ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

This is what I want for Christmas

> id="QUOTE">Here's what we think we know as I posted earlier::)

Admiral_JTK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4833

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 4:44 pm

Quote (WkdYngMan @ July 30 2009, 2:27 pm)
Yep. ?And we didn't hear dialogue from officers complaining that they had difficulty departing or docking, so obviously they didn't have any problems.

You dont build 100-foot-wide shuttle bay doors for a 100-foot-wide shuttle bay portal when the opening you will have to pilot through when they are open is only maybe 35 feet wide.

NOT TO MENTION,
that if they had built it in SPACE....then maybe they wouldnt have needed to add all that internal meshwork to support getting it off the ground.

jn91669

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 720

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 6:02 pm

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (trekbuff @ July 30 2009, 4:58 pm)

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 7:28 pm

Quote (Admiral_JTK @ July 30 2009, 4:44 pm)
You dont build 100-foot-wide shuttle bay doors for a 100-foot-wide shuttle bay portal when the opening you will have to pilot through when they are open is only maybe 35 feet wide.

NOT TO MENTION,
that if they had built it in SPACE....then maybe they wouldnt have needed to add all that internal meshwork to support getting it off the ground.

Well obviously they do as we saw in the film and didn't seem to have any problems.

Admiral_JTK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4833

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 7:37 pm

Quote (WkdYngMan @ July 30 2009, 7:28 pm)
Quote (Admiral_JTK @ July 30 2009, 4:44 pm)
You dont build 100-foot-wide shuttle bay doors for a 100-foot-wide shuttle bay portal when the opening you will have to pilot through when they are open is only maybe 35 feet wide.

NOT TO MENTION,
that if they had built it in SPACE....then maybe they wouldnt have needed to add all that internal meshwork to support getting it off the ground.

Well obviously they do as we saw in the film and didn't seem to have any problems.

1? ..... I didnt see the movie.
and 2? ..... Just because you can do a thing, doesnt mean its necessarily smart or wise to do a thing.

That's an inefficient design and waste of material, an no self respecting engineer would deliberately do either.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 7:44 pm

Quote
That's an inefficient design and waste of material, an no self respecting engineer would deliberately do either.


That's the story of Star Trek ship designs for 40 years.  Oh well.

Kirk_vs_Kahn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 319

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 8:49 pm

Quote (Admiral_JTK @ July 30 2009, 12:50 pm)
Quote (Kirk_vs_Kahn @ July 29 2009, 5:32 pm)
...I want this for christmas. I honestly don't understand how anyone can say this ship is 'Butt Ugly'....

Because its Butt Ugly.

Should have been this



Done.

As for the remodeled ship...
WTF with the nacelles looking like they're crew lounge areas, and being as large as the secondary hull?
And how are they supposed to land shuttlecraft in a shuttlebay half obstructed with structural support??? Guess they need all that amount of support to hold up those pigs of a pair of nacelles

No... it's your opinoin. :)

Please don't mistake my 'not understanding' for not respecting your opinion. You don't like it, fair enough. I actually think the Trek XI Ent looks better than TOS... yes, I said it.

BTW, what's "Done"?

Kirk_vs_Kahn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 319

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 8:52 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ July 30 2009, 1:54 pm)
Quote (Admiral_JTK @ July 30 2009, 12:50 pm)
Quote (Kirk_vs_Kahn @ July 29 2009, 5:32 pm)
...I want this for christmas. I honestly don't understand how anyone can say this ship is 'Butt Ugly'....

Because its Butt Ugly.

Should have been this



Done.

As for the remodeled ship...
WTF with the nacelles looking like they're crew lounge areas, and being as large as the secondary hull?
And how are they supposed to land shuttlecraft in a shuttlebay half obstructed with structural support??? Guess they need all that amount of support to hold up those pigs of a pair of nacelles

Boo-YAH!!

:cool:

:logical:

:eyesroll:

You hate it, i love it

"Boo-Yah"  :)

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Jul. 30 2009, 11:56 pm

Give it up will you the difference between the movie Enterprise and the Old series Enterprise is marginal at best.  I'll take the movie for Xmas.

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jul. 31 2009, 12:02 am

Stoopid Nacelles!! :laugh: :laugh:

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Jul. 31 2009, 3:30 pm

For the record, the reason for some conflicting info is that some of those same people were involved with the project at various times. So the numbers they had at the time could have changed after they were gone (something John Eaves has commented on.)

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Jul. 31 2009, 4:32 pm

If there are conflicting numbers I do not mind. There are issues with conflicting canon facts and ship sizes in Star Trek and the creators can get it sorted out through time. If the new Enterprise is larger I am fine with that except some of the debris surrounding Vulcan seems even bigger! Maybe it is because the tail end is made smaller in the new Enterprise design but they can sort that out next time.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum