But equally thin and fragile-looking nacelle pylons were still used for several designs, like the very common Miranda and Excelsior Class. Which is the main reason I question where that claim came from; a very large of the Federation fleet as late as the Dominion war still has pylons like that... that and I don't remember canon ever explaining the lack of Constitutions.
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
But equally thin and fragile-looking nacelle pylons were still used for several designs, like the very common Miranda and Excelsior Class. Which is the main reason I question where that claim came from; a very large of the Federation fleet as late as the Dominion war still has pylons like that... that and I don't remember canon ever explaining the lack of Constitutions.
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
Add to this that a ship's framing tends to be tritanium, especially the bulkheads. Which is 24.1 times as hard as a diamond. JJtrek Enterprise was still partially made from Explodium and Lens Flares(also like most Ford bodies, from recycled beer cans.)
The use of triantium bulkheads has been around since ENT. Still used in the 24th century, especially for Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class, and Raven-type ships. Which has a lot to do with how sturdy they are.
"The ability to melt tritanium was beyond Federation weapons technology in 2364. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")" -Mem-Alpha on Tritanium.
But equally thin and fragile-looking nacelle pylons were still used for several designs, like the very common Miranda and Excelsior Class. Which is the main reason I question where that claim came from; a very large of the Federation fleet as late as the Dominion war still has pylons like that... that and I don't remember canon ever explaining the lack of Constitutions.
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
Add to this that a ship's framing tends to be tritanium, especially the bulkheads. Which is 24.1 times as hard as a diamond. JJtrek Enterprise was still partially made from Explodium and Lens Flares(also like most Ford bodies, from recycled beer cans.)
The use of triantium bulkheads has been around since ENT. Still used in the 24th century, especially for Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class, and Raven-type ships. Which has a lot to do with how sturdy they are.
"The ability to melt tritanium was beyond Federation weapons technology in 2364. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")" -Mem-Alpha on Tritanium.
I think JJ thinks that ALL ships made after 1950 are gonna be the same.
So the JJ Prise, and probably the Discovery itself, built like a modern car, where the smeggin' bumper falls off from little impact.
Anyhow, with the hull metals being that hard...that, ALONE, would make the 'spindly' pylons of the TOS connie mega strong.
I also like to think of those metals being like the threads I mentioned, being woven. OR a beam of light or energy hitting the frames, and the hull metal manifesting, or materializing. Or maybe even GROWN onto the frame....sorta like when making an artificial hip, the metal is made in a way so the natural bone grows and bonds to it....and that's just simple, 20th century stuff. I mean, look at the connie in my cookie picture....the surface looks smooth, like glass, and no joins or seams.
And Clark's three laws is how my own thinking in life is:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
From a wiki:
Clarke gave an example of the third law when he said that while he "would have believed anyone who told him back in 1962 that there would one day exist a book-sized object capable of holding the content of an entire library, he would never have accepted that the same device could find a page or word in a second and then convert it into any typeface and size from Albertus Extra Bold to Zurich Calligraphic", referring to his memory of "seeing and hearing Linotype machines which slowly converted ‘molten lead into front pages that required two men to lift them’"
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.
(Shermer's last law)
But equally thin and fragile-looking nacelle pylons were still used for several designs, like the very common Miranda and Excelsior Class. Which is the main reason I question where that claim came from; a very large of the Federation fleet as late as the Dominion war still has pylons like that... that and I don't remember canon ever explaining the lack of Constitutions.
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
Add to this that a ship's framing tends to be tritanium, especially the bulkheads. Which is 24.1 times as hard as a diamond. JJtrek Enterprise was still partially made from Explodium and Lens Flares(also like most Ford bodies, from recycled beer cans.)
The use of triantium bulkheads has been around since ENT. Still used in the 24th century, especially for Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class, and Raven-type ships. Which has a lot to do with how sturdy they are.
"The ability to melt tritanium was beyond Federation weapons technology in 2364. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")" -Mem-Alpha on Tritanium.
I think JJ thinks that ALL ships made after 1950 are gonna be the same.
So the JJ Prise, and probably the Discovery itself, built like a modern car, where the smeggin' bumper falls off from little impact.
Anyhow, with the hull metals being that hard...that, ALONE, would make the 'spindly' pylons of the TOS connie mega strong.
I also like to think of those metals being like the threads I mentioned, being woven. OR a beam of light or energy hitting the frames, and the hull metal manifesting, or materializing. Or maybe even GROWN onto the frame....sorta like when making an artificial hip, the metal is made in a way so the natural bone grows and bonds to it....and that's just simple, 20th century stuff. I mean, look at the connie in my cookie picture....the surface looks smooth, like glass, and no joins or seams.
And Clark's three laws is how my own thinking in life is:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
From a wiki:
Clarke gave an example of the third law when he said that while he "would have believed anyone who told him back in 1962 that there would one day exist a book-sized object capable of holding the content of an entire library, he would never have accepted that the same device could find a page or word in a second and then convert it into any typeface and size from Albertus Extra Bold to Zurich Calligraphic", referring to his memory of "seeing and hearing Linotype machines which slowly converted ‘molten lead into front pages that required two men to lift them’"
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.
(Shermer's last law)
In a way the bulkheads are grown. The raw material, tritanium ore, goes in one end of an industrial replicator, and a preformed bulkhead comes out the other end. Wouldn't be difficult to have the replicator temper(harden) the finished product.
Plus with the Axanar cargo ship hulls being a mix of tritanium and disilicon polymers, the possibility is there.
Add to this we have neutronium plating in game. Which, we can't make right now. I mean right now, the only neutronium we know of, exists in at the core of a neutron star.
In both cases, tritanium and neutronium, we've already stepped into the realm of the currently impossible.
But equally thin and fragile-looking nacelle pylons were still used for several designs, like the very common Miranda and Excelsior Class. Which is the main reason I question where that claim came from; a very large of the Federation fleet as late as the Dominion war still has pylons like that... that and I don't remember canon ever explaining the lack of Constitutions.
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
Add to this that a ship's framing tends to be tritanium, especially the bulkheads. Which is 24.1 times as hard as a diamond. JJtrek Enterprise was still partially made from Explodium and Lens Flares(also like most Ford bodies, from recycled beer cans.)
The use of triantium bulkheads has been around since ENT. Still used in the 24th century, especially for Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class, and Raven-type ships. Which has a lot to do with how sturdy they are.
"The ability to melt tritanium was beyond Federation weapons technology in 2364. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")" -Mem-Alpha on Tritanium.
I think JJ thinks that ALL ships made after 1950 are gonna be the same.
So the JJ Prise, and probably the Discovery itself, built like a modern car, where the smeggin' bumper falls off from little impact.
Anyhow, with the hull metals being that hard...that, ALONE, would make the 'spindly' pylons of the TOS connie mega strong.
I also like to think of those metals being like the threads I mentioned, being woven. OR a beam of light or energy hitting the frames, and the hull metal manifesting, or materializing. Or maybe even GROWN onto the frame....sorta like when making an artificial hip, the metal is made in a way so the natural bone grows and bonds to it....and that's just simple, 20th century stuff. I mean, look at the connie in my cookie picture....the surface looks smooth, like glass, and no joins or seams.
And Clark's three laws is how my own thinking in life is:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
From a wiki:
Clarke gave an example of the third law when he said that while he "would have believed anyone who told him back in 1962 that there would one day exist a book-sized object capable of holding the content of an entire library, he would never have accepted that the same device could find a page or word in a second and then convert it into any typeface and size from Albertus Extra Bold to Zurich Calligraphic", referring to his memory of "seeing and hearing Linotype machines which slowly converted ‘molten lead into front pages that required two men to lift them’"
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.
(Shermer's last law)
In a way the bulkheads are grown. The raw material, tritanium ore, goes in one end of an industrial replicator, and a preformed bulkhead comes out the other end. Wouldn't be difficult to have the replicator temper(harden) the finished product.
Plus with the Axanar cargo ship hulls being a mix of tritanium and disilicon polymers, the possibility is there.
Add to this we have neutronium plating in game. Which, we can't make right now. I mean right now, the only neutronium we know of, exists in at the core of a neutron star.
In both cases, tritanium and neutronium, we've already stepped into the realm of the currently impossible.
*Fist Bump*
FRIEND!
And being a witness to many UFO's over the past 17 years, I've seen one that was on the edge of the horizon, VANISH, and instantly materialize on the opposite end of the sky, the thing was still partially visible when it reappeared on the other end of the sky...like the Picard maneuver, but no light trials...was more like a 'jump' (think of the bit from the original "Asteroids" game, where you can warp from one spot of the screen to another). That left an impression on me that tells me that what might be thought of as impossible being actually possible...like Clark's first rule.
So, the ideal of something being 'realistic', to me, is irrelevant. I always look to those adorable bumble bees....with their chubby bodies, and small wings, you would think they could not fly, but they do it. I always think of the bumble bee when someone says something is impossible.
As Kirk would say, nothing is unknown, just temporarily hidden.
Sometimes, I think people say something is impossible, and ridicule it, because of ego....there are people out there who would rather be right, than be happy. I also know several scientists and engineers who admitted they would rather be accused of, and convicted of, crimes like murders or sexual crimes, rather than be proven wrong, or what they were trained/taught was correct, turned out to be wrong (even if they were innocent). Also, money.....some folks will stand a lot to lose if something that was once considered impossible turned out to be very possible. The death of Stan Meyer, who made a car that ran on water, dying under mysterious circumstances, always was fishy to me.
Anyhow, something new, ground breaking, and controversial.....and later turning out to be true, always seems to have 3 stages.
1: It gets heavily ridiculed
2: It gets down right attacked....passionately
3: It becomes accepted, sooner or later
As for ship making, besides sticking in the raw material in a replicator, and a formed item comes out the other end, I also can picture a beam, sweeping over the frame, like a pendulum, and with each sweep, more hull material manifests.
Well... you do have to admit that for all its advancements, the basic overall design of the Connie does have some glaring vulnerabilities. Even the Kelvin Timeline Connie had them, and we actually saw that exploited in Beyond.
If we look at designs that came after the Connie, we see lower profile pylons and thicker necks in general if a ship actually has a neck.
No, one doesn't have to admit that.
It's not modern day technology, so we have no idea how it works, it's limits, nor it's advantages. You're like a caveman asking where the rocks are kept.
(...)
Anyhow, something new, ground breaking, and controversial.....and later turning out to be true, always seems to have 3 stages.
1: It gets heavily ridiculed
2: It gets down right attacked....passionately
3: It becomes accepted, sooner or later
As for ship making, besides sticking in the raw material in a replicator, and a formed item comes out the other end, I also can picture a beam, sweeping over the frame, like a pendulum, and with each sweep, more hull material manifests.
While it is true to some degree, the argument should not be misused to open the door to pseudoscience and the like. You did use the "bumblebee argument" which, of course, is not true. If anything, it shows that our understanding of things needs to evolve in order to fully comprehend them. But still, please keep in mind that a lot of things (a lot) that are "said" are simply nonsense, not every "brain TRIBBLE" is a revolutionary idea and something doesn't become a better argument just because it is disputed by the scientific community. You simply drift into conspiracies this way and then you get truly lost.
The "woven" Connie unfortunately also doesn't hold true in Star Trek canon since it has very obvious wielding lines on the model itself. It is fantastic technology of course and like others already have stated, the "magic" of structural integrity fields alone renders any argument about "weak" frames moot.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...)
Anyhow, something new, ground breaking, and controversial.....and later turning out to be true, always seems to have 3 stages.
1: It gets heavily ridiculed
2: It gets down right attacked....passionately
3: It becomes accepted, sooner or later
As for ship making, besides sticking in the raw material in a replicator, and a formed item comes out the other end, I also can picture a beam, sweeping over the frame, like a pendulum, and with each sweep, more hull material manifests.
While it is true to some degree, the argument should not be misused to open the door to pseudoscience and the like. You did use the "bumblebee argument" which, of course, is not true. If anything, it shows that our understanding of things needs to evolve in order to fully comprehend them. But still, please keep in mind that a lot of things (a lot) that are "said" are simply nonsense, not every "brain TRIBBLE" is a revolutionary idea and something doesn't become a better argument just because it is disputed by the scientific community. You simply drift into conspiracies this way and then you get truly lost.
The "woven" Connie unfortunately also doesn't hold true in Star Trek canon since it has very obvious wielding lines on the model itself. It is fantastic technology of course and like others already have stated, the "magic" of structural integrity fields alone renders any argument about "weak" frames moot.
Cannon smanon (hell, CBS has been doing a lot of that, lately) I'll stick to my own head cannon.
SIF's always felt a bit....well, primitive in my eyes.....and not very magical.
But equally thin and fragile-looking nacelle pylons were still used for several designs, like the very common Miranda and Excelsior Class. Which is the main reason I question where that claim came from; a very large of the Federation fleet as late as the Dominion war still has pylons like that... that and I don't remember canon ever explaining the lack of Constitutions.
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
Add to this that a ship's framing tends to be tritanium, especially the bulkheads. Which is 24.1 times as hard as a diamond. JJtrek Enterprise was still partially made from Explodium and Lens Flares(also like most Ford bodies, from recycled beer cans.)
The use of triantium bulkheads has been around since ENT. Still used in the 24th century, especially for Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class, and Raven-type ships. Which has a lot to do with how sturdy they are.
"The ability to melt tritanium was beyond Federation weapons technology in 2364. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")" -Mem-Alpha on Tritanium.
I think JJ thinks that ALL ships made after 1950 are gonna be the same.
So the JJ Prise, and probably the Discovery itself, built like a modern car, where the smeggin' bumper falls off from little impact.
Anyhow, with the hull metals being that hard...that, ALONE, would make the 'spindly' pylons of the TOS connie mega strong.
I also like to think of those metals being like the threads I mentioned, being woven. OR a beam of light or energy hitting the frames, and the hull metal manifesting, or materializing. Or maybe even GROWN onto the frame....sorta like when making an artificial hip, the metal is made in a way so the natural bone grows and bonds to it....and that's just simple, 20th century stuff. I mean, look at the connie in my cookie picture....the surface looks smooth, like glass, and no joins or seams.
And Clark's three laws is how my own thinking in life is:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
From a wiki:
Clarke gave an example of the third law when he said that while he "would have believed anyone who told him back in 1962 that there would one day exist a book-sized object capable of holding the content of an entire library, he would never have accepted that the same device could find a page or word in a second and then convert it into any typeface and size from Albertus Extra Bold to Zurich Calligraphic", referring to his memory of "seeing and hearing Linotype machines which slowly converted ‘molten lead into front pages that required two men to lift them’"
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.
(Shermer's last law)
In a way the bulkheads are grown. The raw material, tritanium ore, goes in one end of an industrial replicator, and a preformed bulkhead comes out the other end. Wouldn't be difficult to have the replicator temper(harden) the finished product.
Plus with the Axanar cargo ship hulls being a mix of tritanium and disilicon polymers, the possibility is there.
Add to this we have neutronium plating in game. Which, we can't make right now. I mean right now, the only neutronium we know of, exists in at the core of a neutron star.
In both cases, tritanium and neutronium, we've already stepped into the realm of the currently impossible.
*Fist Bump*
FRIEND!
And being a witness to many UFO's over the past 17 years, I've seen one that was on the edge of the horizon, VANISH, and instantly materialize on the opposite end of the sky, the thing was still partially visible when it reappeared on the other end of the sky...like the Picard maneuver, but no light trials...was more like a 'jump' (think of the bit from the original "Asteroids" game, where you can warp from one spot of the screen to another). That left an impression on me that tells me that what might be thought of as impossible being actually possible...like Clark's first rule.
So, the ideal of something being 'realistic', to me, is irrelevant. I always look to those adorable bumble bees....with their chubby bodies, and small wings, you would think they could not fly, but they do it. I always think of the bumble bee when someone says something is impossible.
As Kirk would say, nothing is unknown, just temporarily hidden.
Sometimes, I think people say something is impossible, and ridicule it, because of ego....there are people out there who would rather be right, than be happy. I also know several scientists and engineers who admitted they would rather be accused of, and convicted of, crimes like murders or sexual crimes, rather than be proven wrong, or what they were trained/taught was correct, turned out to be wrong (even if they were innocent). Also, money.....some folks will stand a lot to lose if something that was once considered impossible turned out to be very possible. The death of Stan Meyer, who made a car that ran on water, dying under mysterious circumstances, always was fishy to me.
Anyhow, something new, ground breaking, and controversial.....and later turning out to be true, always seems to have 3 stages.
1: It gets heavily ridiculed
2: It gets down right attacked....passionately
3: It becomes accepted, sooner or later
As for ship making, besides sticking in the raw material in a replicator, and a formed item comes out the other end, I also can picture a beam, sweeping over the frame, like a pendulum, and with each sweep, more hull material manifests.
It's not modern day technology, so we have no idea how it works, it's limits, nor it's advantages. You're like a caveman asking where the rocks are kept.
I take offense to being compared to a caveman.
If you look at Federation ship design starting from the Connie through to the Sovereign, you see a progression in the areas of the neck and nacelle pylons. Other than the Ambassador most TNG era ships have either a thick neck or no neck at all. And the pylons are not as thin and exposed. A Connie's pylons are straight and long. Even an Excelsior had shorter, bent pylons, which make them a bit harder to hit and a much thicker neck.
In the prime timeline, these weaknesses weren't directly targeted by adversaries except on one occasion, Khan's surprise attack on the refit Enterprise. However in the Kelvin Timeline, we see this exploited big time by Krell's armada shredding the Enterprise. He even ORDERED his drone fleet to "decapitate" the Enterprise. Which they did quite easily.
Now... compare the Connie to later ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign. The Galaxy has a thicker neck and bent, wide pylons. From the top or bottom the pylons are somewhat easy to hit, but from the sides not so much, and there's even a phaser strip on the pylons. And the Sovereign... virturally no neck whatsoever.
If we were talking the Universe class like the Enterprise-J, then I wouldn't have any footing because that thing is built with toothpicks and who knows what kind of 26th century juju. But we're taling something 300 years before that at least.
And Tritanium not being able to be melted by phasers? If that was the case they wouldn't need shields to protect themselves from weapons fire.
This isn't caveman or "ape brain" thinking. This is tactical thinking. The D7 has a similar vulnerability in having that long boom neck as well. When fighting a ship, you look for potential weak points. In the 23rd Century, two iconic ships happen to have these potential structural vulnerabilities that could cripple or even disable entirely if focused on. Its no different than saying that an Imperial-II Star Destroyer in Star Wars has exposed shield generator domes.
I'm not bashing the Connie for these weaknesses. She's still an amazing ship that basically set the standard for Federation design and exploration. But from a tactical standpoint she does have flaws. No ship is perfect. Not the NX, Not the Galaxy, Not even the Connie.
What makes up for these flaws however, is the skill of a ship's captain and crew. Knowing the ship means being able to fight the ship effectively. Make her dance. You know your strengths and weaknesses, and you plan accordingly. And generally Captains of Connies were smart. Even with those structural weak points a Connie was a formidable opponent in the hands of a skilled Captain.
It's not modern day technology, so we have no idea how it works, it's limits, nor it's advantages. You're like a caveman asking where the rocks are kept.
I take offense to being compared to a caveman.
If you look at Federation ship design starting
No thanks.
While your points are seriously flawed, I'll not waste time on them. Just understand that your flat statement is seen as the typical of the type of self-centered arrogance displayed by people who don't understand that their own personal world view doesn't translate in to fact for others.
The "woven" Connie unfortunately also doesn't hold true in Star Trek canon since it has very obvious wielding lines on the model itself. It is fantastic technology of course and like others already have stated, the "magic" of structural integrity fields alone renders any argument about "weak" frames moot.
Show me these 'wielding' lines. I recall a deflector grid and other external features- but no 'wielding' lines.
Actual wielding lines wouldn't be visible even at the closest onscreen POV we get of the Enterprise in TOS.
And sometimes the opposite occurs, where something that was never intended to keep going so long and had multiple attempts to replace it, manages to just keep going, like the B-52, which has outlasted all of its intended successors and has no firm retirement plans anymore.
I am not here to have my character insulted. I am only trying to have a civil debate. I have backed up my side rather calmly and with evidence. All I get in response is "space magic, Explodium, and insults".
That is NOT a civil debate. That is borderline personal attack against me. Continue to do so and I will report it as such, and let the mods decide. But I will not sit here and be attacked like that.
I am not here to have my character insulted. I am only trying to have a civil debate. I have backed up my side rather calmly and with evidence. All I get in response is "space magic, Explodium, and insults".
You don't have evidence, only made up conjecture.
Here's evidence, please pay attention.
This is the only visual example of an TOS Connie sustaining massive damage we have onscreen. It's attacker was using a weapon capable of craving up entire planets into ship size rocks for digestion.
We know from the on screen Enterprise's encounter with the same weapon that this result took multiple strikes.
We also know from the show that ship took enough damage to render it's warp drive un-repairable outside a dry dock, and to force the crew to abandon ship. Its Impulse drive however remained repairable, and one Phaser weapon was able to be returned to service. Life support remained intact across most of the ship (but not the bridge).
Take note of the following from the image:
The neck and the pylons remain structurally intact. Both pylons show multiple surface burn markings- clearly from multiple hits that they *bounced*.
One pylon section missing, but it is a very clean break for the most part. It almost looks like something was jettisoned and not blasted. Perhaps a damage control measure, or perhaps a feature of its design as type of ablative protection for the remaining structure behind it.
The warp drive nacelles show the most serious damage. But only at the ends. It's unclear if that was their weakest point structurally, or if the nacelle was overloaded and 'blew out'.
There are three bites out of the main saucer, but these are rather shallow and it remains rather intact as a whole.
There are multiple burn markings across ship, again indicating attacks that bounced.
Remember- this from multiple hits from a weapon capable of craving up entire planets
Nothing about that design is shown as weak on screen. And none of your limited understanding of early 21st century engineer requirements has any influence on that.
This isn't caveman or "ape brain" thinking. This is tactical thinking. The D7 has a similar vulnerability in having that long boom neck as well.
The D7's design is actually brilliant if viewed from a realistic perspective. Just picture the back of the D7 being full of radiation-emitting equipment: reactors and other nasty things. What's the cheapest way to protect your crew from radiation while saving on mass, because mass makes your ship slow and guzzle fuel? Distance. How do you get that distance? Stick everyone on a pod on a long boom away from the radiation.
No idea if you're right or not, but what is clear is that rattler2 has no concept of that type of design requirement and trade-off.
He'd say that those thin and large wings on a F-15 are too subject to damage and should be removed, without even considering that oh- it may need them thin and large to fly at all
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Direct phaser hit with shields down. (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
Ramming attacks by drone ships. (Star Trek Beyond)
Hole punched in the saucer w/ shields down. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
None of which are planet killers.
The fact that the Constellation survived at all is a miracle. It also shows that the Federation puts high value in structural integrity and survivability. However there is still the fact that future designs have shorter, wider pylons and thicker or non existant necks, which shows a shift in ship design to address a potential tactical vulnerability.
Note that the Sovereign, a much later design, doesn't really have a neck. And I know the angle isn't the best, but the pylons are beefier than those on the Connie.
THIS... is more civil. Leaving out attacks on the other person because they disagree. If you choose to keep it civil, we can continue. Hell... I'd look forward to continuing this. But any personal attacks won't be tolerated.
So respectfully... lets not bring each other's education, character, or thinking into this and stick to the ships themselves.
The D7's design is actually brilliant if viewed from a realistic perspective. Just picture the back of the D7 being full of radiation-emitting equipment: reactors and other nasty things. What's the cheapest way to protect your crew from radiation while saving on mass, because mass makes your ship slow and guzzle fuel? Distance. How do you get that distance? Stick everyone on a pod on a long boom away from the radiation.
While that is true... the bridge, which is the brains of the ship, is on the boom. Slice that off, and not only does the bridge lose power, it really has no means of maneuvering unless you take into consideration soft or non-canon sources claiming that the D7 has a "saucer seperation" ability like the Connie in cases of emergency. The only counter to this would be to have an aux control room somewhere in the secondary hull. As it stands, we don't know for sure if the D7 does have either or not. Canon doesn't show it. Soft-Canon is ambiguous depending on the source. I believe in one instance of Starfleet Battles, this ability was mentioned, alongside the Constitution saucer seperation. So in all honesty... we don't really know for sure.
Direct phaser hit with shields down. (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
And yet the unshield neck is still there. In fact the torpedo room on the other system is even intact.
I don't care about your later examples as I consider them to be a completely different (and much weaker) setting both culturally and technologically than TOS. I consider the nerfing Star Trek took in those later series a crying shame.
So I'll grant all the weakness you want to TNG and later works. To be honest WoK isn't interesting to me either, so consider my answer there a gift.
The Enterprise itself is a planet killer in TOS, stated multiple times to be able to destroy entire planets. It in fact killed everyone on a Connie *quicker* in the Ultimate Computer than the Doomsday Weapon managed (as the Enterprise tanked more hits from it than the Excalibur did from Enterprise).
Remember from 'The Changeling', the Enterprise's shields could take the equivalent of 450 Photon Torpedoes before they would go down. Though, from 'The Ultimate Computer' we know these ships unshielded had a more difficult time. The Excalibur was holed and all crew lost and the Lexington took a bit of a beating.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Remember from 'The Changeling', the Enterprise's shields could take the equivalent of 450 Photon Torpedoes before they would go down. Though, from 'The Ultimate Computer' we know these ships unshielded had a more difficult time. The Excalibur was holed and all crew lost and the Lexington took a bit of a beating.
TOS Enterprise was a beast. It could toast Klingon and Romulan ships with single direct hits, and tank like a @#$% (I only gave one example above but there are others).
Things changed, and in later Star Trek shows only the Defiant has any similarity.
> @drakethewhite said: > Show me these 'wielding' lines. I recall a deflector grid and other external features- but no 'wielding' lines. > > Actual wielding lines wouldn't be visible even at the closest onscreen POV we get of the Enterprise in TOS.
The segments of the hull are clearly segmented. It was pieced together at those lines, probably phaser or plasma wielded (the TNG technical manual describes the process on the D, I'd assume Starfleet doesn't mothball their waving crystal tech for primitive techniques).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
> @drakethewhite said:
> Show me these 'wielding' lines. I recall a deflector grid and other external features- but no 'wielding' lines.
>
> Actual wielding lines wouldn't be visible even at the closest onscreen POV we get of the Enterprise in TOS.
The segments of the hull are clearly segmented. It was pieced together at those lines, probably phaser or plasma wielded (the TNG technical manual describes the process on the D, I'd assume Starfleet doesn't mothball their waving crystal tech for primitive techniques).
Direct phaser hit with shields down. (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
And yet the unshield neck is still there. In fact the torpedo room on the other system is even intact.
I don't care about your later examples as I consider them to be a completely different (and much weaker) setting both culturally and technologically than TOS. I consider the nerfing Star Trek took in those later series a crying shame.
So I'll grant all the weakness you want to TNG and later works. To be honest WoK isn't interesting to me either, so consider my answer there a gift.
The Enterprise itself is a planet killer in TOS, stated multiple times to be able to destroy entire planets. It in fact killed everyone on a Connie *quicker* in the Ultimate Computer than the Doomsday Weapon managed (as the Enterprise tanked more hits from it than the Excalibur did from Enterprise).
And the Enterprise took a Romulan nuclear bomb blast at close range, with just a few circuit burnouts.
The Defiant also took a barrage of firepower from the 22nd century ships in a Mirror Darkly....and there was not a scratch on the hull. Also, the shot of it and the NX Enterprise, side by side, the Connie looks far more advanced. The NX is all gnarly, covered in bits and pieces....I think there were stories where repairs needed to be done, had to be on the OUTSIDE of the ship. The connie had all it the stuff INSIDE. And, apart from mega hardcore damage, like the Constellation, it could all be done on the inside.
Yea, seems TWoK nerfed everything.....torpedoes especially. And those phasers felt, to me....weak, too....chipping away at the hulls, and the sounds were god awful >_<;;
And it's cool to see someone who did not care much for TWoK as well. ^_^
This is so far off the rails from the OP that it's not even talking about the game anymore either. /Thread
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Comments
As Dug Drexler would say, advanced technology and techniques can make a ship's hull very strong.
Remember Author C, Clark's third rule:
Any technology significantly advanced to our own would be indistinguishable from magic.
So, with that, I can easily envision a ship, like the Connie, being 'grown' or 'woven' and made mega strong. In the tos novel "Wounded sky", ship hulls are made of a crystalline threads, woven together, and made mega, duper strong.
This ain't like JJ, with sweaty guys, in boiler suits, with WELDERS, spending several years piecing together bits of steel. Any wonder why the JJ Prise was so prone to damage.
Look at the beatings the TOS Connie took from the Planet Killer, a Romulan nuclear bomb, a giant hand, etc.
As well as the beating it took from the Reliant in TWoK...and the beating the Reliant itself took.
Hell, if Han Solo/Lando Calrisian could take an old, pile of junk freighter, and turn it into a tough lil battle ship, enough to take on the Imperial fleets, why not here?
In my own comics, the Soyuz featured is becoming quite the giant killer as time goes by.
And my main toon's ship, the USS Hoagland, is like a mini Vengeance, so....
....relax, breathe, have a drink, move your bowels and just enjoy.
Add to this that a ship's framing tends to be tritanium, especially the bulkheads. Which is 24.1 times as hard as a diamond. JJtrek Enterprise was still partially made from Explodium and Lens Flares(also like most Ford bodies, from recycled beer cans.)
The use of triantium bulkheads has been around since ENT. Still used in the 24th century, especially for Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class, and Raven-type ships. Which has a lot to do with how sturdy they are.
"The ability to melt tritanium was beyond Federation weapons technology in 2364. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom")" -Mem-Alpha on Tritanium.
I think JJ thinks that ALL ships made after 1950 are gonna be the same.
So the JJ Prise, and probably the Discovery itself, built like a modern car, where the smeggin' bumper falls off from little impact.
Anyhow, with the hull metals being that hard...that, ALONE, would make the 'spindly' pylons of the TOS connie mega strong.
I also like to think of those metals being like the threads I mentioned, being woven. OR a beam of light or energy hitting the frames, and the hull metal manifesting, or materializing. Or maybe even GROWN onto the frame....sorta like when making an artificial hip, the metal is made in a way so the natural bone grows and bonds to it....and that's just simple, 20th century stuff. I mean, look at the connie in my cookie picture....the surface looks smooth, like glass, and no joins or seams.
And Clark's three laws is how my own thinking in life is:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
From a wiki:
Clarke gave an example of the third law when he said that while he "would have believed anyone who told him back in 1962 that there would one day exist a book-sized object capable of holding the content of an entire library, he would never have accepted that the same device could find a page or word in a second and then convert it into any typeface and size from Albertus Extra Bold to Zurich Calligraphic", referring to his memory of "seeing and hearing Linotype machines which slowly converted ‘molten lead into front pages that required two men to lift them’"
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.
(Shermer's last law)
In a way the bulkheads are grown. The raw material, tritanium ore, goes in one end of an industrial replicator, and a preformed bulkhead comes out the other end. Wouldn't be difficult to have the replicator temper(harden) the finished product.
Plus with the Axanar cargo ship hulls being a mix of tritanium and disilicon polymers, the possibility is there.
Add to this we have neutronium plating in game. Which, we can't make right now. I mean right now, the only neutronium we know of, exists in at the core of a neutron star.
In both cases, tritanium and neutronium, we've already stepped into the realm of the currently impossible.
*Fist Bump*
FRIEND!
And being a witness to many UFO's over the past 17 years, I've seen one that was on the edge of the horizon, VANISH, and instantly materialize on the opposite end of the sky, the thing was still partially visible when it reappeared on the other end of the sky...like the Picard maneuver, but no light trials...was more like a 'jump' (think of the bit from the original "Asteroids" game, where you can warp from one spot of the screen to another). That left an impression on me that tells me that what might be thought of as impossible being actually possible...like Clark's first rule.
So, the ideal of something being 'realistic', to me, is irrelevant. I always look to those adorable bumble bees....with their chubby bodies, and small wings, you would think they could not fly, but they do it. I always think of the bumble bee when someone says something is impossible.
As Kirk would say, nothing is unknown, just temporarily hidden.
Sometimes, I think people say something is impossible, and ridicule it, because of ego....there are people out there who would rather be right, than be happy. I also know several scientists and engineers who admitted they would rather be accused of, and convicted of, crimes like murders or sexual crimes, rather than be proven wrong, or what they were trained/taught was correct, turned out to be wrong (even if they were innocent). Also, money.....some folks will stand a lot to lose if something that was once considered impossible turned out to be very possible. The death of Stan Meyer, who made a car that ran on water, dying under mysterious circumstances, always was fishy to me.
Anyhow, something new, ground breaking, and controversial.....and later turning out to be true, always seems to have 3 stages.
1: It gets heavily ridiculed
2: It gets down right attacked....passionately
3: It becomes accepted, sooner or later
As for ship making, besides sticking in the raw material in a replicator, and a formed item comes out the other end, I also can picture a beam, sweeping over the frame, like a pendulum, and with each sweep, more hull material manifests.
No where that means anything.
No, one doesn't have to admit that.
It's not modern day technology, so we have no idea how it works, it's limits, nor it's advantages. You're like a caveman asking where the rocks are kept.
While it is true to some degree, the argument should not be misused to open the door to pseudoscience and the like. You did use the "bumblebee argument" which, of course, is not true. If anything, it shows that our understanding of things needs to evolve in order to fully comprehend them. But still, please keep in mind that a lot of things (a lot) that are "said" are simply nonsense, not every "brain TRIBBLE" is a revolutionary idea and something doesn't become a better argument just because it is disputed by the scientific community. You simply drift into conspiracies this way and then you get truly lost.
The "woven" Connie unfortunately also doesn't hold true in Star Trek canon since it has very obvious wielding lines on the model itself. It is fantastic technology of course and like others already have stated, the "magic" of structural integrity fields alone renders any argument about "weak" frames moot.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Cannon smanon (hell, CBS has been doing a lot of that, lately) I'll stick to my own head cannon.
SIF's always felt a bit....well, primitive in my eyes.....and not very magical.
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Polyalloy_Weave_Armor
Poly = many. So yes, weaving at least the hull plating would be possible. Especially if you combine it with the nanotech we have in game.
I take offense to being compared to a caveman.
If you look at Federation ship design starting from the Connie through to the Sovereign, you see a progression in the areas of the neck and nacelle pylons. Other than the Ambassador most TNG era ships have either a thick neck or no neck at all. And the pylons are not as thin and exposed. A Connie's pylons are straight and long. Even an Excelsior had shorter, bent pylons, which make them a bit harder to hit and a much thicker neck.
In the prime timeline, these weaknesses weren't directly targeted by adversaries except on one occasion, Khan's surprise attack on the refit Enterprise. However in the Kelvin Timeline, we see this exploited big time by Krell's armada shredding the Enterprise. He even ORDERED his drone fleet to "decapitate" the Enterprise. Which they did quite easily.
Now... compare the Connie to later ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign. The Galaxy has a thicker neck and bent, wide pylons. From the top or bottom the pylons are somewhat easy to hit, but from the sides not so much, and there's even a phaser strip on the pylons. And the Sovereign... virturally no neck whatsoever.
If we were talking the Universe class like the Enterprise-J, then I wouldn't have any footing because that thing is built with toothpicks and who knows what kind of 26th century juju. But we're taling something 300 years before that at least.
And Tritanium not being able to be melted by phasers? If that was the case they wouldn't need shields to protect themselves from weapons fire.
This isn't caveman or "ape brain" thinking. This is tactical thinking. The D7 has a similar vulnerability in having that long boom neck as well. When fighting a ship, you look for potential weak points. In the 23rd Century, two iconic ships happen to have these potential structural vulnerabilities that could cripple or even disable entirely if focused on. Its no different than saying that an Imperial-II Star Destroyer in Star Wars has exposed shield generator domes.
I'm not bashing the Connie for these weaknesses. She's still an amazing ship that basically set the standard for Federation design and exploration. But from a tactical standpoint she does have flaws. No ship is perfect. Not the NX, Not the Galaxy, Not even the Connie.
What makes up for these flaws however, is the skill of a ship's captain and crew. Knowing the ship means being able to fight the ship effectively. Make her dance. You know your strengths and weaknesses, and you plan accordingly. And generally Captains of Connies were smart. Even with those structural weak points a Connie was a formidable opponent in the hands of a skilled Captain.
No thanks.
While your points are seriously flawed, I'll not waste time on them. Just understand that your flat statement is seen as the typical of the type of self-centered arrogance displayed by people who don't understand that their own personal world view doesn't translate in to fact for others.
Show me these 'wielding' lines. I recall a deflector grid and other external features- but no 'wielding' lines.
Actual wielding lines wouldn't be visible even at the closest onscreen POV we get of the Enterprise in TOS.
Just for fun- See here
And Here
That is NOT a civil debate. That is borderline personal attack against me. Continue to do so and I will report it as such, and let the mods decide. But I will not sit here and be attacked like that.
You don't have evidence, only made up conjecture.
Here's evidence, please pay attention.
This is the only visual example of an TOS Connie sustaining massive damage we have onscreen. It's attacker was using a weapon capable of craving up entire planets into ship size rocks for digestion.
We know from the on screen Enterprise's encounter with the same weapon that this result took multiple strikes.
We also know from the show that ship took enough damage to render it's warp drive un-repairable outside a dry dock, and to force the crew to abandon ship. Its Impulse drive however remained repairable, and one Phaser weapon was able to be returned to service. Life support remained intact across most of the ship (but not the bridge).
Take note of the following from the image:
Remember- this from multiple hits from a weapon capable of craving up entire planets
Nothing about that design is shown as weak on screen. And none of your limited understanding of early 21st century engineer requirements has any influence on that.
No idea if you're right or not, but what is clear is that rattler2 has no concept of that type of design requirement and trade-off.
He'd say that those thin and large wings on a F-15 are too subject to damage and should be removed, without even considering that oh- it may need them thin and large to fly at all
Arrogant self-centered, ha.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Direct phaser hit with shields down. (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
Ramming attacks by drone ships. (Star Trek Beyond)
Hole punched in the saucer w/ shields down. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
None of which are planet killers.
The fact that the Constellation survived at all is a miracle. It also shows that the Federation puts high value in structural integrity and survivability. However there is still the fact that future designs have shorter, wider pylons and thicker or non existant necks, which shows a shift in ship design to address a potential tactical vulnerability.
Note that the Sovereign, a much later design, doesn't really have a neck. And I know the angle isn't the best, but the pylons are beefier than those on the Connie.
THIS... is more civil. Leaving out attacks on the other person because they disagree. If you choose to keep it civil, we can continue. Hell... I'd look forward to continuing this. But any personal attacks won't be tolerated.
So respectfully... lets not bring each other's education, character, or thinking into this and stick to the ships themselves.
While that is true... the bridge, which is the brains of the ship, is on the boom. Slice that off, and not only does the bridge lose power, it really has no means of maneuvering unless you take into consideration soft or non-canon sources claiming that the D7 has a "saucer seperation" ability like the Connie in cases of emergency. The only counter to this would be to have an aux control room somewhere in the secondary hull. As it stands, we don't know for sure if the D7 does have either or not. Canon doesn't show it. Soft-Canon is ambiguous depending on the source. I believe in one instance of Starfleet Battles, this ability was mentioned, alongside the Constitution saucer seperation. So in all honesty... we don't really know for sure.
And yet the unshield neck is still there. In fact the torpedo room on the other system is even intact.
I don't care about your later examples as I consider them to be a completely different (and much weaker) setting both culturally and technologically than TOS. I consider the nerfing Star Trek took in those later series a crying shame.
So I'll grant all the weakness you want to TNG and later works. To be honest WoK isn't interesting to me either, so consider my answer there a gift.
Wrong.
The Enterprise itself is a planet killer in TOS, stated multiple times to be able to destroy entire planets. It in fact killed everyone on a Connie *quicker* in the Ultimate Computer than the Doomsday Weapon managed (as the Enterprise tanked more hits from it than the Excalibur did from Enterprise).
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
TOS Enterprise was a beast. It could toast Klingon and Romulan ships with single direct hits, and tank like a @#$% (I only gave one example above but there are others).
Things changed, and in later Star Trek shows only the Defiant has any similarity.
> Show me these 'wielding' lines. I recall a deflector grid and other external features- but no 'wielding' lines.
>
> Actual wielding lines wouldn't be visible even at the closest onscreen POV we get of the Enterprise in TOS.
The segments of the hull are clearly segmented. It was pieced together at those lines, probably phaser or plasma wielded (the TNG technical manual describes the process on the D, I'd assume Starfleet doesn't mothball their waving crystal tech for primitive techniques).
https://tinyurl.com/y38ma4fj
That's the CGI remaster of the original model
https://tinyurl.com/y23by5k7
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Those are what I always saw referred to as the Deflector Grid. They were labeled such in the blueprints from the era.
But even discounting that, they can't be wields. Wields of that width so clearly visible from such a distance would be insanely weak.
Example: You can't see the wields on the USS George Bush.
Why do you think you can see them on the Enterprise? Where do people get such ideas?
And the Enterprise took a Romulan nuclear bomb blast at close range, with just a few circuit burnouts.
The Defiant also took a barrage of firepower from the 22nd century ships in a Mirror Darkly....and there was not a scratch on the hull. Also, the shot of it and the NX Enterprise, side by side, the Connie looks far more advanced. The NX is all gnarly, covered in bits and pieces....I think there were stories where repairs needed to be done, had to be on the OUTSIDE of the ship. The connie had all it the stuff INSIDE. And, apart from mega hardcore damage, like the Constellation, it could all be done on the inside.
Yea, seems TWoK nerfed everything.....torpedoes especially. And those phasers felt, to me....weak, too....chipping away at the hulls, and the sounds were god awful >_<;;
And it's cool to see someone who did not care much for TWoK as well. ^_^
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch