StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Considering the future of Federation vessels lies in the two-hull layout for a while (well at least through the Constitution era) maybe it just so happens that the configuration of the NX class was found lacking, and this redesign was an intermediary step between the old designs and the new.
So of course it'd handle differently, maybe that's the whole damn point.

In any case it looks a whole lot better and gives a nicer profile to the frankly dull as dishwater NX.

Well, it is science "fiction", after all. Operates by Rule of Cool as its physics engine.

Why is it that whenever the issue of naval design in Trek comes up someone always ignores the canon fact that they use one magic field to allow the ship to accelerate/deccelerate like a dragonfly, and another magic field to let it travel faster than light?

Start a debate about warp field geometry, anyone.

tim31 wrote:Why is it that whenever the issue of naval design in Trek comes up someone always ignores the canon fact that they use one magic field to allow the ship to accelerate/deccelerate like a dragonfly, and another magic field to let it travel faster than light?

tim31 wrote:Start a debate about warp field geometry, anyone.

magic

You could fill a hundred encyclopedias with all the technical and narrative inaccuracies in Star Trek; two dimensional space, clear contradictions in the standard operating procedures of Starfleet, glaringly inefficient ship designs, questionable character development, unrealistic scale of space, unrealistic equipment, convuluted timeline of events, the list is infinite. But....when Trek fires on all cylinders warp nacelles, NOBODY gives a damn.

* This is not completely true, as the Star Trek writers sometimes write in extra, unnecessary Technobabble explanations for unrealistic technology, most likely due to fan complaints. One example is that the Star Trek transporter technology, which violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, has "Heisenberg Compensators", mentioned in Star Trek:TNG episodes "Realm Of Fear" and "Ship In A Bottle", and in Star Trek:DS 9 episode "Past Tense, Part I".

Really, arguing about fictional technology is moot because as awesome as it is... it's not real.

Gasphemer wrote: Really, arguing about fictional technology is moot because as awesome as it is... it's not real.

Ah, so it's this line of argument again. God, I hate this train of thought sometimes because as politely as it's worded it's always just a veiled way of saying "lol it's not real just relax you obssessive nerd." I always hate the smugness underlying that kind of dismissiveness.

Yes, we know it's not real. Yes, we know a lot of liberties are taken in the name of artistic license. Yes, we know writers don't think things any deeper. And, yes, we do in fact have a life beyond arguing about what's "real" on a fictional object. However, if we wanna have a serious discussion, then we at least try to find an internal consistency based on some sort of reference. If we're gonna discuss something seriously, then we at least try to assume that the Star Trek universe operates on some kind of sense rather than the ad hoc mishmash of plot devices ite ssentially is. And since this happens to be a discussion on the military technology of a science-fiction, then we try to compare it to sensical real world points of reference to try and make sense of it.

If that's not your thing, too bad because that's how this board does it. Why is it done that way? Because anything else and the only discussion that happens will be:

"It's stupid, but it's cool so I'll give it a pass!"

"Oh yeah? Well this thing looks more awesome!"

"Please, that other thing is clearly more badass looking to me so I win!"

Simply put, the discussion goes fucking no where because it all ends up about what's personally subjectively cooler to the poster in question with no deeper reason beyond that. Little better than a playground argument of "my dad can beat your dad because I say so."

Man, that is a VAST improvement over the NX. It is also a nice bridge to what we will see in TOS.
Now the question remains... how can we get some better pictures?

Edit: Hey! You can get answers to your questions when you read stuff!