trek ships

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Egggh :/ Who designs them. They should take a lesson from B5 ship
designers

Rob


Mr.Savoy!!!!

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

u must be out of ur mind! ST ships blow away b5 ships any day in terms
design fire power and speed...pppppplease be serious u idiot..hah lo that
is funny
Robert Williams wrote in message <6luauc$n4k$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...

Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Why?

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Paul Cassidy wrote in message <6lubkq$gm...@kirk.tinet.ie>...
>Why?

I don't know. They just look more...............hmm..........rock solid.

Rob

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Mr.Savoy!!!! in message <6luc3g$plc$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...


>u must be out of ur mind! ST ships blow away b5 ships any day in terms
>design fire power and speed...pppppplease be serious u idiot..hah lo that
>is funny


Please type coherently you fool. You obviously can't read. Design you
paranoid idiot. DESIGN. The way they look. Though B5 ships would, blow ST
ships away, though lets not get into that topic again :)

Rob

Dustin Evans

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

The design of the ships in B5 are crappy compared to Star Trek. They are
flimsy pieces of crap (Just take a look at the Shadow vessels), and this is
coming from a B5 and DS9 fan.

Not to start a thread on the subject, but it has been well established that
the pathetic weaponry on B5 (different kinds of lasers) would have no effect
on Star Fleet Ships. You might as well get a fire house and spray water at a
Federation ship.

Robert Williams wrote in message <6lukbi$5i1$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...

John Moran

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...


>>Egggh :/ Who designs them. They should take a lesson from B5 ship
>>designers
>

>You have got to be kidding...


Yes kidding about the B5 bit, but I agree on the general redesigning.
Certainly I have never seen a major starfleet ship that didn't look
absolutely pants. Yes I know that there are technical reasons for their
appearance, but the comment stands. TOS Enterprise was absolutely arse,
Enterprise-A was an improvement but still dire. Enterprise-D was worse than
the original and Enterprise-E is acceptable only because I am used to the
form these monstrosities take...
This is a pretty futile post on my part because I have no idea what I think
a starship should look like to be sexy, but thats how it goes....

John
(Hiding behind a chair and humming with his fingers in his ears)

Freeman748

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

I think that ST ships are a lot better think about B5 ships have to have jump
points. Plus ST ships have shields but technically I guess B5 ships do go
faster than ST ships because of jumpgates they can travel across the galaxy in
a matter of weeks but know I got me contradicting myself. But at least I'm
listing off some facts (well I don't know if it's a list more like 2 well
anyway) It seems to me that the way this conversation is going everyone
basically is going to stick to what they think because I don't think there is
enough technical data on ALL of the ships to pick which one's are better series
has it's own best ship though the Whitestar and the Defiant, but as they say a
chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Well in my opinion I would have to compare my view of the B5 ships as kind of
like Star Wars type ships they are a little faster and maybe even have more
fire power but it's always has to be a mass amount of ships to fight a Battle
but in ST it's more like two giant Titanous monsters fighting which can last
for quite a bit and there is rarely (except maybe recently with the Dominion)
more than 5 ships fighting against each other all at once. By now you are
probably confused by one my bad spelling and two what my opinion actually is
the truth is I don't know and I don't think anybody can prove, which one is
better from technical data obtained over the episodes. I will say that the
White Star is cooler looking but ST I like watching more in a fight!!!
Sticky Side Out
-Dtape
(I have my opinions I don't care what you think
but I will take them into consideration)

Blessed are those with giant strength
but tyrannous are those who use it like one.
William Shakespeare

www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9197/

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Dustin Evans wrote in message ...


>The design of the ships in B5 are crappy compared to Star Trek.

You think.

They are
>flimsy pieces of crap (Just take a look at the Shadow vessels)

Hello. Star trek models may be flimsy pieces of crap, as some of them are
real models. B5 ships are computer generated. They aren't real. Oh dear,
you have messed up.


, and this is
>coming from a B5 and DS9 fan.

Really.

>
>Not to start a thread on the subject,

Then why have you. Because you can't resist it.


but it has been well established that
>the pathetic weaponry on B5 (different kinds of lasers) would have no
effect
>on Star Fleet Ships.

Yeah, established by trek fans. Oh beliviable :)


You might as well get a fire house and spray water at a
>Federation ship.

That could hurt it, but it would be saved by the plot.

Rob

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
>>Egggh :/ Who designs them. They should take a lesson from B5 ship
>>designers
>
>You have got to be kidding...

Why. Do you think trek ships look nice? Funny thought. The Defiant is
okay.

Rob

>
> Brian

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...

>>Yes kidding about the B5 bit
>

>Thank God. I certainly fear for the sanity of anyone who can take a look
>at those Earth Alliance monstrosities on B5 and dare to say that they are
>preferable to anything on Trek.

Well i think there a lot better? You got a problem with that? I don't mind
if you like trek ships better. Its your opinion. And mine.


>What about Enterprises B and C? :-)

B looked like a 70's cup holder :)
C was a cross between B and D. Eghhhghg.

>
>>This is a pretty futile post on my part because I have no idea what I
think
>>a starship should look like to be sexy, but thats how it goes....
>

>Enterprises usually don't get the cutting edge design, in terms of sheer
>flashiness. Lots of other, better-looking ships, such as the Akira and
>Steamrunner classes.

Mmmmmmmm, i liked the Akira one as well and the little saber class ship.
Its just the main Starfleet ships, the Galaxy's, Nebula's, Excelsiors. The
soveriegn is just about okay. The Defiant is nice, though it would look
better in shiny mettalic grey with blue flashing ;)

Rob

>
> Brian

Dustin Evans

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Robert Williams wrote in message <6m0kod$d1j$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...


> They are
>>flimsy pieces of crap (Just take a look at the Shadow vessels)
>
>Hello. Star trek models may be flimsy pieces of crap, as some of them are
>real models. B5 ships are computer generated. They aren't real. Oh dear,
>you have messed up.
>

I don't know what the hell you are talking about fuck nut. I wasn't talking
about the actual models (and BTW some of the ships on DS9 are CGI. )

If the ships were to actually exist in real space - the shadow ships
wouldn't hold up - they are flimsy. You were talking about the design - not
the computer generated and real models. It doesn't really matter if the
design is in a computer or is an expensive piece of plastic - the shadow
ships have a flimsy design.

>
>, and this is
>>coming from a B5 and DS9 fan.
>
>Really.

Yes - until about 12 months ago when it disappeared and I couldn't find it
on ANY damn TV station! ARGGH!!

>
>>
>>Not to start a thread on the subject,
>
>Then why have you. Because you can't resist it.
>
>
> but it has been well established that
>>the pathetic weaponry on B5 (different kinds of lasers) would have no
>effect
>>on Star Fleet Ships.
>
>Yeah, established by trek fans. Oh beliviable :)

This is all imaginary science created by the writers of each show. It has
been established by them and only them. If the writers on B5 want to make
their ships use lasers - thats fine. If the writers on ST make their ships
use more powerfull weapons and have shields that can easily stop lasers -
that's fine. Also the writers have given the weapons on ST a far better
range.

The writers are the ones that come up with this - not trek fans. If you
would watch the shows more carefully you would come to the same conclusions.


>
>
> You might as well get a fire house and spray water at a
>>Federation ship.
>
>That could hurt it, but it would be saved by the plot.

A bitter B5 fan is a sad thing to see ;-)

The navigational shields alone can stop small meteoroids at warp speeds.
Actually, the plot on ST causes more damage to a fed ship than anything
else. Temporal weaponry fucked up Voyager - the Domininon's phased polaron
beams once went right through Fed shields - but no longer. These were thrown
in there to make the opponents more formidable.

Dustin Evans
"This is a dark day for the Alpha Quadrant" - Gowron
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender
your ships. We will add your biological and technological
distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service
us. Resistance is futile."


>
>Rob
>
>
>
>

Dustin Evans

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

I like the look of the Dominion ships. The fighters and the destroyers look
really cool. Does anyone here honestly think they look crappy.

(BTW IMHO Computer graphics do look good - but sometimes they look so good
that the ship doesn't look real at all - more like some kind of shinny toy.
If ST did all their ships in a computer then I am sure they could come up
with some better designs - that don't look realistic)

Dustin Evans
"This is a dark day for the Alpha Quadrant" - Gowron
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender
your ships. We will add your biological and technological
distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service
us. Resistance is futile."


Robert Williams wrote in message <6luauc$n4k$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...


>Egggh :/ Who designs them. They should take a lesson from B5 ship
>designers
>

>Rob
>
>
>

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Dustin Evans wrote in message ...
>

>Robert Williams wrote in message <6m0kod$d1j$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...
>> They are
>>>flimsy pieces of crap (Just take a look at the Shadow vessels)
>>
>>Hello. Star trek models may be flimsy pieces of crap, as some of them are
>>real models. B5 ships are computer generated. They aren't real. Oh
dear,
>>you have messed up.
>>
>
>I don't know what the hell you are talking about fuck nut. I wasn't talking
>about the actual models (and BTW some of the ships on DS9 are CGI. )
>
>If the ships were to actually exist in real space - the shadow ships
>wouldn't hold up - they are flimsy.

Well they do hold up don't they. If where talking in storworld terms, they
have been built by a millenia old race with sophisticated technology.

You were talking about the design - not
>the computer generated and real models. It doesn't really matter if the
>design is in a computer or is an expensive piece of plastic - the shadow
>ships have a flimsy design.

Yeah right.

>
>>
>>, and this is
>>>coming from a B5 and DS9 fan.
>>
>>Really.
>
>Yes - until about 12 months ago when it disappeared and I couldn't find it
>on ANY damn TV station! ARGGH!!

Which one?

>
>>
>>>
>>>Not to start a thread on the subject,
>>
>>Then why have you. Because you can't resist it.
>>
>>
>> but it has been well established that
>>>the pathetic weaponry on B5 (different kinds of lasers) would have no
>>effect
>>>on Star Fleet Ships.
>>
>>Yeah, established by trek fans. Oh beliviable :)
>
>This is all imaginary science created by the writers of each show. It has
>been established by them and only them. If the writers on B5 want to make
>their ships use lasers - thats fine. If the writers on ST make their ships
>use more powerfull weapons and have shields that can easily stop lasers -
>that's fine. Also the writers have given the weapons on ST a far better
>range.

ST universe lasers. Not B5 universe lasers.

>
>The writers are the ones that come up with this - not trek fans. If you
>would watch the shows more carefully you would come to the same
conclusions.

After watching fighting sequences from both shows, and technical stuff, i'm
afraid i can't. And who says i have too?

>
>
>>
>>
>> You might as well get a fire house and spray water at a
>>>Federation ship.
>>
>>That could hurt it, but it would be saved by the plot.
>
>A bitter B5 fan is a sad thing to see ;-)

Bitter? Why do you say that :)

>
>The navigational shields alone can stop small meteoroids at warp speeds.
>Actually, the plot on ST causes more damage to a fed ship than anything
>else.

But then the plot/writers save it.

Temporal weaponry fucked up Voyager - the Domininon's phased polaron
>beams once went right through Fed shields - but no longer.

No longer. Because of the writers :)

Rob

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Dustin Evans wrote in message ...

>I like the look of the Dominion ships. The fighters and the destroyers look
>really cool. Does anyone here honestly think they look crappy.

I was talking about most federation ships(not all). Also the romulan,
ferengi and cardassian ships aren't too hot.

>
>(BTW IMHO Computer graphics do look good - but sometimes they look so good
>that the ship doesn't look real at all - more like some kind of shinny toy.

As opposed to a glued together toy :)

>If ST did all their ships in a computer then I am sure they could come up
>with some better designs - that don't look realistic)

Nah, they could come up with fairly realistic designs using CGI. I reckon.

Rob

guyl...@postmaster.co.uk

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Just out of curiosity: What could the TREK designers learn? Their ships are
the most well known of any ships in S-F. Plus, they're practical. They went
through great lengths to make them as realistic as possible within a
scientific framework. I doubt that B5 ships will be as well known 30 years
from now. Don't get me wrong; I like the designs (just about the only thing I
like about the show) but they can't compare.

In article <6luauc$n4k$1...@heliodor.xara.net>,


"Robert Williams" <rs...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Egggh :/ Who designs them. They should take a lesson from B5 ship
> designers
>
> Rob
>
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Dustin Evans

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Robert Williams wrote in message <6m0vtk$rnd$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...


>>Yes - until about 12 months ago when it disappeared and I couldn't find it
>>on ANY damn TV station! ARGGH!!
>
>Which one?


B5 - I live in the foothills of California, no cable service up here and I
haven't forked over money for a DSS dish, it was on channel 31 at 5:00 PM on
Saturday. Ever since about a year ago, I haven't been able to find it on any
local station. I used to tune in every week and enjoyed it almost as much as
DS9. I guess that's what happens with syndicated shows. It got replaced with
Hercules or Zena.

>ST universe lasers. Not B5 universe lasers.

A laser is a laser. Thus the name. Names were created for a reason.
Laser - Any of several devices that convert incident electromagnetic
radiation of mixed frequencies to one or more discrete frequencies of highly
amplified and coherent ultraviolet, visible, or infrared radiation.

>
>>
>>The writers are the ones that come up with this - not trek fans. If you
>>would watch the shows more carefully you would come to the same
>conclusions.
>
>After watching fighting sequences from both shows, and technical stuff, i'm
>afraid i can't. And who says i have too?

I didn't say you had to. Just common sense would lead most people to come to
my conclusion. Weapon ranges and detructive force that has been mentioned
and have been demonstrated time and time again on both shows leads me to
only one conclusion. Hey, that's just me. When someone says a weapons range
is 5000 meters on one show and 1,000,000 KM on another - I take it at face
value.

It doesn't matter anyway. All this shit is made up, and nothing I say will
convince you and nothing you say will convice me. It's pointless to go on
about an imaginary battle between two different imaginary ships from two
seperate imaginary universes.

But, I don't see any problems with the design of federation ships when
compared to B5 ships. I think the ships on ST look more realistic and better
than B5 ships. The battle scenes look more realistic in ST. The shadow ships
look neat, but that's about it. IMHO they don't look real and don't look
like they could actually exist. Some ships do look cool on B5, but not
better then SF ships.

Although the Cardassian ships look shity.


>>
>>The navigational shields alone can stop small meteoroids at warp speeds.
>>Actually, the plot on ST causes more damage to a fed ship than anything
>>else.
>
>But then the plot/writers save it.
>
> Temporal weaponry fucked up Voyager - the Domininon's phased polaron
>>beams once went right through Fed shields - but no longer.
>
>No longer. Because of the writers :)

The writers on B5 came up with using telepaths to disable shadow vessels.
They came up with shadow vessels. Sorry to tell you, but everything is
written by the writers. The writers came up with the white star fleet, and
the union of all the other worlds. ALL plot developments are written by
writers no matter what the show.

On ST, instead of having the Dominion ships fire weapons like the Klingons
and Romulans and everyone else - which would be boring - they used weapons
that the feds had never seen before (Not suprising since the Dominion's home
is in the Gamma Quad). After studying a captured Dominion ship, and after
many encounters with Dominion ships - the feds were then able to provide a
better defense against the Dominion's weapons. Still, Dominion weapons do
major damage, but not as much. This is a more interesting plot development,
and it makes perfect sense. Better than same-old weapon type.

Dustin Evans

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Robert Williams wrote in message <6m105l$s4g$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...


>
>Dustin Evans wrote in message ...
>>I like the look of the Dominion ships. The fighters and the destroyers
look
>>really cool. Does anyone here honestly think they look crappy.
>
>I was talking about most federation ships(not all). Also the romulan,
>ferengi and cardassian ships aren't too hot.


The Romulan warbirds aren't that bad. The resemble B5 ships in their unusual
design.
Cardassian ships do look lame, and ferengi ships - especially the shuttle
suck. The shuttles look like some kind of bug with a round body and little
arms sticking out the sides.

You still have to give credit to both shows - considering how many ship
designs they have to come up with each season.

>
>>
>>(BTW IMHO Computer graphics do look good - but sometimes they look so good
>>that the ship doesn't look real at all - more like some kind of shinny
toy.
>
>As opposed to a glued together toy :)

:) - yeah but the end result looks more realistic sometimes.

>
>>If ST did all their ships in a computer then I am sure they could come up
>>with some better designs - that don't look realistic)
>
>Nah, they could come up with fairly realistic designs using CGI. I
reckon.

I think all the Dominion ships are CGI - they look great and realistic - and
that should be the goal. A ship design should look great and be believable.

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Dustin Evans wrote in message ...
>

>Robert Williams wrote in message <6m0vtk$rnd$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...
>>>Yes - until about 12 months ago when it disappeared and I couldn't find
it
>>>on ANY damn TV station! ARGGH!!
>>
>>Which one?
>
>
>B5 - I live in the foothills of California, no cable service up here and I
>haven't forked over money for a DSS dish, it was on channel 31 at 5:00 PM
on
>Saturday. Ever since about a year ago, I haven't been able to find it on
any
>local station. I used to tune in every week and enjoyed it almost as much
as
>DS9. I guess that's what happens with syndicated shows. It got replaced
with
>Hercules or Zena.

Ok.

>
>>ST universe lasers. Not B5 universe lasers.
>A laser is a laser. Thus the name. Names were created for a reason.
>Laser - Any of several devices that convert incident electromagnetic
>radiation of mixed frequencies to one or more discrete frequencies of
highly
>amplified and coherent ultraviolet, visible, or infrared radiation.

St lasers. Not B5 lasers.

>
>>
>>>
>>>The writers are the ones that come up with this - not trek fans. If you
>>>would watch the shows more carefully you would come to the same
>>conclusions.
>>
>>After watching fighting sequences from both shows, and technical stuff,
i'm
>>afraid i can't. And who says i have too?
>
>I didn't say you had to. Just common sense would lead most people to come
to
>my conclusion.

Common sense, otherwise known as if your a fan.

Weapon ranges and detructive force that has been mentioned
>and have been demonstrated time and time again on both shows leads me to
>only one conclusion. Hey, that's just me. When someone says a weapons range
>is 5000 meters

Little has been stated on weapons ranges etc in B5. We just don't know.

on one show and 1,000,000 KM on another - I take it at face
>value.

Nah more like 300'000km.

>
>It doesn't matter anyway. All this shit is made up, and nothing I say will
>convince you and nothing you say will convice me. It's pointless to go on
>about an imaginary battle between two different imaginary ships from two
>seperate imaginary universes.

Exactly. Let us go back to quietness :)

>
>But, I don't see any problems with the design of federation ships when
>compared to B5 ships. I think the ships on ST look more realistic and
better
>than B5 ships.

Eh, thats the other way round for me.

>The battle scenes look more realistic in ST.

I don't think so, though i don't really recall many ST fight scenes, apart
from the first contact one, and way of the warrior.

The shadow ships
>look neat, but that's about it.

So do the Vorlon ships(based on garlic sprigs!), the EA ships, the vree
ships and the Drazi ships. The rest are average. The small centauri
ships(Vorchans) are crud, as are most of the narn ships.

IMHO they don't look real and don't look
>like they could actually exist.

You think? I disagree.

Some ships do look cool on B5, but not
>better then SF ships.

Again i must disagree.


>
>Although the Cardassian ships look shity.

Yes, as do the romulan and ferengi ships. And some(some) of the federation
ships.

>
>
>>>
>>>The navigational shields alone can stop small meteoroids at warp speeds.
>>>Actually, the plot on ST causes more damage to a fed ship than anything
>>>else.
>>
>>But then the plot/writers save it.
>>
>> Temporal weaponry fucked up Voyager - the Domininon's phased polaron
>>>beams once went right through Fed shields - but no longer.
>>
>>No longer. Because of the writers :)
>
>The writers on B5 came up with using telepaths to disable shadow vessels.
>They came up with shadow vessels. Sorry to tell you, but everything is
>written by the writers. The writers came up with the white star fleet, and
>the union of all the other worlds. ALL plot developments are written by
>writers no matter what the show.

Da-Da! Yes. ST ships are saved by the plot alot though.

>
>On ST, instead of having the Dominion ships fire weapons like the Klingons
>and Romulans and everyone else - which would be boring - they used weapons
>that the feds had never seen before (Not suprising since the Dominion's
home
>is in the Gamma Quad).

Yes different beams. What is your point?

After studying a captured Dominion ship, and after
>many encounters with Dominion ships - the feds were then able to provide a
>better defense against the Dominion's weapons. Still, Dominion weapons do
>major damage, but not as much. This is a more interesting plot development,
>and it makes perfect sense. Better than same-old weapon type.

The writers made the dominion too powerful, but did a save.

Rob

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Dustin Evans wrote in message ...
>

>Robert Williams wrote in message <6m105l$s4g$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...


>>
>>Dustin Evans wrote in message ...

>>>I like the look of the Dominion ships. The fighters and the destroyers
>look
>>>really cool. Does anyone here honestly think they look crappy.
>>
>>I was talking about most federation ships(not all). Also the romulan,
>>ferengi and cardassian ships aren't too hot.
>
>
>The Romulan warbirds aren't that bad.

egh.

The resemble B5 ships in their unusual
>design.

err....no.

>Cardassian ships do look lame, and ferengi ships - especially the shuttle
>suck. The shuttles look like some kind of bug with a round body and little
>arms sticking out the sides.
>
>You still have to give credit to both shows - considering how many ship
>designs they have to come up with each season.

Yes.

>
>>
>>>
>>>(BTW IMHO Computer graphics do look good - but sometimes they look so
good
>>>that the ship doesn't look real at all - more like some kind of shinny
>toy.
>>
>>As opposed to a glued together toy :)
>
>:) - yeah but the end result looks more realistic sometimes.

Depends on what you find plesing visualy.

>
>>
>>>If ST did all their ships in a computer then I am sure they could come up
>>>with some better designs - that don't look realistic)
>>
>>Nah, they could come up with fairly realistic designs using CGI. I
>reckon.
>
>I think all the Dominion ships are CGI - they look great and realistic -
and
>that should be the goal. A ship design should look great and be believable.

Yes.

Rob

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

I like the designs (just about the only thing I
>like about the show) but they can't compare.

I disagree.

Rob

Dustin Evans

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Robert Williams wrote in message <6m1fce$jlk$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...


>>>ST universe lasers. Not B5 universe lasers.
>>A laser is a laser. Thus the name. Names were created for a reason.
>>Laser - Any of several devices that convert incident electromagnetic
>>radiation of mixed frequencies to one or more discrete frequencies of
>highly
>>amplified and coherent ultraviolet, visible, or infrared radiation.
>
>St lasers. Not B5 lasers.
>


This is the definition of the english word "laser" This definition is not
specific to any TV show. If they can't use a words definintion, then they
should make up a new word.

>
>Common sense, otherwise known as if your a fan.

No - common sense means that after evaulating all the facts - you naturally
come to one un-biased conclusion.

>
> Weapon ranges and detructive force that has been mentioned
>>and have been demonstrated time and time again on both shows leads me to
>>only one conclusion. Hey, that's just me. When someone says a weapons
range
>>is 5000 meters
>
>Little has been stated on weapons ranges etc in B5. We just don't know.

Not true - one person on here did an excellent post a few months back that
illustrated my point quite well with examples from B5 and ST. I can't
remember the specifics. Sometimes in B5 they say that a enemy ship is at a
certain distance - once the ship is within a certain range - then they start
firing. So this illustrates the weapon range or why wouldn't they fire when
the enemy was a little further away? On ST they mention weapon ranges quite
often.

As for fire power - the Vorlans have a ship that is designed to have enough
fire power to be a planet killer. (Vorlan ships are much more powerfull than
most human or Mimbari or Centauri ships) A federation ship could accomplish
this task. Example: When Garak tried to activate the Defiant's weapon
systems so that he could destroy the founders home world.

Also, we have seen what strategically placed photon torpedos can do -
destroy a star - stop massive seismic and volcanic activity on a planet. We
have seen weapons that can easily drill through miles of crust from orbit
and burn off the atmosphere of a planet.

I am sure that these weapons could be used to destroy a planet.

>
> on one show and 1,000,000 KM on another - I take it at face
>>value.
>
>Nah more like 300'000km.

I don't remeber the specifc numbers - but I do remember that the range on ST
is far greater than of B5. I think that the B5 ships weapons range is no
more than a couple miles to ten miles.


> >The battle scenes look more realistic in ST.
>
>I don't think so, though i don't really recall many ST fight scenes, apart
>from the first contact one, and way of the warrior.

I don't remember which show the "Way of the Warrior" was on (probably a worf
episode on STTNG during the Klingon civil war), but it doesn't sound like
you watch DS9 at all. This season and last season there has been countless
battles on the show. They're were some battles between the feds and Klingons
and now with the Dominion.

>>>The Domininon's phased polaron


>>>>beams once went right through Fed shields - but no longer.
>>>
>>>No longer. Because of the writers :)
>>
>>The writers on B5 came up with using telepaths to disable shadow vessels.
>>They came up with shadow vessels. Sorry to tell you, but everything is
>>written by the writers. The writers came up with the white star fleet, and
>>the union of all the other worlds. ALL plot developments are written by
>>writers no matter what the show.
>
>Da-Da! Yes. ST ships are saved by the plot alot though.

What saved all the races in B5 from destruction? THE PLOT!!! Anytime a
character or entire race is put in a tuff position by the plot on any show,
the only way to get out of it is with the plot. How else are issues resolved
or anything accomplished on a show? The plot is the show.

The definition of plot is: The plan of events or main story in a narrative
or drama.

Without the plot, nothing happens in a show. Basically the characters stand
still and say nothing and do nothing.

Summary: So any development to create and resolve an issues is done so
through the plot in any show.


>
>>
>>On ST, instead of having the Dominion ships fire weapons like the Klingons
>>and Romulans and everyone else - which would be boring - they used weapons
>>that the feds had never seen before (Not suprising since the Dominion's
>home
>>is in the Gamma Quad).
>
>Yes different beams. What is your point?

My point is that it makes perfect sense and it wasn't just some strange plot
twist or last minute save.

>
> After studying a captured Dominion ship, and after
>>many encounters with Dominion ships - the feds were then able to provide a
>>better defense against the Dominion's weapons. Still, Dominion weapons do
>>major damage, but not as much. This is a more interesting plot
development,
>>and it makes perfect sense. Better than same-old weapon type.
>
>The writers made the dominion too powerful, but did a save.

Like I said earlier, this isn't some last minute save. This makes perfect
sense. They established earlier that they had captured a Jem'Hedar ship.
They should be able to learn something from it unless they are stupid. Once
you know more about an enemys weapons you can make better defenses against
them.

When they mined the wormhole and then later when the wormhole aliens stoped
the huge fleet from coming through the wormhole - those were a saves. There
were too many Dominion ships - so by cutting off the wormhole, you stop
thousands of enemy ships from entering the Alpha Quadrant.

Robert Williams

unread,
Jun 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/15/98
to

Dustin Evans wrote in message ...
>

>Robert Williams wrote in message <6m1fce$jlk$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...
>>>>ST universe lasers. Not B5 universe lasers.
>>>A laser is a laser. Thus the name. Names were created for a reason.
>>>Laser - Any of several devices that convert incident electromagnetic
>>>radiation of mixed frequencies to one or more discrete frequencies of
>>highly
>>>amplified and coherent ultraviolet, visible, or infrared radiation.
>>
>>St lasers. Not B5 lasers.
>>
>
>
>This is the definition of the english word "laser" This definition is not
>specific to any TV show. If they can't use a words definintion, then they
>should make up a new word.

Arr. Lets just agree to disagree before someone explodes ok.

>
>>
>>Common sense, otherwise known as if your a fan.
>
>No - common sense means that after evaulating all the facts - you naturally
>come to one un-biased conclusion.

Common sense to one person, bias to the other.

>
>>
>> Weapon ranges and detructive force that has been mentioned
>>>and have been demonstrated time and time again on both shows leads me to
>>>only one conclusion. Hey, that's just me. When someone says a weapons
>range
>>>is 5000 meters
>>
>>Little has been stated on weapons ranges etc in B5. We just don't know.
>
>Not true - one person on here did an excellent post a few months back that
>illustrated my point quite well with examples from B5 and ST. I can't
>remember the specifics. Sometimes in B5 they say that a enemy ship is at a
>certain distance - once the ship is within a certain range - then they
start
>firing. So this illustrates the weapon range or why wouldn't they fire when
>the enemy was a little further away? On ST they mention weapon ranges quite
>often.
>

I wouldn't mind seeing supposed post.

>As for fire power - the Vorlans have a ship that is designed to have enough
>fire power to be a planet killer. (Vorlan ships are much more powerfull
than
>most human or Mimbari or Centauri ships) A federation ship could accomplish
>this task. Example: When Garak tried to activate the Defiant's weapon
>systems so that he could destroy the founders home world.

I see no evidence that fed ships could destroy a planet(rend to pieces).
They could mess up atmosphere etc however in that storyworld.

>
>Also, we have seen what strategically placed photon torpedos can do -
>destroy a star - stop massive seismic and volcanic activity on a planet. We
>have seen weapons that can easily drill through miles of crust from orbit
>and burn off the atmosphere of a planet.

Yes i know.

>
>I am sure that these weapons could be used to destroy a planet.

Destroy atmosphere etc maybe. Not rend it to pieces.

>
>>
>> on one show and 1,000,000 KM on another - I take it at face
>>>value.
>>
>>Nah more like 300'000km.
>
>I don't remeber the specifc numbers - but I do remember that the range on
ST
>is far greater than of B5.

What i said above for a phaser. A photon torpedo is 3.5millon km.

I think that the B5 ships weapons range is no
>more than a couple miles to ten miles.

It is not a couple of miles to ten miles. Maybe for fighters, but not
capital ships. I know that weapon range in the trek storyworld is v big,
but B5 weapon range is a lot more that just a few miles.

>
>
>> >The battle scenes look more realistic in ST.
>>
>>I don't think so, though i don't really recall many ST fight scenes, apart
>>from the first contact one, and way of the warrior.
>
>I don't remember which show the "Way of the Warrior" was on (probably a
worf
>episode on STTNG during the Klingon civil war)

The one where the kilingons attempt to nut the station.


, but it doesn't sound like
>you watch DS9 at all.

You have made a HUGE but understanable mistake. I am in the UK and only
watch DS9 on BBC2. We(as in the family) where going to get a sattelite dish
for Sky etc which is further on in episodes that BBC2, but with digital
decoder thingys coming out soon waiting for those is a much better option.
BBC2 DS9 is off air at the moment, but i think we have only got up to season
five.

This season and last season there has been countless
>battles on the show. They're were some battles between the feds and
Klingons
>and now with the Dominion.

I heard of them. My friend who has sky(and didn't record the episode for me
even though he knew i would like it. Git.) told me of the battle where
Starfleet(5th and 9th fleets?) are getting a bit overwhelmed by dominion
ships, and a lot of other stuff like the defiant trying to fight its way
back to the station etc, and a huge kilingon fleet decloaking and kicking
the dominion. Enlighten me to the full events. Or amybe i could get it on
video over here. What was the episode called?

>
>>>>The Domininon's phased polaron
>>>>>beams once went right through Fed shields - but no longer.
>>>>
>>>>No longer. Because of the writers :)
>>>
>>>The writers on B5 came up with using telepaths to disable shadow vessels.
>>>They came up with shadow vessels. Sorry to tell you, but everything is
>>>written by the writers. The writers came up with the white star fleet,
and
>>>the union of all the other worlds. ALL plot developments are written by
>>>writers no matter what the show.
>>
>>Da-Da! Yes. ST ships are saved by the plot alot though.
>
>What saved all the races in B5 from destruction?

The alliances greates weapon: The possum launcher? :)

THE PLOT!!! Anytime a
>character or entire race is put in a tuff position by the plot on any show,
>the only way to get out of it is with the plot. How else are issues
resolved
>or anything accomplished on a show? The plot is the show.

Never mind.

>
>The definition of plot is: The plan of events or main story in a narrative
>or drama.
>
>Without the plot, nothing happens in a show. Basically the characters stand
>still and say nothing and do nothing.
>
>Summary: So any development to create and resolve an issues is done so
>through the plot in any show.

Say NO to the plot. We want to see some main characters getting killed and
surplus security personnel ripping kilingons and jem'ha'dar(sp?) to pieces.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>On ST, instead of having the Dominion ships fire weapons like the
Klingons
>>>and Romulans and everyone else - which would be boring - they used
weapons
>>>that the feds had never seen before (Not suprising since the Dominion's
>>home
>>>is in the Gamma Quad).
>>
>>Yes different beams. What is your point?
>
>My point is that it makes perfect sense and it wasn't just some strange
plot
>twist or last minute save.

OK then.

>
>>
>> After studying a captured Dominion ship, and after
>>>many encounters with Dominion ships - the feds were then able to provide
a
>>>better defense against the Dominion's weapons. Still, Dominion weapons do
>>>major damage, but not as much. This is a more interesting plot
>development,
>>>and it makes perfect sense. Better than same-old weapon type.
>>
>>The writers made the dominion too powerful, but did a save.
>
>Like I said earlier, this isn't some last minute save. This makes perfect
>sense. They established earlier that they had captured a Jem'Hedar ship.
>They should be able to learn something from it unless they are stupid. Once
>you know more about an enemys weapons you can make better defenses against
>them.

Yes i know. And people would complain a lot if the federation got smacked
up every time. Like what happened to the odessey. Which brings me too
another point. How many galaxy class ships are there?. The guide thingy
says it was hinted at only being 6, but have future developments revealed
more?

>
>When they mined the wormhole and then later when the wormhole aliens stoped
>the huge fleet from coming through the wormhole - those were a saves. There
>were too many Dominion ships - so by cutting off the wormhole, you stop
>thousands of enemy ships from entering the Alpha Quadrant.

The wormhole aliens made them disappear yes?


Rob
>
>

Tristan Jones

unread,
Jun 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/19/98
to


Freeman748 wrote:

Trek Miltary battles look like battles in 19th Century Europe which two sides would meet
each other on a field of battle and when one line of soldiers were killed the next line
would advance and so forth.
Star Trek Writers from Gene Roddenberry onwards viewed space as an 2D Sea without water
instead of an 3D
enviroment rather like air and view how ships are bliued, design and battles in this
fashion.

John Moran

unread,
Jun 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/20/98
to

Tristan Jones wrote in message <358A17CC...@access.net.au>...

>Trek Miltary battles look like battles in 19th Century Europe which two
sides would meet
>each other on a field of battle and when one line of soldiers were killed
the next line
>would advance and so forth.
>Star Trek Writers from Gene Roddenberry onwards viewed space as an 2D Sea
without water
>instead of an 3D
>enviroment rather like air and view how ships are bliued, design and
battles in this
>fashion.


Yes, that is another curious phenomenon that I have noticed about Trek.
Why is it that when two vessels meet each other in space they are always
the 'right way up'? You know the effect, Warbird meets Enterprise-D, both
are the right way up, i.e our perception of the correct alignment. Why
should this be? Is there an 'upsy-downsy' treaty in operation somewhere? You
might say that it is a convention when meeting to be 'sunny side up' to each
other, but even the Borg do it.
It certainly does seem that Starships are built with 2D combat in mind,
you get the impression that you could attack the Enterprise from above and
behind with more impunity than from ahead and below (thats how it seems
anyway although I can guess someone will reply that this isn't the case), so
why should it have a blind spot from the drawing board?
The answer? I'm going with the old 'because it looks better on the
screen' gambit. Additionally they seem to use the 3D movement thang only
with smaller ships and in swirling combats to represent high speed
maneuvering.

John "I gets me brain medicine on the NHS" Moran

Reepicheep

unread,
Jun 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/20/98
to

"John Moran" <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, that is another curious phenomenon that I have noticed about Trek.
> Why is it that when two vessels meet each other in space they are always
>the 'right way up'? You know the effect, Warbird meets Enterprise-D, both
>are the right way up, i.e our perception of the correct alignment.

Your comments here remind me of a picture of the Enterprise D and a warbird in my local
newspaper a while back. It was a very nice looking, full color, third page picture of the two
ships facing off in battle. One problem though, they published the picture upside down!

But since there really is no "down" in outer space, maybe it wasn't so bad after all.

[Snip]

> The answer? I'm going with the old 'because it looks better on the
>screen' gambit.

That's proably it; or maybe its simply easier and cheaper to do it that way.

><> ><> ><>
Reepicheep
Darkness to Light
http://www.usaor.net/dtl/

Andy Pan

unread,
Jun 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/20/98
to

Number one, it's probably easier to create the SFX that way..... number
two, the battles aren't ALWAYS fought in 2D...Referring to the Klingon
rescue in the Sacrifice of Angels.... they slashed down from the above
cutting a hole in the Jem Haddar perimeter.


> Why is it that when two vessels meet each other in space they are
always
>the 'right way up'? You know the effect, Warbird meets Enterprise-D, both

>are the right way up, i.e our perception of the correct alignment. Why
>should this be? Is there an 'upsy-downsy' treaty in operation somewhere?
You
>might say that it is a convention when meeting to be 'sunny side up' to
each
>other, but even the Borg do it.
> It certainly does seem that Starships are built with 2D combat in mind,
>you get the impression that you could attack the Enterprise from above and
>behind with more impunity than from ahead and below (thats how it seems
>anyway although I can guess someone will reply that this isn't the case),
so
>why should it have a blind spot from the drawing board?

> The answer? I'm going with the old 'because it looks better on the

Peter C. Romero

unread,
Jun 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/20/98
to

The battle in TNG's "All Good Things..." was "3-D"


Andy Pan wrote in message <6mhsr6$6q3$1...@supernews.com>...

10314...@compuserve.com

unread,
Jun 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/21/98
to

In The Wrath of Khan, Spock mentioned that Khan's thinking was two
dimentional, and Kirk used it to get behind the Reliant. But that was
just 2 ships. I really like the new battle scenes, they are fast moving
and there is just too much to catch with one viewing, just great!

I think the right side up approach may have to do with the way the
special effects are created. In TNG, a ship and planet scene took many
overlapping layers to achieve. First there was a matt backdrop, the
planet, then a space scene with a black cut out of the ship. Next an
actual picture of the model was imposed on the cut out, and finally
lights were added. And this was 1 frame!

With better computer animation, we've seen the cartwheeling damaged
ships, ships being torn apart, etc.. Each of these were fotographed
models on a rostrum or posed on a stand and the camera moved around
them. Most of the behind the scene shows I've seen has shown that many
of the models are 4 to 10 feet long, and not easy to flip and pose other
than upside down or right side up. I think that this is probably why
there is an emphasis on 2D alignment with the bottom of the TV screen
being "the ground".

David Stipes

unread,
Jun 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/21/98
to

John Moran wrote:

> Yes, that is another curious phenomenon that I have noticed about Trek. Why is it that when two vessels meet each other in space they are > always the 'right way up'?

> The answer? I'm going with the old 'because it looks better on the
> screen' gambit. Additionally they seem to use the 3D movement thang
> only with smaller ships and in swirling combats to represent high > speed maneuvering.


John,

Yes, you are correct: "It looks better on the screen" and it is less
confussing to the producers and the general audience. There is no up or
down in space, but we earth bound souls still relate to the visual
images based upon our everyday sensory experiences. On Trek we generally
use the out-of-level ships to communicate that they are damaged or in
distress. It is a kind of visual "short-hand," if you will. That's the
way we see ships in trouble: keeled over.

I have played with the 3-D aspects of the effects shots. We call that
"breaking the glass table top." Usually our ships fly around on one
invisible level (the glass table top). This usually requires me to get
the producer's approval for the design of the effects scene. Going "off
level" challenges the producer's visual orientation, too.

David Stipes, Visual Effects Supervisor, DS-9

Paul C. Mrstik

unread,
Jun 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/22/98
to

In the ST:TNG episode "Paradise Lost" where the Excelsior class
U.S.S. Lakota is ordered by an Earth based Starfleet admiral to
destroy the Defiant, the Defiant is actually shown in one brief
shot to fly up and "over" the much larger ship during their
battle.

I remember it because it was a great shot to see how the
Excelsior ships are painted on the dorsal side, and I used
it as a reference when building the model kit. . .

--
mad...@mindspring.com (Paul C. Mrstik)
------------------------------------------------------------
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has
nothing better to think about. . ."
Star Colonel Natasha Kerensky (The Black Widow)
Commander, 13th Wolf Guards Cluster, Clan Wolf


Peter C. Romero

unread,
Jun 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/22/98
to

Dave, you do great work . I will always admire your work in "sacrifice of
angels". Is just about everything CGI now? How hard was "downloading" ILM's
CGI ships from "First Contact"? Why not use those 4 ships more often than
umpteen Reliants and Excelsiors?


David Stipes wrote in message <358D54...@earthlink.net>...

David Stipes

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

Peter C. Romero wrote:
>
> Dave, you do great work . I will always admire your work in "sacrifice of
> angels". Is just about everything CGI now? How hard was "downloading" ILM's
> CGI ships from "First Contact"? Why not use those 4 ships more often than
> umpteen Reliants and Excelsiors?
>

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, we did do a lot with CGI this year. CGI is a good solution for the
wild FLEET(!) battle shots that have been written into the show. I could
not have done those shows with motion control with the time and money
available.

The ILM ships have been through several CG companies and through several
program translations. The surface details have been somewhat corrupted.
We cleaned up the Akira ship for this show. In time the others will be
repaired. As for Reliant (Miranda class) ships...I really love the
design and I like to use them.

I would beat up more Galaxy Class ships but the producers are not so
fond of my destructive desires. So I destroy Excelsiors. (I love my
job!)

JTKirk

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:17:36 -0700, David Stipes <"dstipes[NO
SPAM]"@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> umpteen Reliants and Excelsiors?
>>
>
>Hello Peter,
>
>Thank you for your kind words.
>

>repaired. As for Reliant (Miranda class) ships...I really love the
>design and I like to use them.
>
>I would beat up more Galaxy Class ships but the producers are not so
>fond of my destructive desires. So I destroy Excelsiors. (I love my
>job!)
>
>David Stipes, Visual Effects Supervisor, DS-9
>

As I was saying, why not use all those old-style Excelsiors and Mirandas
for a new Star Trek: Excelsior series? Those shots could serve as a field-test
for that new series... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to
see it!

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' mailto:mch...@li.urp.edu.pe,
_H__/_/ jtk...@usa.net,JTK...@HoTMaiL.com
'-_____|( http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/2645

Antony Alonso

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Hello JTKirk, on 02-Jul-98 00:47:19, you said,

>As I was saying, why not use all those old-style Excelsiors and Mirandas
>for a new Star Trek: Excelsior series? Those shots could serve as a
>field-test for that new series... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who
>would like to see it!

I'm for it; any other takers? Only if George Takei AKA Hikaru Sulu were
the lead character of course...


Night...@Clarksburg.com


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages