On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:38:58 -0400, "Steven L."
earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Ugh, I hope not. The forward end of the nacelles are just too bulky,
>> and what's with those Cadillac fins on the nacelles? I think these
>> fans used some vivid imagination if they claim that drawing is based
>> on the BR teaser.
>
>Look closely at the Trek XI trailer again.
Cool. Point conceded.
The new design is hideous, though. Cadillac fins? Oh dear Lord...
>> - Get rid of the radar/deflector dish. That design was obsolete by the
>> time TOS went on the air in 1966.
>
>Carl Sagan disagrees with you. In his novel "Contact," he had the
>ultra-advanced space aliens still using a radio dish to send messages to
>Earth. Because no matter how advanced they are, the concept of a
>parabolic reflector is mathematically optimal for focusing and
>transmitting electromagnetic energy.
Not any more. Look at modern radars. Most are electronically steerable
arrays, not dishes. This was already reality when Sagan wrote
"Contact", he was just a little out of touch! Too much writing and
Johnny Carson, not enough hands-on work :-) Radio telescopes are still
dishes, but they're mostly receivers, not transmitters.
The deflector "dishes" on the post-TOS ships do look an awful lot more
like steerable arrays than classic dish antennae.
>You say that parabolic reflectors are obsolete, but streamlined nose
>cones are futuristic for the 23rd century?
Nose cone, a'la Concorde. isn't exactly what I was thinking of. I was
thinking more like a dome over the transmitter/receiver. Just that
dish hanging out there with "Klingons Aim Here" written all over it
seems wrong to me.
>Why does anything on a
>deep-space starship have to be streamlined? Jet fighters have pointy
>nose cones because they have to reduce atmospheric drag.
Ground based radars are in fairings/domes, too. Protection from the
elements and easier maintenance.
>But if you
>have a navigational deflector as the Big E does, you don't worry about
>drag from micrometeorites because you're constantly blasting them out of
>the way.
Until the power goes out (which it seems to regularly on starships) or
the shields are down (even more regularly) then that critical piece of
hardware is out there hanging in the "wind". At least in a fairing it
wouldn't be quite as vulnerable or obvious (where are their
counterparts on Klingon and Romulan ships, I wonder, no dishes in
sight.)
>The photorp tubes are clearly visible in the Trek XI trailer.
I still don't see them, but I'll take your word for it. I wish Abrams
& Co. had used a tad more imagination.
>The only windows are in viewing ports, recreation decks, etc., which
>occupy only a small portion of the saucer area.
Except that the rec decks we actually saw (Charlie X, Naked Time, and
Way To Eden, for example) had no windows. Even the honkin' big rec
deck in TMP didn't have any. So basically, the location of the windows
does not seem to have any bearing on the standing sets.
I think the window locations were just the result of the necessity of
running wires (for lighting) through the miniatures. We don't have
that limitation today. And are those three lights on the bow of the
saucer windows or some sort of sensors? They're different sizes and
seems to straddle two decks, compared to the other presumed windows.
>If you spread out the
>windows, then you have to assume windows in many crew cabins on the
>outer rim of the saucer. You can't much reduce the number of crew
>cabins on the outer rim and still have enough cabins for 430
>crewpersons. (Unless you want to have bunks like in submarines)
Which we saw in ST6. We never saw "enlisted" crew quarters until
O'Brien's in TNG (and his seemed as nice as everyone else's). Officers
Quarters might be more inboard to protect them in case of collision or
attack (the enlisted can sleep out there where the phaser hits will
come first!)
Brian
