Post
I think that you purists really need to check yourselves. There have been 9 various incarnations of the Enterprise so far if any are not just right it would have to be the one from Enterprise, it was not even the same basic shape. Sure the design in the 60’s was great, and even ahead of it’s time but get a grip people. In the 60’s we no way to make a ship look extremely realistic like we can today, add to that the relative gap between TV and film. The new ship is sleek, badass and looks like the Enterprise in form.

If you really want to whine about Starship design, lets talk about the insanely stupid looking Enterprise-D from TNG. That ship was so top-heavy it was ridiculous, and those warp engines looked like they were designed by the Cartoon Network. Now that was a stupid ship… fricken love boat in space is all it was.
You know what? Why do people insist on calling objects in space "Top Heavy"

You're in a vacuum. The weight of an object really doesn't matter...what matters is the power you have to overcome the inertia of the total mass of that object.

Dolly Parton in space would not be top heavy.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:48 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

The balance of the mass does matter. Top Heavy is just a impropper way of describing that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:50 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Besides, have you read Probert's article on why he designed the Ent-D the way he did.
http://www.starshipdatalink.net/art/1701-d.html
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:50 PM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
The balance of the mass does matter. Top Heavy is just a impropper way of describing that.
Right but if I have a huge Saucer on my engineering section it really doesn't matter.

In space there's no gravity so calling something heavy is improper. Now...I can accept someone calling it Awkward. I can agree with that.

But you're right Saquist the balance matters...but in space you can always correct that balance with an opposing force. Like thrusters.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-29-2008, 01:57 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Correct but that's an active system.
Passive methods consume less propellant or energy. But Yes you could compensate.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:35 PM
Aqua's Avatar
Aqua Aqua is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 447
Default

there was a technobabble explanation in something by the male okuda that the engineering hull undercut at the rear was supposed to be a passive compensation somehow
__________________
To bathe a cat takes brute force, perseverance, courage of conviction - and a cat.
The last ingredient is usually hardest to come by.
- Stephen Baker
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 02:50 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.