Cool new Klingon ship
Dwayne Allen Day
I just picked up the latest issue of Star Trek Communicator. In addition
to the cutaway of the NX-01, it also has sketches of a "retro Klingon
cruiser" that may show up in a future episode.
I sure hope so. This is definitely cool. The forward section is
connected to the main body by a thin tube, but also wires, like a
suspension bridge. The coolest aspect, I think, is the nacelles. They
have a forward section and then a rear section out on tubes, kind of like
the control vanes at the rear of the engines on the Y-Wing fighter of Star
Wars.
It's massively cool. I wanna see it fly...
D
--
Dwight Williams
>
> I just picked up the latest issue of Star Trek Communicator. In addition
> to the cutaway of the NX-01, it also has sketches of a "retro Klingon
> cruiser" that may show up in a future episode.
I saw the article in question, and I have a suspicion that they wanted
to have that design ready for use in "Unexpected", but couldn't get the
CGI model "built" in time for whatever reasons.
--
Dwight Williams - Orleans(Ottawa), ON, Canada
Personal Homesite: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
*I* own my Usenet postings, not some archival service!
Dwayne Allen Day
:> I just picked up the latest issue of Star Trek Communicator. In addition
:> to the cutaway of the NX-01, it also has sketches of a "retro Klingon
:> cruiser" that may show up in a future episode.
: I saw the article in question, and I have a suspicion that they wanted
: to have that design ready for use in "Unexpected", but couldn't get the
: CGI model "built" in time for whatever reasons.
Agreed. That's the way it reads.
I sure hope it shows up looking like the illustration. Man, it is cool!
D
Mike Dicenso
Well, here's hoping that the upcoming episode "Sleeping Dogs" will have
this new-old ship design in it. If it does, it will be the first new
Klingon ship design we've seen in nearly about seven years. The last new
design was the Neg'var, first seen in DS9's "The Way of the Warrior".
-Mike
AndrewR
There was the Noggera or whatever - the reuse of the Promellian
Battlecruiser/Screean ship - painted green. Seen in "Sons of Mogh"
There was also the Klingon transport ships seen in the 'court room'
episode.
AND the Neg'var was a redress of the future Klingon ships ?Vhoodieh?
from All Good Things...
Andrew
--
AndrewR
Guardian of Willow's resolve face.
AndrewR
Williams) wrote:
>Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
>>
>> I just picked up the latest issue of Star Trek Communicator. In addition
>> to the cutaway of the NX-01, it also has sketches of a "retro Klingon
>> cruiser" that may show up in a future episode.
>
>I saw the article in question, and I have a suspicion that they wanted
>to have that design ready for use in "Unexpected", but couldn't get the
>CGI model "built" in time for whatever reasons.
Why couldn't they have just fiddled with the CGI K'Tinga in
Unexpected?? maybe smoothed the hull... stretched the nacelles - give
it a different paint shade? FLIP IT!?! SOMETHING!?!
Dwight Williams
Would've looked *too* obvious, mayhap?
Dwayne Allen Day
:>I saw the article in question, and I have a suspicion that they wanted
:>to have that design ready for use in "Unexpected", but couldn't get the
:>CGI model "built" in time for whatever reasons.
: Why couldn't they have just fiddled with the CGI K'Tinga in
: Unexpected?? maybe smoothed the hull... stretched the nacelles - give
: it a different paint shade? FLIP IT!?! SOMETHING!?!
I agree. All they needed to do was change the color scheme in some way.
But I would bet that the answer was the usual one: time and money, not
enough of either.
D
Paig Chong Woo
"AndrewR" <s348712@student_SPAM_.uq.edu.au> a écrit dans le message de news:
3c381784...@news.uq.edu.au...
You mean, mounting the warp nacelles upside-down? ;)
Dwayne Allen Day
: Here are 2 screenshots from the episode 'Unexpected'
Wrong ship.
What we're discussing is a proposed new Klingon cruiser. The one used in
Unexpected is just the same old K'T'inga.
(Oh, and it's not a good idea to post binaries to a non-binaries group.)
D
Mike Dicenso
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, AndrewR wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:41:41 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> <mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
> >
> >> Dwight Williams <ad...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >> :> I just picked up the latest issue of Star Trek Communicator. In addition
> >> :> to the cutaway of the NX-01, it also has sketches of a "retro Klingon
> >> :> cruiser" that may show up in a future episode.
> >>
> >> : I saw the article in question, and I have a suspicion that they wanted
> >> : to have that design ready for use in "Unexpected", but couldn't get the
> >> : CGI model "built" in time for whatever reasons.
> >>
> >> Agreed. That's the way it reads.
> >>
> >> I sure hope it shows up looking like the illustration. Man, it is cool!
> >
> >Well, here's hoping that the upcoming episode "Sleeping Dogs" will have
> >this new-old ship design in it. If it does, it will be the first new
> >Klingon ship design we've seen in nearly about seven years. The last new
> >design was the Neg'var, first seen in DS9's "The Way of the Warrior".
> >-Mike
> >
> There was the Noggera or whatever - the reuse of the Promellian
> Battlecruiser/Screean ship - painted green. Seen in "Sons of Mogh"
Noggra was not a spaceship, but a klingon. He was the one who picked up
the memory wiped Kurn, and took him as his own son.
> There was also the Klingon transport ships seen in the 'court room'
> episode.
That's not a new design. Just a slight redress of the older transport
model, and we hardly saw it as it was decloaking and destroyed by the
Defiant. There was also a klingon transport that was simply the Groumall
cardassian freighter. This does not count.
> AND the Neg'var was a redress of the future Klingon ships ?Vhoodieh?
> from All Good Things...
Which is actually sufficently different from the so-called Vhoodieh class
ships that it counts as a totally new design. Of everything you've listed,
the Neg'Var still stands as the only new design.
-Mike
Timo S Saloniemi
If "Enterprise" HADN'T already made it clear that things in the 22nd century
are not very different from things in the 23rd, it would have been cool to
see something different. Something that would have had two nacelles and a
neck as usual, but would not have been so close a copy of the 23rd century
principal Klingon ship.
But if this "exposed" Klingon design ever gets used, at least it's consistent
with the "D-7" design we already saw in operation in "Unexpected". If the
fully plated D-7 stayed virtually unchanged from "Unexpected" up to the
DS9 era, then perhaps this exposed variant was originally introduced in
1860 AD or something...
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:41:41 -0700, Mike Dicenso
><mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>Well, here's hoping that the upcoming episode "Sleeping Dogs" will have
>>this new-old ship design in it. If it does, it will be the first new
>>Klingon ship design we've seen in nearly about seven years. The last new
>>design was the Neg'var, first seen in DS9's "The Way of the Warrior".
>There was the Noggera or whatever - the reuse of the Promellian
>Battlecruiser/Screean ship - painted green. Seen in "Sons of Mogh"
Right. Was the model really changed between "Sanctuary" and "Sons of
Mogh"? Or were the colors just tweaked in postproduction or something?
It seems to me that the new "bow section" was in place in the "Sanctuary"
version already.
In "Sons and Daughters", we saw another modified and repainted
transport design. The smallish, tan Cardassian transports had
been painted green, some sort of cylindrar nacelles had been bolted
to the lower fins, and the bridge area had been modified, and the
ships were portrayed as gigantic Klingon transports, perhaps twice
as long as their Cardassian equivalents or larger.
>There was also the Klingon transport ships seen in the 'court room'
>episode.
Only one of those transports was Klingon (namely the one that blew up),
and it wasn't a new model - just a reuse of the good old "merchantman"
from ST3.
>AND the Neg'var was a redress of the future Klingon ships ?Vhoodieh?
>from All Good Things...
Indeed. There have been subtle variants of that design - TNG had
the first version, then DS9 added underwing pods and tweaked with some
minor fins and disruptor barrels, and then VOY showed both the pods
AND the original fins and barrels in "Endgame". Still, no truly
new Klingon designs have been created since "Sons of Mogh".
Timo Saloniemi
Darren Mercer
news:a1bh86$5mf$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
<snip>
>
> If "Enterprise" HADN'T already made it clear that things in the 22nd
century
> are not very different from things in the 23rd, it would have been cool to
> see something different. Something that would have had two nacelles and a
> neck as usual, but would not have been so close a copy of the 23rd century
> principal Klingon ship.
>
> But if this "exposed" Klingon design ever gets used, at least it's
consistent
> with the "D-7" design we already saw in operation in "Unexpected". If the
> fully plated D-7 stayed virtually unchanged from "Unexpected" up to the
> DS9 era, then perhaps this exposed variant was originally introduced in
> 1860 AD or something...
Well, we also know that the Bird-of-Prey is around in the 2150's, as it was
referred to in "Broken Bow" (albeit, erroneously referred to as a
"Warbird" - a mistake that Braga was quite happy to acknowledge).
DM
AndrewR
wrote:
Oh - what about the "Tug" - there is no way that is Federation as per
the silly fact-files.
>Timo Saloniemi
AndrewR
Turning the WHOLE thing upside-down would have been better than just
REUSING a ship seen for nigh on 200 years!
AndrewR
Of course - as per his Voyager days... re continuity - he doesn't
care.
>DM
Timo S Saloniemi
>Well, we also know that the Bird-of-Prey is around in the 2150's, as it was
>referred to in "Broken Bow" (albeit, erroneously referred to as a
>"Warbird" - a mistake that Braga was quite happy to acknowledge).
I wouldn't go that far in that sort of deduction. Just because there
were "frigates" around in the 18th century does not mean that the Knox
or Perry classes (or some sort of sail-powered variants thereof) were
the mainstay of the newly founded US Navy, or that the Royal Navy was
sailing three-masted Type 23s with blackpowder-propelled missiles
and hot-air-balloon-suspended helicopters.
"Bird of Prey" seems to describe a type of starship operated by the
Klingons, but it seems likely that there are various classes within
the type - just like there are various classes under the "cruiser"
type in modern Klingon service. There's probably a primitive 22nd century
BoP class that will later be succeeded/superceded by the design
we first see in ST3 (but which obviously is older than that, since
Kirk and Sulu knew of the designation "BoP" beforehand).
Furthermore, if Klingons call some of their ships "Birds of Prey",
then why wouldn't they call another type "Warbird"? It would only be
logical to extend this avian motif to several types of ships. There
could be "Birds of Burden" hauling cargo, "Songbirds" relaying
communications, "Spring Chickens" being operated by the Imperial
R&D Corps, "Buzzards" retrieving and scavenging wreckage...
The traitorous Romulan bastards would then steal the "Warbird" name
by the early 24th century for their own use. Perhaps they appropriated
the name when they received (bought, stole, exchanged?) Klingon Warbirds
of D-7 class during the 2260s?
And perhaps the Romulans also got their first cloaking devices when
some of those Warbirds they acquired from the Klingons had old Xyrillian
technology aboard?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>Oh - what about the "Tug" - there is no way that is Federation as per
>the silly fact-files.
Depends on whether it had the telltale Starfleet arrowheads painted on, I
guess. The mere red streamers shown in the Fact Files are not solid
enough proof of a Federation origin. And the coloration in the episode
was quite greenish, even if the actual model was painted blue as shown in
the FF.
'Course, the craft could be of Klingon construct and painted in whatever
colors the current operator found pleasant. Starfleet might have purchased
some if it lacked a suitable type, or had a shortage thereof.
Timo Saloniemi
Graham Kennedy
>
> "Bird of Prey" seems to describe a type of starship operated by the
> Klingons, but it seems likely that there are various classes within
> the type - just like there are various classes under the "cruiser"
> type in modern Klingon service.
Indeed this is given canon support in Generations when
Worf describes Lursa/B'Etor's ship as a "class D-12
Bird of Prey". Since those ships were retired twenty
years ago, then it can only mean that the Bird of Prey
types we saw throughout TNG and DS9 were some other
class than the D-12 - the D-13, perhaps. And more than
likely the HMS Bounty and other early BoPs were a different
class also, D-9 or whatever.
> There's probably a primitive 22nd century
> BoP class that will later be succeeded/superceded by the design
> we first see in ST3 (but which obviously is older than that, since
> Kirk and Sulu knew of the designation "BoP" beforehand).
>
> Furthermore, if Klingons call some of their ships "Birds of Prey",
> then why wouldn't they call another type "Warbird"? It would only be
> logical to extend this avian motif to several types of ships. There
> could be "Birds of Burden" hauling cargo, "Songbirds" relaying
> communications, "Spring Chickens" being operated by the Imperial
> R&D Corps, "Buzzards" retrieving and scavenging wreckage...
>
> The traitorous Romulan bastards would then steal the "Warbird" name
> by the early 24th century for their own use. Perhaps they appropriated
> the name when they received (bought, stole, exchanged?) Klingon Warbirds
> of D-7 class during the 2260s?
>
> And perhaps the Romulans also got their first cloaking devices when
> some of those Warbirds they acquired from the Klingons had old Xyrillian
> technology aboard?
Do we even know that the ship we saw in Balance of Terror was
a Romulan design at all? We know that Starfleet became aware
of their use of Klingon ships in The Enterprise Incident, but
for all we know that could have been one in a long line of
such deals. Perhaps the Warbird seen in BoT was a Klingon
design which was used in the 2240s and 50s and then retired,
all without the Federation being aware of them. The Klingons
then sell these hulls to the Romulans in the mid 2260s. The
Romulans refit them with the big plasma torpedo weapon and a
cloaking device, and there you have it - the Romulan Warbird.
--
Graham Kennedy
Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Joseph Nebus
>Furthermore, if Klingons call some of their ships "Birds of Prey",
>then why wouldn't they call another type "Warbird"? [ ... ]
>The traitorous Romulan bastards would then steal the "Warbird" name
>by the early 24th century for their own use. Perhaps they appropriated
>the name when they received (bought, stole, exchanged?) Klingon Warbirds
>of D-7 class during the 2260s?
Or perhaps it's something straightforward, like when the Earth
Star Fleet folks first detect Romulan ships while scanning for Klingon
ships, so the big fuzzy blob on the space radar that looks sort of like
it has the size of a Klingon Bird of Prey or Warbird gets labelled as
such by (I'm supposing) Archer's crew, and the name sticks even though
the error's soon discovered? (The use of 'Bird of Prey' is of course
reinforced by the Romulan painting of their ships.)
That's got a *long* history in science of similar events occuring.
For example, many European languages have names for the raccoon that parse
literally as 'washing bear,' because for a time in the 1700s it was thought
raccoons were members of the bear family that washed their food.) Or look
at the names of the lunar surface features -- we know *now* that those
seas and oceans and bays and all are fearsomely dry, but it's handy to
use the name you already have for things...
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timo S Saloniemi
>Do we even know that the ship we saw in Balance of Terror was
>a Romulan design at all? We know that Starfleet became aware
>of their use of Klingon ships in The Enterprise Incident, but
>for all we know that could have been one in a long line of
>such deals. Perhaps the Warbird seen in BoT was a Klingon
>design which was used in the 2240s and 50s and then retired,
>all without the Federation being aware of them. The Klingons
>then sell these hulls to the Romulans in the mid 2260s. The
>Romulans refit them with the big plasma torpedo weapon and a
>cloaking device, and there you have it - the Romulan Warbird.
Quite possible. The paintwork could have been a uniquely
Romulan addition, despite the fact that Klingons like the
bird motif as well. Or then there had been contact between
Romulans and Klingons back in Archer's days already, so
that the bird thing could have migrated from Qo'noS to
Romulus before the Romulan war, and then risen to such
splendor in the Romulan fleet that everybody remembered the
Romulan bird paintings, while forgetting the Klingon use of
the theme.
In any case, the "Balance of Terror" ship looks more like a
Federation design than anything else. The nacelle shape is
uniquely Feddish, as is the saucery hull form. It could be the
result of industrial espionage, or lessons learned from
Earth/Fed ships captured during the war. Then again, one would
have expected Kirk and friends to comment if the ship was
such a copy of Fed designs and a clear departure from the ships
used in the war...
Timo Saloniemi
Darren Mercer
> In article <3c394fdf$0$23955$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> "Darren
Mercer" <dmer...@yahoo.com.aunospam> writes:
> "Bird of Prey" seems to describe a type of starship operated by the
> Klingons, but it seems likely that there are various classes within
> the type - just like there are various classes under the "cruiser"
> type in modern Klingon service. There's probably a primitive 22nd century
> BoP class that will later be succeeded/superceded by the design
> we first see in ST3 (but which obviously is older than that, since
> Kirk and Sulu knew of the designation "BoP" beforehand).
I think you may have a valid point. There has been sufficient evidence to
suggest there is at least more than one BoPclass, even at given points in
time. I'm curious to know whether they will in fact design a new BoP for ENT
(perhaps a more rudimentary design of the BoP encountered in "Balance of
Terror").
BTW, anybody interested in having at look at some "retro" Klingon
battecruisers, see here (there's also an interesting comparison of the
corressponding development of Federation and Klingon crusiers.(note how
badly the design of the NX-01 looks out of place, on the time provided).
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/klingon1.htm
<snip>
> The traitorous Romulan bastards would then steal the "Warbird" name
> by the early 24th century for their own use. Perhaps they appropriated
> the name when they received (bought, stole, exchanged?) Klingon Warbirds
> of D-7 class during the 2260s?
That sounds like a very plausible theory, and it probably didn't require an
apology from Braga. Instead, he could have explained why, since Quo'nos is
only 1.3 ly away, Earth hasn't been annexed by the Klingon Empire (ignoring
the fact that there is no such corressponding star)?
> And perhaps the Romulans also got their first cloaking devices when
> some of those Warbirds they acquired from the Klingons had old Xyrillian
> technology aboard?
Unfortunately, there was no suggestion that the the Klingons acquired the CD
from the Xyrillians. This fact really annoyed me because a CD would have
been far more useful to the Klingons, than a holodeck, and would have been
neat in terms of establishing some interesting continuity (particularly in
light of the fact that CD's remained such an elusive piece of technolgy for
the Federation, for a such long time.)
DM
Timo S Saloniemi
>I think you may have a valid point. There has been sufficient evidence to
>suggest there is at least more than one BoPclass, even at given points in
>time. I'm curious to know whether they will in fact design a new BoP for ENT
>(perhaps a more rudimentary design of the BoP encountered in "Balance of
>Terror").
Whatever they design for "Sleeping Dogs" is likely to be smaller than
a full D-7 cruiser, and somewhat atmospheric-capable, judging by the plot
spoilers. Then again, NX-01 meets those criteria...
> BTW, anybody interested in having at look at some "retro" Klingon
>battecruisers, see here (there's also an interesting comparison of the
>corressponding development of Federation and Klingon crusiers.(note how
>badly the design of the NX-01 looks out of place, on the time provided).
>
>http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/klingon1.htm
I'm a big fan of Masao's work, but there's an unfortunate caveat to
what he's done: his designs, while beautiful, are no more founded in
preceding canon than the "Enterprise" ones. The Daedalus is just as out
of place there as the NX-01 is... The progression he's created from
the Greg Jein hobby model of an ancient Romulan ship to the eventual
TOS vessel is both logical and mucho cool, though.
>> The traitorous Romulan bastards would then steal the "Warbird" name
>> by the early 24th century for their own use. Perhaps they appropriated
>> the name when they received (bought, stole, exchanged?) Klingon Warbirds
>> of D-7 class during the 2260s?
>That sounds like a very plausible theory, and it probably didn't require an
>apology from Braga. Instead, he could have explained why, since Quo'nos is
>only 1.3 ly away, Earth hasn't been annexed by the Klingon Empire (ignoring
>the fact that there is no such corressponding star)?
Or he could have explained how warp speeds get much higher per a given
warp factor when you get outside a star system... Nothing more fun than
outdating all those noncanon warp charts from the Encyclopedias and
whatnot at one stroke, and introducing a more canon-friendly alternative.
>> And perhaps the Romulans also got their first cloaking devices when
>> some of those Warbirds they acquired from the Klingons had old Xyrillian
>> technology aboard?
>Unfortunately, there was no suggestion that the the Klingons acquired the CD
>from the Xyrillians. This fact really annoyed me because a CD would have
>been far more useful to the Klingons, than a holodeck, and would have been
>neat in terms of establishing some interesting continuity (particularly in
>light of the fact that CD's remained such an elusive piece of technolgy for
>the Federation, for a such long time.)
Indeed. Hmm. Perhaps the Klingons already had a cloak of some sort, and
preferred working on that instead of purchasing an alien equivalent?
Or perhaps they didn't, but didn't want the humans and Vulcans to know that
they didn't, and thus behaved as if the device were old news..
CDs have only eluded the Federation, not their (sometimes technologically
less advanced) enemies and competitors. Quark peddled cloaking devices
left and right, for one (the fist-sized one from "Profit and Loss" was
impressive enough, if reputedly also expensive). So perhaps the reasons
for CD non-use ought to be looked for in the realm of politics and not
of technology? Then again, perhaps there is some big technical problem
with cloak use, even if inventing the device is simple? Perhaps it takes
centuries of experimentation to learn how to navigate and fight "blind",
and the Klingons took those centuries while the hothead Romulans sailed
out before they were ready?
Timo Saloniemi
Graham Kennedy
>
> In any case, the "Balance of Terror" ship looks more like a
> Federation design than anything else. The nacelle shape is
> uniquely Feddish, as is the saucery hull form. It could be the
> result of industrial espionage, or lessons learned from
> Earth/Fed ships captured during the war. Then again, one would
> have expected Kirk and friends to comment if the ship was
> such a copy of Fed designs and a clear departure from the ships
> used in the war...
Actually, it always reminds me strongly of an early version
of the Defiant. The hull shape and placement of the nacelles
are *very* similar.
Darren Mercer
> In article <3c3ac5d4$0$26781$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> "Darren
Mercer" <dmer...@yahoo.com.aunospam> writes:
> I'm a big fan of Masao's work, but there's an unfortunate caveat to
> what he's done: his designs, while beautiful, are no more founded in
> preceding canon than the "Enterprise" ones. The Daedalus is just as out
> of place there as the NX-01 is... The progression he's created from
<snip>
Why do you say that? Are you doubting the status of the Daedalus, as canon ?
I would
have thought since the Daedalus appeared on Sisko's desk, then it must have
*some* canonical value. Also, IIRC, the USS Essex was a Daedulus-class ship
mentioned in TNG:"Power Play"
Be that as it may, I tend to agree that TPTB can do *alot* far worse, than
to employ some of Masao's designs in ENT.
<snip>
> Or he could have explained how warp speeds get much higher per a given
> warp factor when you get outside a star system... Nothing more fun than
> outdating all those noncanon warp charts from the Encyclopedias and
> whatnot at one stroke, and introducing a more canon-friendly alternative.
Can you please explain what you mean by this?
BTW, do you regard the whole business about "Quo'nos in four days at Warp 5"
as canon? Surely the canonical value of this statement (barring any other
explanation), is diminished, because it's (a) scientifically implausible,
and/or (b) unjustifiable, in the context of every other Trek series.
<snip>
> >from the Xyrillians. This fact really annoyed me because a CD would have
> >been far more useful to the Klingons, than a holodeck, and would have
been
> >neat in terms of establishing some interesting continuity (particularly
in
> >light of the fact that CD's remained such an elusive piece of technolgy
for
> >the Federation, for a such long time.)
>
> Indeed. Hmm. Perhaps the Klingons already had a cloak of some sort, and
> preferred working on that instead of purchasing an alien equivalent?
> Or perhaps they didn't, but didn't want the humans and Vulcans to knowthat
> they didn't, and thus behaved as if the device were old news..
Worse still, there was no explanation given as to why Tucker didn't request
either piece of technology, himself, especially since he provided the
Xyrillians with some assistance (I shudder to think what the Xyrillians
could have learnt from an engineer, of an apparently backward race.Then
again they had trouble re-creating H20 in liquified state.) .
> CDs have only eluded the Federation, not their (sometimes technologically
> less advanced) enemies and competitors. Quark peddled cloaking devices
> left and right, for one (the fist-sized one from "Profit and Loss" was
> impressive enough, if reputedly also expensive). So perhaps the reasons
> for CD non-use ought to be looked for in the realm of politics and not
> of technology? Then again, perhaps there is some big technical problem
Well, don't forget that the Federation was prohibited from developing CD's
as
a result of the Treaty of Algeron with the Romulans (2311 onwards), so this
at least partially
explains why CD's remained "elusive", after that point in time.
<snip>
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsal...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message
>news:a1ejmn$oph$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
>> In article <3c3ac5d4$0$26781$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> "Darren
>>Mercer" <dmer...@yahoo.com.aunospam> writes:
>> I'm a big fan of Masao's work, but there's an unfortunate caveat to
>> what he's done: his designs, while beautiful, are no more founded in
>> preceding canon than the "Enterprise" ones. The Daedalus is just as out
>> of place there as the NX-01 is...
>Why do you say that? Are you doubting the status of the Daedalus, as canon?
Umm, actually I am.. But what I meant was that Masao's Earthfleet ships don't
appear very Daedalus-like in their dimensions and engineering solutions.
They are perhaps a bit closer to Daedalus than the NX-01 is, but still they
seem to come from a slightly different universe.
>I would
>have thought since the Daedalus appeared on Sisko's desk, then it must have
>*some* canonical value. Also, IIRC, the USS Essex was a Daedulus-class ship
>mentioned in TNG:"Power Play"
Wholly apart from my claim that Masao's ships are not Daedalus-like enough,
I do think that the canonical status of the Daedalus *is* somewhat exaggerated.
In "Power Play", we learn that a Daedalus class existed, learn the rough years
it was in service, and the name, registry, top officers and base of operations
of one Daedalus. We don't learn what the ship looked like.
On Sisko's table, we see another ship whose only real connection to Daedalus
class is that the registry is close to the single known Daedalus registry.
Yet we know that registries are notoriously unreliable sources of information.
It's just conjecture that other ships besides the Essex would be of
Daedalus class. In fact, if the design of the NX-01 represents the
state of the art in exploration starships in the 2150s, then I would
suspect that many of the famous ships from that era (the Essex, the
the Archon, perhaps the Valiant of "Taste of Armageddon" fame)
would look much like the NX-01. Saucer hulls, Enterprise-like
dimensions, visible torpedo tubes and phase cannon turrets, and all
that.
Only the Horizon, seen on Sisko's table, would be of this more modest
sphere-hulled unarmed lightweight type - the Oberth class of its time...
>Be that as it may, I tend to agree that TPTB can do *alot* far worse, than
>to employ some of Masao's designs in ENT.
I think ENT would have been excellent if nothing *but* Masao's ships had
been used. But now that we're stuck with NX-01, I don't think that
lineage is applicable any longer. NX-01 and Masao's great big flying
cylinders just don't mix.
>> Or he could have explained how warp speeds get much higher per a given
>> warp factor when you get outside a star system... Nothing more fun than
>> outdating all those noncanon warp charts from the Encyclopedias and
>> whatnot at one stroke, and introducing a more canon-friendly alternative.
>Can you please explain what you mean by this?
Well, the warp speed scales we know of tend to agree with onscreen data
sometimes, and disagree on other times. If a Paramount bigwig officially
stated that warp speeds are complex and variable, with the semi-canon
warp tables just a good "rule-of-thumb for beginners", it would remove
many seeming contradictions from the Trek universe. Warp 5 wouldn't have
to be the same in two different episodes... (The fans did that back in
the seventies, sort of, with the "Cochrane factor"; but if Paramount
officially did this, it would be much more believable.)
>BTW, do you regard the whole business about "Quo'nos in four days at Warp 5"
>as canon? Surely the canonical value of this statement (barring any other
>explanation), is diminished, because it's (a) scientifically implausible,
>and/or (b) unjustifiable, in the context of every other Trek series.
I wouldn't dismiss it that easily. After all, Voyager made it clear
that warp 4 is a valid speed for interstellar travel (the shuttles
moved at that speed across such distances quite often), so
naturally warp 5 would have to be valid as well. And all the
shows have made references to starships moving at warp 2 or 3
when trying to get from star to star. If warp 2 was 8c (TOS) or
10c (TNG), it would be completely unviable as an interstellar
speed. So either Kirk and Picard were idiots, or warp speeds don't
follow the "known" formulae in all cases. Or even in the majority
of cases. IMHO, the evidence currently supports the idea that
a few days at warp 5 can take you across dozens of lightyears,
and it's the formulae that are in a minority and in error here.
There is some support for the TOS and TNG scales, of course.
"Broken Bow" has the very explicit reference that agrees roughly with
both scales - the travel time to Neptune and back - so we either
have to dismiss that, or dismiss the references to travel times
in deep interstellar space. Or then we have to say that going to
Neptune is done according to different formulae than going to
interstellar space.
Which is what some people have been saying for a long time, really.
Many sci-fi universes postulate that warplike interstellar drives
don't work well in the vicinity of stars and other gravity wells. Trek
has shown that warping is *possible* when close to a star (except when
it's not), but there's no proof that it wouldn't be *slower* when
close to a star. And in fact, TOS warp 10 seemed to be pretty darn slow
in ST4:TVH...
>Worse still, there was no explanation given as to why Tucker didn't request
>either piece of technology, himself, especially since he provided the
>Xyrillians with some assistance (I shudder to think what the Xyrillians
>could have learnt from an engineer, of an apparently backward race.Then
>again they had trouble re-creating H20 in liquified state.) .
I'd take everything the Xyrillians said with a forkful of water. They could
be a bunch of lying bastards who pretend to be in an engineering distress
just to provoke a reaction out of others. Perhaps they like to insert these
parasites to passersby, and do other kinds of weird medical experiments...
Or perhaps they just want to spy on other races, and when they are observed,
they have this nice cover story ready. If the victims buy the story, they
must be so stupid that they are excellent targets for a few practical
jokes like surprise pregnancies and jelly-like water... Not everybody
out there needs to be deadly serious, or have the same kind of sense of
humor as we do.
>Well, don't forget that the Federation was prohibited from developing CD's
>as a result of the Treaty of Algeron with the Romulans (2311 onwards), so
>this at least partially explains why CD's remained "elusive", after that
>point in time.
Where does this date come from, really? "The Pegasus" speaks of the Treaty
of Algeron, yes, and it's mentioned it has kept the peace for decades.
But it seems to be mere conjecture that it would be somehow tied to
the Tomed incident (which is dated at 2311 by rather exact evidence from
"The Neutral Zone"). The Treaty of Algeron could have been signed at any
date after the discovery of cloaking devices (which for the Feds would
mean after "Balance of Terror", which seems to have taken place in
2265-67 or thereabouts - TOS timing is still in a bit of flux). Or
actually it could have been signed even before the discovery of cloaking
devices, much like the treaties about exploitation of extraterrestrial
real estate have been signed in the real world, before anybody has even
set foot on another planet.
We know that Treaty of Algeron is not simply a non-cloaking treaty. As
per "The Defector", it also condemns the violation of the Romulan Neutral
Zone (and in all likelihood defines the said Zone). Even this doesn't help
in nailing down the signing date, though, since the Zone could have been
defined and redefined several times in its history. All we know is that
the Romulans were in no mood to sign any treaties between the ending date
of the original Romulan war(s) and the encounter with Kirk in "BoT", and
again between Tomed in 2311 and "The Neutral Zone" in 2364. All other
dates are free game.
Timo Saloniemi
Darren Mercer
> >Why do you say that? Are you doubting the status of the Daedalus, as
canon?
>
> Umm, actually I am.. But what I meant was that Masao's Earthfleet ships
don't
> appear very Daedalus-like in their dimensions and engineering solutions.
> They are perhaps a bit closer to Daedalus than the NX-01 is, but still
they
> seem to come from a slightly different universe.
Well there is a very plausible explantation for that. The Earth-Romulan was
fought exclusively between Humans and Romulans, and it is argued that there
was very minimal input or help from Earth's allies. So, where Earthfleet
ships were designed primarily by humans, the designs of Federation ships,
represent a mosaic of the members of the Federation. This is where, IMHO,
the design of the NX-01 exhibits a serious flaw.
Moreover, if you see this link you *can* actually discern a common genus
between the Daedulus and the Earthfleet ships.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/smallcruisers.jpg
And BTW, how do you account for the pre-dated design of the NCC-1701
vis-à-vis the NX-01?
> >I would
> >have thought since the Daedalus appeared on Sisko's desk, then it must
have
> >*some* canonical value. Also, IIRC, the USS Essex was a Daedulus-class
ship
> >mentioned in TNG:"Power Play"
>
> Wholly apart from my claim that Masao's ships are not Daedalus-like
enough,
> I do think that the canonical status of the Daedalus *is* somewhat
exaggerated.
> In "Power Play", we learn that a Daedalus class existed, learn the rough
years
> it was in service, and the name, registry, top officers and base of
operations
> of one Daedalus. We don't learn what the ship looked like.
>
> On Sisko's table, we see another ship whose only real connection to
Daedalus
> class is that the registry is close to the single known Daedalus registry.
> Yet we know that registries are notoriously unreliable sources of
information.
Well, clearly there are nuances of what constitutes canon, and what doesn't.
Sometimes we can establish a canonical fact by making deductions based upon
collated individual facts, and adopting common sense reasoning, as long as
these conjectures are not far-fetched or fanciful. In the same vein, we
should not regard everything shown as canon, especially when it is repugnant
to pre-established facts, in an asinine or nonsensical manner. (I must say,
defining what constitutes 'canon' is not an area that I have a great deal of
interest in or wish to pursue as a topic of conversation, and probably like
to avoid whenever possible.)
Hence, when we collate all the facts regarding the Daedulus, (drawing upon
legal jargon), maybe we can't say that the design of the ship in Sisko's
ready room is of the Daedulus class *beyond all reasonable doubt*, but it
we can certainly say it is, *on the balance of probabilities* (on the
evidence we have both cited).
I acknowledge that the only real "spanner in the works" so to speak, is the
design of the NX-01, however I don't think that we (the viewers) need to be
apologetic or attempt to rationalize sloppy production (particularly since
it was done purely for marketing reasons), because all this does is, to
encourage such inconsistencies in the future.
Also bear in mind that most ships that have appeared on Trek, haven't been
designated to a particular class "on screen"(eg. Akira, Norway etc), yet we
*know* them, and refer to them by these names.
> It's just conjecture that other ships besides the Essex would be of
> Daedalus class. In fact, if the design of the NX-01 represents the
> state of the art in exploration starships in the 2150s, then I would
> suspect that many of the famous ships from that era (the Essex, the
> the Archon, perhaps the Valiant of "Taste of Armageddon" fame)
> would look much like the NX-01. Saucer hulls, Enterprise-like
> dimensions, visible torpedo tubes and phase cannon turrets, and all
> that.
> Only the Horizon, seen on Sisko's table, would be of this more modest
> sphere-hulled unarmed lightweight type - the Oberth class of its time...
>
> >Be that as it may, I tend to agree that TPTB can do *alot* far worse,
than
> >to employ some of Masao's designs in ENT.
>
> I think ENT would have been excellent if nothing *but* Masao's ships had
> been used. But now that we're stuck with NX-01, I don't think that
> lineage is applicable any longer. NX-01 and Masao's great big flying
> cylinders just don't mix.
I can't disagree with you, here, and you're right when you say there really
is no turning back. But sadly, the absence of a commonality in design is
something that under normal circumstances is not likely to deter TPTB.
The only thing that I could possibly suggest that would allow for Masao's
work to appear on ENT , (and as far fetched as it sounds), is the idea that
Starfleet, and the United Earth Agency, were two separate organizations that
developed ships independently, and who ultimately merged in early TOS days.
>> Or he could have explained how warp speeds get much higher per a given
> >> warp factor when you get outside a star system... Nothing more fun than
> >> outdating all those noncanon warp charts from the Encyclopedias and
> >> whatnot at one stroke, and introducing a more canon-friendly
alternative.
>
<snip>
> >BTW, do you regard the whole business about "Quo'nos in four days at Warp
5"
> >as canon? Surely the canonical value of this statement (barring any other
> >explanation), is diminished, because it's (a) scientifically
implausible,
> >and/or (b) unjustifiable, in the context of every other Trek series.
>
> I wouldn't dismiss it that easily. After all, Voyager made it clear
> that warp 4 is a valid speed for interstellar travel (the shuttles
But what constitutes a *valid* speed for interstellar travel? It takes
approximately 2 years to cross 20ly at warp 2. If a nuclear submarine can
spend 6 months underwater continuously, then is it unreasonable to expect a
starship to travel continously in space for a period of two years ? Also
bear in mind, a manned mission to Mars would likely take an approximate
time-frame)?
> moved at that speed across such distances quite often), so
> naturally warp 5 would have to be valid as well. And all the
Further, it is unreasonable to expect the NX-01 to be travelling at anywhere
*near* warp 5 (average speed) for 4 days. This makes the "four days there,
four days back" comment even more nonsensical.
> shows have made references to starships moving at warp 2 or 3
> when trying to get from star to star. If warp 2 was 8c (TOS) or
> 10c (TNG), it would be completely unviable as an interstellar
> speed. So either Kirk and Picard were idiots, or warp speeds don't
> follow the "known" formulae in all cases. Or even in the majority
> of cases. IMHO, the evidence currently supports the idea that
> a few days at warp 5 can take you across dozens of lightyears,
> and it's the formulae that are in a minority and in error here.
Personally, I would be hesitant to draw such a conclusion. The reasoning you
give, while admirably, is based purely upon empirical (observed) evidence,
and totally lacks a scientific underpinning (which in turn goes against the
"spirit of Trek".)
> There is some support for the TOS and TNG scales, of course.
> "Broken Bow" has the very explicit reference that agrees roughly with
> both scales - the travel time to Neptune and back - so we either
> have to dismiss that, or dismiss the references to travel times
> in deep interstellar space. Or then we have to say that going to
> Neptune is done according to different formulae than going to
> interstellar space.
> Which is what some people have been saying for a long time, really.
> Many sci-fi universes postulate that warp like interstellar drives
> don't work well in the vicinity of stars and other gravity wells. Trek
>has shown that warping is *possible* when close to a star (except when
> it's not), but there's no proof that it wouldn't be *slower* when
> close to a star. And in fact, TOS warp 10 seemed to be pretty darn slow
> in ST4:TVH...
Well if they are using TOS warp scales in ENT (and there is no reason to
expect otherwise, from a canonical point of view) then Quo'nos is less than
1 light year from Earth. Given this, can you possible think of *any*
conceivable reason as to why the Klingons didn't initiate First Contact with
Humans, since in all likelihood they don't subscribe to a Prime Directive?
<snip>
> >Well, don't forget that the Federation was prohibited from developing
CD's
> >as a result of the Treaty of Algeron with the Romulans (2311 onwards), so
> >this at least partially explains why CD's remained "elusive", after that
> >point in time.
>
> Where does this date come from, really? "The Pegasus" speaks of the Treaty
> of Algeron, yes, and it's mentioned it has kept the peace for decades.
> But it seems to be mere conjecture that it would be somehow tied to
> the Tomed incident (which is dated at 2311 by rather exact evidence from
> "The Neutral Zone"). The Treaty of Algeron could have been signed at any
Well if we totally ignore the 'The Tomed incident', the ratification of the
Treaty of Algeron had to take place before the Romulans entered their second
period of isolation, and hence the "détente" between them and the
Federation. This is a very reasonable assumption that we can draw based on
their behaviour in TNG: "The Neutral Zone." I'd go as so far as to say, that
it was the ratification of this treaty, compelled the Romulans to enter
their second period of isolation, for reasons I've outlined below.
> date after the discovery of cloaking devices (which for the Feds would
> mean after "Balance of Terror", which seems to have taken place in
> 2265-67 or thereabouts - TOS timing is still in a bit of flux). Or
Once again, I have to disagree, for the very reason that a treaty that
limits the use of a military device is likely to be drawn at the conclusion
of a period of conflict. Clearly, our heroes were not aware that the
Romulans possessed cloaking technology in "Balance of Terror." And, whilst
there was, without doubt, a treaty negotiated at the end of the
Earth-Romulan War, it is highly unlikely that it would have stipulated the
probihition of a particular type of technology that neither parties employed
at the time.
Also the timing you suggest here wouldn't be consistent with the events
depicted in TOS: "The Enterprise Incident", and Kirk's apparent obsession to
obtain a cloaking device. Thus, there is a strong implication the Treaty of
Algeron was ratified after "The Enterprise Incident".
Instead, in the view of the Romulans, the fact the Federation was prepared
to cease their development of cloaking technology would have represented
sufficient evidence of their non-hostile intentions (particularly in light
of the events of "The Enterprise Incident", which led to an easing of
tensions between them. What the Romulan side of the bargain was is however,
unclear.
In view of this we can narrow dates for the ratification of the Treaty of
Algeron to between 'The Enterprise Incident' (approx. 2271) and the start of
second period of Romulan isolation (2311).
> actually it could have been signed even before the discovery of cloaking
> devices, much like the treaties about exploitation of extraterrestrial
> real estate have been signed in the real world, before anybody has even
> set foot on another planet.
If it was signed *before* the discovery of cloaking technology, then how can
it specifically reference it? And say, even if the Treaty doesn't refer to
cloaking devices, per se, why would the Federation agree to a deal that
permits the Romulans to use some unnamed technology, and at the same time
precludes them from doing the same?
> We know that Treaty of Algeron is not simply a non-cloaking treaty. As
This is undoubtedly true, however it almost certainly contains *explicit*
references to cloaking devices, for reasons I've stated above.
> per "The Defector", it also condemns the violation of the Romulan Neutral
> Zone (and in all likelihood defines the said Zone). Even this doesn't help
> in nailing down the signing date, though, since the Zone could have been
> defined and redefined several times in its history. All we know is that
> the Romulans were in no mood to sign any treaties between the ending date
> of the original Romulan war(s) and the encounter with Kirk in "BoT", and
> again between Tomed in 2311 and "The Neutral Zone" in 2364. All other
> dates are free game.
Certainly the Treaty of Algeron would contain references to the RNZ, and
most likely supplanted the treaty that establishes it (as byexample the
Treaty of Maastricht supplanted The Treaty of Rome, etc)
DM
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsal...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message
>news:a1h8mg$u29$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
>> >Why do you say that? Are you doubting the status of the Daedalus, as
>canon?
>>
>> Umm, actually I am.. But what I meant was that Masao's Earthfleet ships
>> don't appear very Daedalus-like in their dimensions and engineering
>> solutions. They are perhaps a bit closer to Daedalus than the NX-01 is,
>> but still they seem to come from a slightly different universe.
>Well there is a very plausible explantation for that. The Earth-Romulan was
>fought exclusively between Humans and Romulans, and it is argued that there
>was very minimal input or help from Earth's allies. So, where Earthfleet
>ships were designed primarily by humans, the designs of Federation ships,
>represent a mosaic of the members of the Federation. This is where, IMHO,
>the design of the NX-01 exhibits a serious flaw.
There's no reason I couldn't agree with you. But just to be contrary, I
must point out that the Earth-Romulan war could in fact have been fought
with each side relying on multiple allies. Earth could have been flying
nothing but Vulcan ships, and Klingons could have fought on the side of
the Romulans. There's a lot we don't know of that era, and of that war.
The bigger and more important the facts about that war, the LESS likely
it is that our heroes would have stated them out loud in "Balance of
Terror". They would simply have assumed that everybody within earshot
was familiar with those important points...
>Moreover, if you see this link you *can* actually discern a common genus
>between the Daedulus and the Earthfleet ships.
>http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/smallcruisers.jpg
Yeah. But the lineage from big and bold to small and detailed could still
use some "smoothing": more greeblings and thin tubelike parts for the
early ships, perhaps.
>And BTW, how do you account for the pre-dated design of the NCC-1701
>vis-à-vis the NX-01?
I find a development from "greebled" to smooth a logical one, as aesthetics
become affordable when technology advances. A development from smooth
surfaces to lots of exterior detail is less "natural" IMHO, unless it
is a matter of installing new components and devices to old designs.
Thus, I'd expect Earthfleet ships to be more detailed and complex in
shape than the Daedalus, and Kirk-era ships to be less so.
>> I do think that the canonical status of the Daedalus *is* somewhat
>> exaggerated.
>Well, clearly there are nuances of what constitutes canon, and what doesn't.
>Sometimes we can establish a canonical fact by making deductions based upon
>collated individual facts, and adopting common sense reasoning, as long as
>these conjectures are not far-fetched or fanciful. In the same vein, we
>should not regard everything shown as canon, especially when it is repugnant
>to pre-established facts, in an asinine or nonsensical manner. (I must say,
>defining what constitutes 'canon' is not an area that I have a great deal of
>interest in or wish to pursue as a topic of conversation, and probably like
>to avoid whenever possible.)
Indeed. Purity of canon in this case is not the force driving my arguments:
rather, I like to leave as many options open as possible, and consider
as little as possible to be set in stone.
And most of all, I want to work out excuses for forgetting about the
silly-looking Daedalus. It's bad enough to have one or two ships of
that shape - it's a nightmare if the majority of "historical" vessels
from the late 22nd century have to be of that design. Making the sphere-
and-cylinder ship into an obscure little science vessel instead of an
early Starfleet workhorse will alleviate the ill effects of the design
on my stomach. :-)
>I acknowledge that the only real "spanner in the works" so to speak, is the
>design of the NX-01, however I don't think that we (the viewers) need to be
>apologetic or attempt to rationalize sloppy production (particularly since
>it was done purely for marketing reasons), because all this does is, to
>encourage such inconsistencies in the future.
I think the feedback on the "Akiraprise" NX-01 has now had all the effect
it will ever have on Paramount, and we could leave it at that. And if
I can't have a hero ship that looks *completely* original (a real possibility
because we had so little knowledge of 22nd century affairs, and because
there is so little in common between known 21st and 23rd century ships)
then I'll rather take the NX-01 than the Daedalus.
>Also bear in mind that most ships that have appeared on Trek, haven't been
>designated to a particular class "on screen"(eg. Akira, Norway etc), yet we
>*know* them, and refer to them by these names.
Quite so. I just don't have an urge to erase the Akira from the Trek
universe, so I don't rant about the lack of canonical solidity on the
facts about that class...
>The only thing that I could possibly suggest that would allow for Masao's
>work to appear on ENT , (and as far fetched as it sounds), is the idea that
>Starfleet, and the United Earth Agency, were two separate organizations that
>developed ships independently, and who ultimately merged in early TOS days.
It remains to be seen what Starfleet looks like, outside of NX-01. After
all, the Enterprise was supposed to be radically new. Perhaps she represents
a complete departure from all earlier starship building traditions, then?
The rest of Starfleet could be Masao-like at the moment, or be flying
things that come straight out of Babylon 5 or Star Wars or the old
Spaceflight Chronology.
>> I wouldn't dismiss it that easily. After all, Voyager made it clear
>> that warp 4 is a valid speed for interstellar travel (the shuttles
>
>But what constitutes a *valid* speed for interstellar travel? It takes
>approximately 2 years to cross 20ly at warp 2. If a nuclear submarine can
>spend 6 months underwater continuously, then is it unreasonable to expect a
>starship to travel continously in space for a period of two years ? Also
>bear in mind, a manned mission to Mars would likely take an approximate
>time-frame)?
A valid speed for interstellar travel is one that takes the starship
from star to star within a few days or a week at most, but a few hours
at least. Other speeds are okay for exploration or space warfare or stuff,
but they are incompatible with TV show plots, and thus must be dismissed.
Kirk would not order warp 2 if that took him to his destination in
eight months. No mission would be so unimportant or repulsive to him
that he'd volunteer to spend that long in space, when it's been shown
he can zip from star to star in far shorter times.
>Further, it is unreasonable to expect the NX-01 to be travelling at anywhere
>*near* warp 5 (average speed) for 4 days. This makes the "four days there,
>four days back" comment even more nonsensical.
Charlie Tucker doesn't whine louder than his engines. When Kirk learned
to ignore his chief engineer, he was witnessed maintaining warp eight for
relatively long periods (the better part of a week in "Amok Time", for
example). "Maintaining abnormally high warp speeds" is an Enterprise
tradition that encompassed at least the E-nil and the E-D, with
comments made in the dialogue. NX-01 could begin the tradition,
especially in context of an important first mission and an expiring
Klingon aboard... "Cruise speed" is probably a pious recommendation
that has little practical significance for bold and beautiful
captains.
>> shows have made references to starships moving at warp 2 or 3
>> when trying to get from star to star. If warp 2 was 8c (TOS) or
>> 10c (TNG), it would be completely unviable as an interstellar
>> speed. So either Kirk and Picard were idiots, or warp speeds don't
>> follow the "known" formulae in all cases. Or even in the majority
>> of cases. IMHO, the evidence currently supports the idea that
>> a few days at warp 5 can take you across dozens of lightyears,
>> and it's the formulae that are in a minority and in error here.
>Personally, I would be hesitant to draw such a conclusion. The reasoning you
>give, while admirably, is based purely upon empirical (observed) evidence,
>and totally lacks a scientific underpinning (which in turn goes against the
>"spirit of Trek".)
I consciously prefer to proceed from such evidence, even if I have nothing
against spinning (sometimes outrageous) theories out of that evidence. We
already know that Trek defies many familiar laws of nature, in physics and
social interactions and unexpected details of everyday life. So it's a good
thing to abandon a few expectations and to keep an open mind about possible
explanations to the inexplicable. Fox Mulder had to deal with the real
world 90% of the time, so his rantings were less defensible. Kirk basically
doesn't deal with the real world (as we know it) at all, and Archer only
occasionally.
>Well if they are using TOS warp scales in ENT (and there is no reason to
>expect otherwise, from a canonical point of view) then Quo'nos is less than
>1 light year from Earth. Given this, can you possible think of *any*
>conceivable reason as to why the Klingons didn't initiate First Contact with
>Humans, since in all likelihood they don't subscribe to a Prime Directive?
Two possibilities: they are afraid of somebody else getting upset, or they
don't want to make First Contacts as a principle. Neither of these is
a trait typical of 23rd century or later Klingons, but perhaps the ones
from Archer's days feared the Vulcans or wanted nothing but wage an
orderly and purely internal civil war all the time.
As for expectations about the warp scale, how do you feel about the fact
that TOS warp eight propels a starship across 500 lightyears in a matter
of days or hours? This is canonical, while the cubical scale is not. If
ENT followed the TOS precedent, Qo'noS could be out in the sticks - even
outside our galaxy in the most extreme case.
I feel torn about TOS speeds. On one hand, TNG makes a valiant effort to
promote a roughly cubical scale, and this scale is acceptable in face
of most evidence. On the other hand, some evidence yells for speeds
at least a thousand times faster than that, and TOS often mentions
speeds faster still. I'd hate to accept the TOS evidence, but I hate
ditching evidence in favor of speculation, too.
>Well if we totally ignore the 'The Tomed incident', the ratification of the
>Treaty of Algeron had to take place before the Romulans entered their second
>period of isolation, and hence the "détente" between them and the
>Federation. This is a very reasonable assumption that we can draw based on
>their behaviour in TNG: "The Neutral Zone." I'd go as so far as to say, that
>it was the ratification of this treaty, compelled the Romulans to enter
>their second period of isolation, for reasons I've outlined below.
This sounds very logical indeed. The latter years of the 23rd century seemed
to show the Romulans in close cooperation with the Feds, while a rift had
clearly formed between them and the Klingons. This would be fertile grounds
for the signing of treaties.
I've often thought of Algeron as a treaty between two sworn enemies, signed
at gunpoint at the end of a bloody war or under threat of one. But it could
be a Hitler-Mussolini kind of thing instead, with two parties in a position
of supreme power and seeming cordiality, making big decisions and feeling so
strong that they can afford a concession or two. Such things would perhaps
best fit the immediate pre-ST6 era.
>> date after the discovery of cloaking devices (which for the Feds would
>> mean after "Balance of Terror", which seems to have taken place in
>> 2265-67 or thereabouts - TOS timing is still in a bit of flux). Or
>Once again, I have to disagree, for the very reason that a treaty that
>limits the use of a military device is likely to be drawn at the conclusion
>of a period of conflict. Clearly, our heroes were not aware that the
>Romulans possessed cloaking technology in "Balance of Terror." And, whilst
>there was, without doubt, a treaty negotiated at the end of the
>Earth-Romulan War, it is highly unlikely that it would have stipulated the
>probihition of a particular type of technology that neither parties employed
>at the time.
I'm sorry, I deleted too much and lost track of what you disagreed with.
I assume you mean that the treaty probably didn't immediately follow
the revelations of "Balance of Terror", but came at a later date when
things had cooled down. Possible, certainly - but many analogous treaties
about nuclear or biological weapons were signed when hostilities between
the US and the USSR were at a peak, or at most at a brief lull after one
side or the other had suffered a temporary setback.
A Treaty of Algeron could IMHO very well emerge from a properly outraged
communique from the UFP to the Romulans immediately after the act of war
they performed in "BoT". The Romulans would swiftly and meekly agree to
something or the other, feeling they were not strategically ready to attack
yet, and the Feds would give them a face-saving out by agreeing to a
seemingly minor and occasion-fitting concession on their side: "We won't
build or operate these nasty cloaks (for we don't even know how to do
that yet)".
>Also the timing you suggest here wouldn't be consistent with the events
>depicted in TOS: "The Enterprise Incident", and Kirk's apparent obsession to
>obtain a cloaking device. Thus, there is a strong implication the Treaty of
>Algeron was ratified after "The Enterprise Incident".
Kirk's/Starfleet's obsession need not mean a treaty did not exist at the
time. As Adm. Pressman says, the treaty has only kept the peace for
"decades", not "centuries". There could very well have been disagreements
and betrayals after the signing of the treaty, on both sides. Tomed is
likely to have been one of them.
>Instead, in the view of the Romulans, the fact the Federation was prepared
>to cease their development of cloaking technology would have represented
>sufficient evidence of their non-hostile intentions (particularly in light
>of the events of "The Enterprise Incident", which led to an easing of
>tensions between them. What the Romulan side of the bargain was is however,
>unclear.
This is indeed a very good timeframe for the signing of the treaty. Especially
if we assume that the Feds made a major concession, and the Romulans only
a minor one. If, OTOH, the purpose of the treaty wasn't to placate outraged
Romulans after "TEI" or outraged Feds after "BoT", then all dates along
the 2270s-2280s would be acceptable. Perhaps the treaty was signed to
reinforce an anti-Klingon pact during those years? Romulan-Klingon
relations supposedly went sour in the early 2270s, for Kor brags of
having fought the Romulans at that time.
>In view of this we can narrow dates for the ratification of the Treaty of
>Algeron to between 'The Enterprise Incident' (approx. 2271) and the start of
>second period of Romulan isolation (2311).
I think I agree with all of that, now. (Except for the "TEI" dating. It must
be off, because Kirk's five-year mission was explicitly stated to have
ended in or by 2270 in VOY "Q2". "TEI" ought to be some years prior to
that, with additional bracketing for Kirk's mission given by the comments
on Sarek's age in "Journey to Babel" (102) and "Unification" (202?).
Apart from that, the dates can be juggled, rounded and mangled to personal
preferences.)
>> actually it could have been signed even before the discovery of cloaking
>> devices, much like the treaties about exploitation of extraterrestrial
>> real estate have been signed in the real world, before anybody has even
>> set foot on another planet.
>If it was signed *before* the discovery of cloaking technology, then how can
>it specifically reference it?
In the context of a long list of "don't"s, I guess. Even if the warring
sides never utilized chemical or biological weapons, it would make sense for
the peace treaty to have a clause where both sides promise not to use those
in the future, either. The same would very plausibly go for other
"unconventional" and objectionable forms of warfare, including some
pretty far-out possibilities and fears that later would prove to be
justified. It is also quite possible that the warring sides were
aware of superweapons that other, more advanced parties possessed,
and wanted to steer clear of those. The cloaking ban would probably be
just a minor side note in Chapter 112, Paragraph 47, right next to
the bans on nova-bombs, AI-based propaganda machines and cloned infantry.
>And say, even if the Treaty doesn't refer to cloaking devices, per se,
>why would the Federation agree to a deal that permits the Romulans to
>use some unnamed technology, and at the same time precludes them from
>doing the same?
That's a good (indeed, crucial) argument, and would require complex
rationalizations. I'll try just one, but I don't strongly believe
in the idea that the treaty was signed before cloaks were developed, so
don't take this too seriously:
"Perhaps the list of don'ts in the original draft of the treaty could not
be agreed on. Both sides wanted to deny the other side something extra,
but did not want to lose anything more. Finally, the sides settled on
asymmetric bans on things that they felt *really* mattered. The Romulans
might have known that the Feds had dealings with Xyrillians and
*theoretically* enjoyed access to Xyrillian cloaks, access Romulus could
never have due to the RNZ being between them and the Xyrillians. So they
wanted Feds to formally give up cloaking, which the Feds did because in
practice they knew the Romulans wouldn't get it, either. The Romulans in
turn might have agreed not to develop biduffnium bombs, which the Feds
could not have because all known biduffnium in the universe was on an
exotic planet deep within the Romulan side of the Zone."
If the treaty was specifically about cloaking, then we don't have this
problem. A date between "TEI" and Tomed, and a raison d'etre revolving
around the already existing imbalance of the Romulans having cloaks
and the Feds not having those, would explain it all away neatly.
Timo Saloniemi
Love Robin Miller
>http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/smallcruisers.jpg
>
LOL !!! Fireball XL-5.....
>Well if they are using TOS warp scales in ENT (and there is no reason to
>expect otherwise, from a canonical point of view) then Quo'nos is less than
>1 light year from Earth. Given this, can you possible think of *any*
>conceivable reason as to why the Klingons didn't initiate First Contact with
>Humans, since in all likelihood they don't subscribe to a Prime Directive?
>
add to that that for the longest time (TOS).. the klingons are refered to as a
conquering nation!! they dont go to places, such as earth if its only a measly
1 ly from them to *talk*.. they go there to take over , plundering our
resources and wimmen-folk...
LR
Love Robin Gates, Commodore
Starfleet Internal Affairs (SIA)
Starbase 001
ST:FAB, a Star Trek fan's Sim Group
[Star Trek: Federaton And Beyond]
http://angel.scientium.com/gow/stfab.htm
Membership open to AIM users!
(Drop shields to E-mail)
Brian Barnaud
> In article <JUwZ7.566$k6....@grover.nit.gwu.edu> Dwayne Allen Day
<wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
> >
> >I just picked up the latest issue of Star Trek Communicator. In addition
> >to the cutaway of the NX-01, it also has sketches of a "retro Klingon
> >cruiser" that may show up in a future episode.
> >
> >I sure hope so. This is definitely cool. The forward section is
> >connected to the main body by a thin tube, but also wires, like a
> >suspension bridge. The coolest aspect, I think, is the nacelles. They
> >have a forward section and then a rear section out on tubes, kind of like
> >the control vanes at the rear of the engines on the Y-Wing fighter of
Star
> >Wars.
> >
> >It's massively cool. I wanna see it fly...
>
> If "Enterprise" HADN'T already made it clear that things in the 22nd
century
> are not very different from things in the 23rd, it would have been cool to
> see something different. > >
>
Hey... first season rule... If they go ahead with the retro design from here
on out, lets forgive the other two ships we have seen.... (bad mix up of the
historical documents download?)
heck maybe they would fix it on the dvd ;)
oh well it is a cool concept for the ship...