www.ditl.org

Atekimogus wrote: For example the deflector dish. It is much to small imho. It's the beginning of warp-travel for humanity, yet they manage to produce a deflector dish which seems just as small and efficient as everything which comes after? No way, this ship needs a huge ass deflector dish, probably as wide and tall as the whole ship is.

Secondly, make the warp nacelles MUCH larger and move the whole warp drive into the nacelles. It was basically the first idea for the orignial enterprise that those things are "power units" so it makes sense that those early warpdrives are so ineffecient, that each nacelle needs it's only little warp reactor to function, also the lack of a dedicated engineering hull could be explained that way.

I like this. I am thinking a giant cylinder for the main hull, with a deflector dish on the front, taking up almost all the space. There would be smaller structures extending above it, for additional sensors that look forward. The cylinder would look like a brutish mass, not the clean flowing lines. Forming round shapes from metal beams is difficult, so they picked one radius and made it a dozen times. For questions like that, have a set of schoolchildren send Archer questions that he and his crew can answer. When T'Pol states that several of the questions are simplistic and could be answered with a mere fifteen minutes of research, Archer would reply that when they grow up they will at least learn the right questions to ask. Best is if the writers prowl the forums looking for questions like that.

The aft end of the ship would be the engineering section, and there would be obviously thick walls to reduce radiation from the warp cores from affecting the rest of the ship. Not prevent completely, just reduce it. Maybe have the warp core inside the cylinder, but it would be an entire section of the ship devoted to it. No shuttle bays in the back, or anything. Repairs would be done by remote robots, or personnel in giant lead suits (who follow a zig-zag path to avoid giving radiation a straight line to the rest of the ship.

The nacelles would be out to the sides of the ship, probably with two structural beams supporting them. One contains the plasma flow for the engines, the other is designed to support the nacelle during movement so it doesn't snap off.

A ship refit would add a wedge to the front, as the physicists say that the wedge can fit better in the warp field, and the engineers tell that the new deflector is finally strong enough to cover the extra frontal area.

Basically it would look like an ugly industrialized brick/column, symbolizing that Earth is just starting out and wants to make sure their ships will last, rather than knowing enough to take a few chances. You'd have to reflect that on the inside of the ship as well, using modern utility and military ships as examples.
I.e. bridge
engine room
mess hall (no 3-D chess, it would take up too much room)
Ten Forward

I like all of that quite a bit, I just don't understand this:

Coalition wrote:A ship refit would add a wedge to the front, as the physicists say that the wedge can fit better in the warp field, and the engineers tell that the new deflector is finally strong enough to cover the extra frontal area.

Who said a wedge can fit better, and if so why have we never seen one in any subsequent human or UFP ship?

Griffin wrote:So why haven't we seen any? Absence of evidence and all that.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless that evidence must be there. So if you are saying that we MUST have seen the intermediary stages, then you'd have a point.

But since we never saw ANYTHING to show that the intermediaries were absent, then for all we know they were there the whole time and just unseen.

Just like we never saw the stages that lead to the blocky USS Raven, or the intermediary stages between the Daedalus class and the Olympic class (or do you have the same problem with those ships as well?)

Because if the "saucer with booms coming out the back that have warp nacelles connected to them" was any better than "Saucer on top of a neck, with a cylindrical secondary hull, then some pylons with warp nacelle" then "Saucer on top of a neck, with a cylindrical secondary hull, then some pylons with warp nacelle" wouldn't have become the norm. And if "Saucer on top of a neck, with a cylindrical secondary hull, then some pylons with warp nacelle" is better why would they change that for the Akira when "saucer with booms coming out the back that have warp nacelles connected to them" is inferior?

So only one layout can become the norm?

So why do we still have catamarans? Isn't a single hull better? And why do we still have helicopters if fixed wing aircraft are better?

Or is it that the different layouts are each well suited for different purposes? Perhaps the NX class had a simplified construction which the Akira class later used so they could build large numbers of the ships for the Dominion war. And since there wasn't really a need to have vast fleets of vessels until then, there wasn't the need to design ships that could be built so quickly, so Starfleet decided to build fewer ships that had a greater number of possible mission profiles.

That's only the case if it doesn't contradict anything already established by the canon.

true in some cases, but I can think of many cases where retcons have been accepted. trills have spots, do they not? But canon established that they have bumpy foreheads instead.

Mikey wrote:

Tiberius wrote:First of all, who's to say that there weren't ships that bore a resemblance to the NX class all through the ages?

Four series and a bunch of movies, all of which were produced prior but set subsequently to ENT, are who's to say that precise thing.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the episode of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 or VOY that stated that there had never been a starships with that hull layout between the NX class and the Akira class.

Or are you another one of those people who assumes that if you didn't see it then it didn't exist?

You're arguing against yourself. What I am a proponent of is that Starfleet DOES stick with a design that's been proven to work. As you mention they've stuck with the saucer/secondary/nacelles arrangement for so long, and continued to refine that same basic design aesthetic, that we can't help but assume that it's in general the design that works and has won over Starfleet in a big way. Now, I don't have a problem if they then go ahead and design the Akira-class, based on some innovation and promising theoretical testing; the problem I have is that they went ahead and designed a precursor to all those centuries of saucer/secondary/nacelle ships - one which was supposedly successful enough to be the true progenitor of all those ships - which isn't built like a precursor and progenitor of those ships. In other words, I don't have a problem with the design of the NX of itself, which you'd know if you'd read what I wrote - but there is a HUGE problem with it being the design for the NX' given place in the history of human (and later Starfleet) spaceship design.

And this is a problem if the saucer/secondary hull/nacelles arrangement is the ONLY one that Starfleet has used.

The presence of the Miranda class would show that it is not.

And there are several other designs that show that Starfleet uses ships that are not based on that design, nor have developed from it. The USS Raven, for example. The Defiant. The Sydney Class Jenloan.

Then none of us have anything to talk about, ever. Don't be ridiculous, we're obviously all talking about how things make sense within the framework of the show. Believe you me, I can pretty safely bet that McAvoy isn't walking around with his head tilted upward because he expects to see a Constitution-class starship hurtle through the sky. But if certain paradigms are established in the show - even ones that are nonsensical in the real world - it is eminently reasonable to discuss whether issues from other parts of the franchise "make sense" according to those previously-established paradigms. To say otherwise is dishonest debating.

And I am simply stating that the paradigm that the saucer/secondary hull/nacelles design was never established as the ONLY design lineage present.

But as I have said, there is NOTHING that denies that there has been a steady stream of saucer/booms/nacelle layout ships there the whole time.

Tiberius wrote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless that evidence must be there. So if you are saying that we MUST have seen the intermediary stages, then you'd have a point.

But since we never saw ANYTHING to show that the intermediaries were absent, then for all we know they were there the whole time and just unseen.

Here's the problem with that reasoning: your point must assume something that isn't evident; mine assumes nothing and simply states what has been borne out by the available evidence. That's the whole idea behind the axiom that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

Tiberius wrote:Just like we never saw the stages that lead to the blocky USS Raven

Don't cite things that aren't what you think. You are referring, I believe, to the SS Raven, not the unheard-of USS Raven which you just made up. The difference is important; we are discussing the design aesthetics of Earth Starfleet/UFP Starfleet ships, and the Raven is not one.

Tiberius wrote:So only one layout can become the norm?

So why do we still have catamarans? Isn't a single hull better? And why do we still have helicopters if fixed wing aircraft are better?

Or is it that the different layouts are each well suited for different purposes? Perhaps the NX class had a simplified construction which the Akira class later used so they could build large numbers of the ships for the Dominion war. And since there wasn't really a need to have vast fleets of vessels until then, there wasn't the need to design ships that could be built so quickly, so Starfleet decided to build fewer ships that had a greater number of possible mission profiles.

Complete red herring. Yes, different designs may be useful for different roles, as a catamaran is better for certain things than a single hull ship. But that fact has absolutely nil to do with this discussion. The designed role of the NX-class is the same as that of the Connie, which is the same as that of the Ambassador-class, which is the same as that of the GCS, and which is patently different from that of the Akira-class. Stating things that are true, such as "catamaran hulls still exist because they fulfill a specific purpose better than single hulls," is great - but such statements have no place here when they don't actually bear on the conversation.

Tiberius wrote:true in some cases, but I can think of many cases where retcons have been accepted. trills have spots, do they not? But canon established that they have bumpy foreheads instead.

No, "instead" comprises your circumstantial assumption. What canon has established on the matter is that there are bumpy Trill and there are spotty Trill. Any other reading into the matter is derivative and circumstantial.

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but I must have missed the episode of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 or VOY that stated that there had never been a starships with that hull layout between the NX class and the Akira class.

Or are you another one of those people who assumes that if you didn't see it then it didn't exist?

IIRC, TAS is still non-canon. Be that as it may, you are wrong on both counts. What you missed is the all the franchises prior to ENT that stated explicitly that primary, long(est)-range explorer types had a primary/saucer arrangement, and that none were ever depicted even in a second-hand manner having the NX-class' arrangement. Otherwise, show me where they were.

Tiberius wrote:And this is a problem if the saucer/secondary hull/nacelles arrangement is the ONLY one that Starfleet has used.

The presence of the Miranda class would show that it is not.

And there are several other designs that show that Starfleet uses ships that are not based on that design, nor have developed from it. The USS Raven, for example. The Defiant. The Sydney Class Jenloan.

All ships built for purposes other than the NX-class AND its previously-established, similarly-intended successors. Failing as examples by your own point of intended role. The Raven also fails as an example by the previously-mentioned fact of not being a Starfleet ship at all.

Tiberius wrote:And I am simply stating that the paradigm that the saucer/secondary hull/nacelles design was never established as the ONLY design lineage present.

But as I have said, there is NOTHING that denies that there has been a steady stream of saucer/booms/nacelle layout ships there the whole time.

The primary/saucer arrangement HAS been established as the only go-to design aesthetic for ships of the NX-class' intended role. And, there is a preponderance of canon which had been established long before ENT which does deny any such "steady stream" of NX-style ships in the NX' role.

Mikey wrote:

Tiberius wrote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless that evidence must be there. So if you are saying that we MUST have seen the intermediary stages, then you'd have a point.

But since we never saw ANYTHING to show that the intermediaries were absent, then for all we know they were there the whole time and just unseen.

Here's the problem with that reasoning: your point must assume something that isn't evident; mine assumes nothing and simply states what has been borne out by the available evidence. That's the whole idea behind the axiom that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

As I said, that argument works ONLY if we MUST have seen that evidence.

Since there is nothing to show that we have seen every class of ship Starfleet has, your argument fails on this count.

Tiberius wrote:Just like we never saw the stages that lead to the blocky USS Raven

Don't cite things that aren't what you think. You are referring, I believe, to the SS Raven, not the unheard-of USS Raven which you just made up. The difference is important; we are discussing the design aesthetics of Earth Starfleet/UFP Starfleet ships, and the Raven is not one.

My god you're arrogant.

Magnus Hansen refers very clearly to the USS Raven in his field notes in Dark Frontier.

By the way, I can't help but notice you have COMPLETELY ignored my points about the Olympic class (so I will assume that you have no problem with that ship even though you should have a problem with it for exactly the same reason you have a problem with the NX/Akira class).

Tiberius wrote:So only one layout can become the norm?

So why do we still have catamarans? Isn't a single hull better? And why do we still have helicopters if fixed wing aircraft are better?

Or is it that the different layouts are each well suited for different purposes? Perhaps the NX class had a simplified construction which the Akira class later used so they could build large numbers of the ships for the Dominion war. And since there wasn't really a need to have vast fleets of vessels until then, there wasn't the need to design ships that could be built so quickly, so Starfleet decided to build fewer ships that had a greater number of possible mission profiles.

Complete red herring. Yes, different designs may be useful for different roles, as a catamaran is better for certain things than a single hull ship. But that fact has absolutely nil to do with this discussion. The designed role of the NX-class is the same as that of the Connie, which is the same as that of the Ambassador-class, which is the same as that of the GCS, and which is patently different from that of the Akira-class. Stating things that are true, such as "catamaran hulls still exist because they fulfill a specific purpose better than single hulls," is great - but such statements have no place here when they don't actually bear on the conversation.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.

What was the primary mission for the NX class? To explore. We saw very clearly that the NX's armaments were pathetic at best and needed to be greatly upgraded.

What was the primary mission of the Connie? To explore and act as the primary peace keeping force of the Federation. How do you know that the NX/Akira style layout wasn't better suited to a vessel with a specialised role and the Connie layout was better suited to a multi-role design?

Tiberius wrote:true in some cases, but I can think of many cases where retcons have been accepted. trills have spots, do they not? But canon established that they have bumpy foreheads instead.

No, "instead" comprises your circumstantial assumption. What canon has established on the matter is that there are bumpy Trill and there are spotty Trill. Any other reading into the matter is derivative and circumstantial.

Your arguments reach ridiculous depths.

You are saying that we should only work with what we KNOW from on screen evidence and avoid conjecture. Canon has also established that:

• Phaser fire can come from the forwaard photon torpedo tube of a Galaxy class starship?
• Klingon foreheads can spontaneous change ridge patterns with no one making a comment about it (Worf in the early seasons had a different forehead to later on), even though Trials and Tribble-ations makes it clear that the cause for this is something that Klingons do not discuss? Indeed, this process must go back and forth, as we saw Worf with the later design during the EaF era in the AGT flashbacks with the later design forehead!
• James R Kirk's middle name changed for some reason?
• there is no technology that can block telepathy, even though Quarks mentions it in "The Jem'Hadar"?
• Scotty forgot about Kirk's death (as far as he was concerned) on the Enterprise B?
• Data's emotions chip has some mechanism which allows it to change shape.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Or do you have a double stanbdard and only bitch about things that you don't like?

And in any case, if you are to go on and on about accepting that what we see on screen MUST be true, you must also accept that it MUST be true that Starfleet thought that the NX layout was good enough to use for the Akira class!

Or do you think the folks at the ASDB are fools?

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but I must have missed the episode of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 or VOY that stated that there had never been a starships with that hull layout between the NX class and the Akira class.

Or are you another one of those people who assumes that if you didn't see it then it didn't exist?

IIRC, TAS is still non-canon. Be that as it may, you are wrong on both counts. What you missed is the all the franchises prior to ENT that stated explicitly that primary, long(est)-range explorer types had a primary/saucer arrangement, and that none were ever depicted even in a second-hand manner having the NX-class' arrangement. Otherwise, show me where they were.

I'm sorry, but WHERE was that established? Which character said it? Or in which episode did it appear on screen? Where was it said that an explorer MUST have the Connie layout?

Tiberius wrote:And this is a problem if the saucer/secondary hull/nacelles arrangement is the ONLY one that Starfleet has used.

The presence of the Miranda class would show that it is not.

And there are several other designs that show that Starfleet uses ships that are not based on that design, nor have developed from it. The USS Raven, for example. The Defiant. The Sydney Class Jenloan.

All ships built for purposes other than the NX-class AND its previously-established, similarly-intended successors. Failing as examples by your own point of intended role.

As I've already said, the NX class had a more limited role than a Connie. The different hull arrangement could have simply been to allow for more flexibility in the roles the ship could carry out.

The Raven also fails as an example by the previously-mentioned fact of not being a Starfleet ship at all.

So was Professer Galen's shuttle, and yet it was identical to countless shuttles used on Starships.

And since the Raven was very clearly referenced as a USS designation (see the aforementioned field notes in Dark frontier), how do you know that it wasn't some ex-Starfleet ship that was given to them? We've seen both scientists and civvies using Oberths, after all.

Tiberius wrote:And I am simply stating that the paradigm that the saucer/secondary hull/nacelles design was never established as the ONLY design lineage present.

But as I have said, there is NOTHING that denies that there has been a steady stream of saucer/booms/nacelle layout ships there the whole time.

The primary/saucer arrangement HAS been established as the only go-to design aesthetic for ships of the NX-class' intended role. And, there is a preponderance of canon which had been established long before ENT which does deny any such "steady stream" of NX-style ships in the NX' role.

The NX's intended role was exploration. it was never meant to act as a peace keeping fleet. After all, there was only one of them until the third season, and after that only two. If Starfleet already had ships for keeping the peace, then they didn't need the NX class to fill that role as well. And given that the NXs were going out into the middle of nowhere by themselves, they wouldn't form much of a peace keeping fleet anyway. So the NXs were designed with one main role in mind.

However, it was shown many times in all other series that the Connie design lineage had SEVERAL roles. Peace keeper, diplomatic functions, scientific missions in addition to the "let's go over here and see what's there" role.

So your argument falls flat on its face. Besides which, my position is simply that there has never been ANYTHING which shows that Starfleet never used the outrigger design on any ship between the NX and the Akira, so your claim that it isn't logical doesn't follow. You, on the other hand, seem to be convinced that since we never saw it, it didn't happen.

Now tell me, which of these two positions is the most reasonable?

Tiberius wrote:As I said, that argument works ONLY if we MUST have seen that evidence.

Since there is nothing to show that we have seen every class of ship Starfleet has, your argument fails on this count.

I don't know how to explain this any better so you'll get it, but I'll try (even though I get the feeling that you're being willfully ignorant.) Because of the absence of evidence, you can't state that all these other unseen ships exist except as conjecture. Conjecture is fine, and sometimes even necessary, but it can never be conflated with evidential fact. Likewise, I can't state unequivocally that such ships don't exist (actually, I could, but I'm not as hardline on canon and strict interpretation as some folks) - but I can state as more than conjecture that such ships, if they are extant, are limited in numbers compared to others, have more specialized and limited roles, et. al.

I.e., it's ludicrous to say that these ships of which you speak are as common in general use as those of more traditional design; it is patently sensible to say that these NX-ish ships are far less common - if indeed they are extant at all - and much more limited in usage than more traditional ships.

Finally on this point: if you are talking about which argument fails, bear in mind that you are attempting to claim something for which we have no evidence while I am not. Like I said, conjecture is fine - but if you want to continue to state such a thing as a true predicate for other points, you must substantiate your claim (with evidence) as more than just conjecture. It is fine to say, "I think that..." and I wish more people would, but it it's not fine to say that what one of us opines is a factual basis for other points.

Tiberius wrote:My god you're arrogant.

Magnus Hansen refers very clearly to the USS Raven in his field notes in Dark Frontier.

So what? The Raven bore an NAR prefix, rather than the NCC of Starfleet ships; further, she was explicitly stated to be operating under the auspices of a civilian, non-Starfleet organization. Hooray for you - you have successfully proven my use of the naming convention wrong, while my actual point remains quite valid. Now, shall we try to talk about the actual topic of conversation, or would you rather continue deflecting from the point by attacking my omission of the letter "U?"

Tiberius wrote:By the way, I can't help but notice you have COMPLETELY ignored my points about the Olympic class (so I will assume that you have no problem with that ship even though you should have a problem with it for exactly the same reason you have a problem with the NX/Akira class).

You can assume whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night. You'd be wrong, though. I ignored your point about the Olympic-class because you had no point about the Olympic-class. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are not blind; if I am correct, then you can very clearly see that the Olympic has a primary-secondary-nacelle arrangement - NOT a design divergence from the vast majority. If you mean the relatively slight difference from saucer to sphere, surely you are bright enough to know that this doesn't change the configuration of the ship from the above stated design aesthetic, and are just talking out of your rectum in order to try to deflect again.

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.

You'd be better served begging for some common sense in this matter.

Tiberius wrote:What was the primary mission for the NX class? To explore.

Tiberius, himself, also wrote:What was the primary mission of the Connie? To explore and...

There we go. Adding extra stuff to the role of a ship whose role is already so generalized is really a quite tangential straw at which to grasp.

Tiberius wrote:How do you know that the NX/Akira style layout wasn't better suited to a vessel with a specialised role and the Connie layout was better suited to a multi-role design?

I don't, nor do I claim to, as I've said in the past. What you failed to grasp when you brought up the point about role playing a function in design is that while such a point may be true, it doesn't bear on a discussion of the NX-class vs. its similar-role successors.

Tiberius wrote:Your arguments reach ridiculous depths.

Only to you, since you obviously don't read them before you reply. To wit:

Tiberius wrote:You are saying that we should only work with what we KNOW from on screen evidence and avoid conjecture.

Not only did I never say that, I in fact stated precisely the opposite. What I did say was that conjecture =/= evidence, and evidential arguments cannot thusly be based on conjecture. This isn't a point regarding Star Trek debates, it's a simple fact of life. If you disagree with something I say, then so be it; but don't make up shit about what I said then argue with it.

Tiberius wrote:And in any case, if you are to go on and on about accepting that what we see on screen MUST be true, you must also accept that it MUST be true that Starfleet thought that the NX layout was good enough to use for the Akira class!

Or do you think the folks at the ASDB are fools?

In many senses, the folks who design Starfleet ships have done foolish things, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

And I will reiterate, since you seem bent on arguing against things I didn't say: yes, the design is patently good enough for the Akira-class... BECAUSE THE AKIRA-CLASS IS MEANT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN EITHER THE NX-CLASS OR THE PREVIOUSLY-ESTABLISHED SUBSEQUENT PRIMARY-SECONDARY-NACELLE TYPE SHIPS. Hopefully that's a bit easier to see.

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but WHERE was that established? Which character said it? Or in which episode did it appear on screen? Where was it said that an explorer MUST have the Connie layout?

It wasn't said by a character, it was shown that explorers DO have the Connie layout. Nice try to throw another herring, though.

Tiberius wrote:As I've already said, the NX class had a more limited role than a Connie. The different hull arrangement could have simply been to allow for more flexibility in the roles the ship could carry out.

OK, so more flexibility (which means a more general role, making its purpose even more like that of the Connie) means that its less like the Connie in role? So now, more = less. OK, that works. BTW, you can say as many times as you like that the NX had a different role than the Connie (each for its time, of course) but it doesn't make it a true statement.

Tiberius wrote:So was Professer Galen's shuttle, and yet it was identical to countless shuttles used on Starships.

And ice cream has no bones. Both statements have similar bearing on the discussion.

Tiberius wrote:And since the Raven was very clearly referenced as a USS designation (see the aforementioned field notes in Dark frontier), how do you know that it wasn't some ex-Starfleet ship that was given to them?

We DON'T know that it wasn't an ex-Starfleet vessel. But we don't know that it was, and you can't assume something like that and then call it evidence. It just doesn't adhere to the dictates of logic and common sense.

Tiberius wrote:The NX's intended role was exploration. it was never meant to act as a peace keeping fleet. After all, there was only one of them until the third season, and after that only two. If Starfleet already had ships for keeping the peace, then they didn't need the NX class to fill that role as well. And given that the NXs were going out into the middle of nowhere by themselves, they wouldn't form much of a peace keeping fleet anyway. So the NXs were designed with one main role in mind.

However, it was shown many times in all other series that the Connie design lineage had SEVERAL roles. Peace keeper, diplomatic functions, scientific missions in addition to the "let's go over here and see what's there" role.

All of which is to say, "The NX-class and the Connie had the same role, plus the Connie did some other stuff... so they should obviously share no design aesthetic." That's not only ridiculous, it's insulting to your readers.

Tiberius wrote:So your argument falls flat on its face. Besides which, my position is simply that there has never been ANYTHING which shows that Starfleet never used the outrigger design on any ship between the NX and the Akira, so your claim that it isn't logical doesn't follow. You, on the other hand, seem to be convinced that since we never saw it, it didn't happen.

Now tell me, which of these two positions is the most reasonable?

Again, it seems you decided to argue one of my points without actually knowing what that point is. I have never once argued that it is impossible for NX-ish designs to be extant throughout the 'Trek history of Starfleet, merely that those designs - if extant - were far less popular than the primary-secondary-nacelles arrangement, and not in use for the purpose of which the NX was the progenitor. This isn't an opinion, it's fact borne out by canon. Likewise, I never claimed that the existence of such designs for limited-use ship classes was illogical. In addition, the idea of which you say I am "convinced" is not an idea I ever promulgated - the attempt to repaint my stance from what it actually is into something fallacious, but easier against which for you to argue, is both dishonest and again insulting to the intelligence of anyone who reads this.

Finally, the overarching point is this: the existence of such designs throughout 'Trek history is a matter of, at worst, derivative speculation and at best of deduction. A point based on such deduction or conjecture simply cannot be used as evidence of another point. Only evidence can be evidence, not "I-thinks" or "it-makes-senses." To answer your final question: the fact that your point is predicated not on evidence but on circumstantial speculation means that of the two, mine is patently the more reasonable position - because it doesn't require unfounded assumptions to adopt.

Now, I am going to be away for at least a couple of days. You may write what you like in response, and much of it - to judge from recent history - will be in complete ignorance of the material to which it is responding. What will be, will be. I ask you as a gentleman, however, to please leave off of the habit of intentionally misrepresenting what I say in order to make it easier against which for you to argue.

Mikey wrote:

Tiberius wrote:As I said, that argument works ONLY if we MUST have seen that evidence.

Since there is nothing to show that we have seen every class of ship Starfleet has, your argument fails on this count.

I don't know how to explain this any better so you'll get it, but I'll try (even though I get the feeling that you're being willfully ignorant.) Because of the absence of evidence, you can't state that all these other unseen ships exist except as conjecture. Conjecture is fine, and sometimes even necessary, but it can never be conflated with evidential fact. Likewise, I can't state unequivocally that such ships don't exist (actually, I could, but I'm not as hardline on canon and strict interpretation as some folks) - but I can state as more than conjecture that such ships, if they are extant, are limited in numbers compared to others, have more specialized and limited roles, et. al.

Yes, I know that it is conjecture either way.

However, you are stating your opinion as fact.

HERE you said "It's only problem in that if we look at the NX as a point in the design evolution that later created the Akira class, we have to completely ignore all the ships in between which began and evolved a design aesthetic quite different to that of those two widely separated classes."

ALL the ships? Really? Every starship design Starfleet has ever built?

You also said in that same post that the NX/Akira layout was a design "that hadn't even been considered for centuries." How do you know this?

I.e., it's ludicrous to say that these ships of which you speak are as common in general use as those of more traditional design; it is patently sensible to say that these NX-ish ships are far less common - if indeed they are extant at all - and much more limited in usage than more traditional ships.

And what's your point? Sounds like you are back-pedalling mighty fast now. You;ve gone from saying that all ships have had a different design lineage and the NX?Akira layout hasn't been considered at all for centuries to now saying that maybe they were out there and we just didn't see them because they don't exist in such big numbers.

Finally on this point: if you are talking about which argument fails, bear in mind that you are attempting to claim something for which we have no evidence while I am not. Like I said, conjecture is fine - but if you want to continue to state such a thing as a true predicate for other points, you must substantiate your claim (with evidence) as more than just conjecture. It is fine to say, "I think that..." and I wish more people would, but it it's not fine to say that what one of us opines is a factual basis for other points.

So now conjecture is something that is bad? Yet you are conjecturing that if we haven't seen such a ship design then it must not exist!

How many starfleet ship designs did we see in TOS? One.

How many in the movies? The refit connies, the Excelsior, the Oberths and the Mirandas. Do you think it's likely that starfleet was only using four designs? Possible, but unlikely. Modern navies have many more varieties of vessels in their fleets.

How many in TNG? The Galaxy class, and then the same as in the movies (without the connie). The Best of Both Worlds gives us a lot more, however, such as the first Nebula class, the New Orleans class and a bunch of others. Some designs were given names without ever being seen. So isn't it possible that one of these classes - the Wambundu class, perhaps - carries that design lineage of the NX class? So you may call it conjecture if you want to, but it's very reasonable conjecture, and since we have several class designations that were never seen, it's entirely possible that one of them (maybe several) carry the NX class lineage. In fact, since we have seen the beginning and end points of that lineage in the NX and Akira class, I'd say it is ESSENTIAL that at least one of those unseen classes carries the NX lineage - because, as you;ve said, it would be stupid for Starfleet to suddenly return to using a hull geometry that they had not considered useful for a few centuries.

Tiberius wrote:My god you're arrogant.

Magnus Hansen refers very clearly to the USS Raven in his field notes in Dark Frontier.

So what? The Raven bore an NAR prefix, rather than the NCC of Starfleet ships; further, she was explicitly stated to be operating under the auspices of a civilian, non-Starfleet organization. Hooray for you - you have successfully proven my use of the naming convention wrong, while my actual point remains quite valid. Now, shall we try to talk about the actual topic of conversation, or would you rather continue deflecting from the point by attacking my omission of the letter "U?"

IIRC, the whole issue about the Raven was that it was not a Starfleet design. I've shown that Starfleet designs (the Oberth class) can carries NAR registries. So it is possible that the Raven class is used by Starfleet and as such would require, from your point of view, a series of designs leading up to it.

Tiberius wrote:By the way, I can't help but notice you have COMPLETELY ignored my points about the Olympic class (so I will assume that you have no problem with that ship even though you should have a problem with it for exactly the same reason you have a problem with the NX/Akira class).

You can assume whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night. You'd be wrong, though. I ignored your point about the Olympic-class because you had no point about the Olympic-class. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are not blind; if I am correct, then you can very clearly see that the Olympic has a primary-secondary-nacelle arrangement - NOT a design divergence from the vast majority. If you mean the relatively slight difference from saucer to sphere, surely you are bright enough to know that this doesn't change the configuration of the ship from the above stated design aesthetic, and are just talking out of your rectum in order to try to deflect again.

But Starfleet never considered the SPHERICAL primary hull as a valid design for centuries! We have to ignore all the ships that came between that had a different primary hull design aesthetic!

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.

You'd be better served begging for some common sense in this matter.

Tiberius wrote:What was the primary mission for the NX class? To explore.

Tiberius, himself, also wrote:What was the primary mission of the Connie? To explore and...

There we go. Adding extra stuff to the role of a ship whose role is already so generalized is really a quite tangential straw at which to grasp.

The primary mission of the NX class was to boldly go where no one had gone before. They even said it, right in the first episode.

How often did Kirk do this? When they were ferrying diplomats, conducting negotiations, checking on settlers, delivering medical supplies...

Tiberius wrote:How do you know that the NX/Akira style layout wasn't better suited to a vessel with a specialised role and the Connie layout was better suited to a multi-role design?

I don't, nor do I claim to, as I've said in the past. What you failed to grasp when you brought up the point about role playing a function in design is that while such a point may be true, it doesn't bear on a discussion of the NX-class vs. its similar-role successors.

What? You admit that it's freely possible that the NX layout might better serve a vessel that has limited mission roles while the Connie layout might better serve a vessel with a wide variety of mission roles, and then you claim it's NOT RELEVANT?

Tiberius wrote:Your arguments reach ridiculous depths.

Only to you, since you obviously don't read them before you reply. To wit:

Tiberius wrote:You are saying that we should only work with what we KNOW from on screen evidence and avoid conjecture.

Not only did I never say that, I in fact stated precisely the opposite. What I did say was that conjecture =/= evidence, and evidential arguments cannot thusly be based on conjecture. This isn't a point regarding Star Trek debates, it's a simple fact of life. If you disagree with something I say, then so be it; but don't make up shit about what I said then argue with it.

Your attitude throughout this thread has been one of "If we don't see it, it doesn't count". I;ve proposed a perfeclt plausible explanation for why the Akira class is a reasonable design, and yet you have refused to accept that it is anything but a rip off.

Tiberius wrote:And in any case, if you are to go on and on about accepting that what we see on screen MUST be true, you must also accept that it MUST be true that Starfleet thought that the NX layout was good enough to use for the Akira class!

Or do you think the folks at the ASDB are fools?

And I will reiterate, since you seem bent on arguing against things I didn't say: yes, the design is patently good enough for the Akira-class... BECAUSE THE AKIRA-CLASS IS MEANT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN EITHER THE NX-CLASS OR THE PREVIOUSLY-ESTABLISHED SUBSEQUENT PRIMARY-SECONDARY-NACELLE TYPE SHIPS. Hopefully that's a bit easier to see.

And since you seem bent on arguing against things I didn't say: I NEVER SAID THAT THE NX AND AKIRA CLASSES WERE MADE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but WHERE was that established? Which character said it? Or in which episode did it appear on screen? Where was it said that an explorer MUST have the Connie layout?

It wasn't said by a character, it was shown that explorers DO have the Connie layout. Nice try to throw another herring, though.

First of all, where was it said that the NX was intended to fulfill the same multi-role purpose that the Connies, Galaxies etc were built for?

Secondly, just because the main ships we have seen fit that layout, it does not mean that this is the only layout that is used for these ships. Once again, you have the attitude "if we don't see it, it ain't there" even when the existence of the NX class in canon indicates very strongly otherwise.

Tiberius wrote:As I've already said, the NX class had a more limited role than a Connie. The different hull arrangement could have simply been to allow for more flexibility in the roles the ship could carry out.

OK, so more flexibility (which means a more general role, making its purpose even more like that of the Connie) means that its less like the Connie in role? So now, more = less. OK, that works. BTW, you can say as many times as you like that the NX had a different role than the Connie (each for its time, of course) but it doesn't make it a true statement.

Geez, I thought I explained it clearly.

Connies have multi-role missions. How many times did we see Kirk ferrying diplomats, delivering supplies, conducting negotiations etc? The Connie layout may be better suited to a ship that may be required to perform these many varied missions.

The NX class was built primarily to go where people hadn't been before and see what was there. Very rarely did we see Archer ferrying diplomats or delivering supplies or conducting negotiations. And on the occasions where we DID see that, it was more often than not because Enterprise was the only ship in the area, or the people wanted Archer specifically to conduct the negotiations, rather than any particular capabilities of the ship.

Do you get it now? Connies, galaxies etc had to be able to cope with lots of very different types of missions. The NX class didn't.

So, isn't it entirely reasonable that the NX layout is well suited to that kind of limited type of mission starship? And if I am correct, doesn't the Akira class have a rather limited mission profile?

Tiberius wrote:So was Professer Galen's shuttle, and yet it was identical to countless shuttles used on Starships.

And ice cream has no bones. Both statements have similar bearing on the discussion.

My point is that ships used by the Federation generally fall into the Starfleet design lineage.

Tiberius wrote:And since the Raven was very clearly referenced as a USS designation (see the aforementioned field notes in Dark frontier), how do you know that it wasn't some ex-Starfleet ship that was given to them?

We DON'T know that it wasn't an ex-Starfleet vessel. But we don't know that it was, and you can't assume something like that and then call it evidence. It just doesn't adhere to the dictates of logic and common sense.

The clearly-stated USS in front of the name suggests it was.

Tiberius wrote:The NX's intended role was exploration. it was never meant to act as a peace keeping fleet. After all, there was only one of them until the third season, and after that only two. If Starfleet already had ships for keeping the peace, then they didn't need the NX class to fill that role as well. And given that the NXs were going out into the middle of nowhere by themselves, they wouldn't form much of a peace keeping fleet anyway. So the NXs were designed with one main role in mind.

However, it was shown many times in all other series that the Connie design lineage had SEVERAL roles. Peace keeper, diplomatic functions, scientific missions in addition to the "let's go over here and see what's there" role.

All of which is to say, "The NX-class and the Connie had the same role, plus the Connie did some other stuff... so they should obviously share no design aesthetic." That's not only ridiculous, it's insulting to your readers.

No, it is to say that there is no reason to expect the same hull that is well suited for a limited type of mission to be well suited for a ship that is able to do much more.

Perhaps the Connies gained the secondary hull in order to free up space in the primary hull for diplomatic conference rooms for negotiations, or cargo bays for medical supplies, more quarters for ferrying colonists. And they have all the dirty dangerous shuttle bays, fuel storage and engine room stuff tucked out of the way where presidents and ambassadors don't have to see it.

Ever think of that?

Tiberius wrote:So your argument falls flat on its face. Besides which, my position is simply that there has never been ANYTHING which shows that Starfleet never used the outrigger design on any ship between the NX and the Akira, so your claim that it isn't logical doesn't follow. You, on the other hand, seem to be convinced that since we never saw it, it didn't happen.

Now tell me, which of these two positions is the most reasonable?

Again, it seems you decided to argue one of my points without actually knowing what that point is. I have never once argued that it is impossible for NX-ish designs to be extant throughout the 'Trek history of Starfleet, merely that those designs - if extant - were far less popular than the primary-secondary-nacelles arrangement, and not in use for the purpose of which the NX was the progenitor. This isn't an opinion, it's fact borne out by canon. Likewise, I never claimed that the existence of such designs for limited-use ship classes was illogical. In addition, the idea of which you say I am "convinced" is not an idea I ever promulgated - the attempt to repaint my stance from what it actually is into something fallacious, but easier against which for you to argue, is both dishonest and again insulting to the intelligence of anyone who reads this.

Once again, I point you in the direction of your previous posts where you said...

"...we have to completely ignore all the ships in between which began and evolved a design aesthetic quite different to that of those two widely separated classes."

"a design style that hadn't even been considered for centuries..."

"Four series and a bunch of movies, all of which were produced prior but set subsequently to ENT, are who's to say that [there weren't ships that bore a resemblance to the NX class all through the ages]."

Finally, the overarching point is this: the existence of such designs throughout 'Trek history is a matter of, at worst, derivative speculation and at best of deduction. A point based on such deduction or conjecture simply cannot be used as evidence of another point. Only evidence can be evidence, not "I-thinks" or "it-makes-senses." To answer your final question: the fact that your point is predicated not on evidence but on circumstantial speculation means that of the two, mine is patently the more reasonable position - because it doesn't require unfounded assumptions to adopt.

And the evidence shows that the NX class was the best design for the time, because that's what they used.

Now, I am going to be away for at least a couple of days. You may write what you like in response, and much of it - to judge from recent history - will be in complete ignorance of the material to which it is responding. What will be, will be. I ask you as a gentleman, however, to please leave off of the habit of intentionally misrepresenting what I say in order to make it easier against which for you to argue.

I'll summarize my argument...

In one of your earlier posts, you said, "I don't have a problem with the design of the NX of itself, which you'd know if you'd read what I wrote - but there is a HUGE problem with it being the design for the NX' given place in the history of human (and later Starfleet) spaceship design." And it seems to me that your logic for this conclusion is because, in your words, "The designed role of the NX-class is the same as that of the Connie, which is the same as that of the Ambassador-class, which is the same as that of the GCS" and therefore they should have the same or similar hull layout. However, as I have argued, I think the claim that the NX had the same role as the connies, ambassadors or galaxies is not supported. Yes, they were all used for exploring. But the Connies, Ambassadors and Galaxies were also used for many things that we rarely if ever saw the NX class doing. So I think yoiur claim that they all have the same role is conjecture on your part.

So my argument is as follows:

If we take the NX class layout as being one suitable for ships with a very limited role, then it is perfectly plausible for the same layout to be used for the Akira class. It is, however, NOT plausible to claim that all ships that have a similar role must have a similar layout. We've seen that the Miranda class, the Nova class and the Oberth class have very different layouts even though they are all science vessels.

We also have the New Orleans class, which is roughly similar in layout to the Galaxy, with a saucer section, a secondary hull below it, and warp nacelles on pylons that come off the sides, yet the New Orleans class is described as a frigate, not an explorer.

And for the record, there are several other ships that display the saucer, booms going back and nacelles on the end, such as the Norway class. The steamrummer class is also rather similar.

Mikey wrote:I like all of that quite a bit, I just don't understand this:

Coalition wrote:A ship refit would add a wedge to the front, as the physicists say that the wedge can fit better in the warp field, and the engineers tell that the new deflector is finally strong enough to cover the extra frontal area.

Who said a wedge can fit better, and if so why have we never seen one in any subsequent human or UFP ship?

It'd be a predecessor to the 'current' saucer designs. Essentially you have a cylindrical engine section, two nacelles sticking off it, and a large section in the nose. To avoid having to deal with different bend angles, straight lines would be preferred. Hence, a wedge. Still, it would be an ugly brick design (like Babylon 5 Earthforce designs), not as smooth and refined as the Constitution class. (I like pictures of starships)

Or if you prefer, think of the ship profile as an arrow, with the warp nacelles attached to the stem of the arrow. People could then say it looked similar to the top profile of an Intrepid or Prometheus class, just with a 'flat' back of the 'saucer' section, and with two heavy connectors to hold each of the nacelles in place. Basically lots of straight lines to make fabrication easier for the assembly yards, plus implications that the yards are going to be building a lot more of them (aka a military buildup).

Tiberius wrote:By the way, I can't help but notice you have COMPLETELY ignored my points about the Olympic class (so I will assume that you have no problem with that ship even though you should have a problem with it for exactly the same reason you have a problem with the NX/Akira class).

You can assume whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night. You'd be wrong, though. I ignored your point about the Olympic-class because you had no point about the Olympic-class. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are not blind; if I am correct, then you can very clearly see that the Olympic has a primary-secondary-nacelle arrangement - NOT a design divergence from the vast majority. If you mean the relatively slight difference from saucer to sphere, surely you are bright enough to know that this doesn't change the configuration of the ship from the above stated design aesthetic, and are just talking out of your rectum in order to try to deflect again.

But Starfleet never considered the SPHERICAL primary hull as a valid design for centuries! We have to ignore all the ships that came between that had a different primary hull design aesthetic!

No, we simply have to view the Olympic as a slightly different evolution of the design aesthetic - as a medical ship one that favors increased volume of a sphere over the more warp efficient saucer. This is the same attitude held toward the Akira until the NX showed up on screen showing an almost identical ship reflected over the x-y plane.

Tiberius wrote:What was the primary mission for the NX class? To explore.

Tiberius wrote:What was the primary mission of the Connie? To explore and...

There we go. Adding extra stuff to the role of a ship whose role is already so generalized is really a quite tangential straw at which to grasp.

The primary mission of the NX class was to boldly go where no one had gone before. They even said it, right in the first episode.

How often did Kirk do this? When they were ferrying diplomats, conducting negotiations, checking on settlers, delivering medical supplies...

Tiberius wrote:How do you know that the NX/Akira style layout wasn't better suited to a vessel with a specialized role and the Connie layout was better suited to a multi-role design?

I don't, nor do I claim to, as I've said in the past. What you failed to grasp when you brought up the point about role playing a function in design is that while such a point may be true, it doesn't bear on a discussion of the NX-class vs. its similar-role successors.

What? You admit that it's freely possible that the NX layout might better serve a vessel that has limited mission roles while the Connie layout might better serve a vessel with a wide variety of mission roles, and then you claim it's NOT RELEVANT?[/quote]

We have numerous examples of Archer saying that the primary mission of the NX was exploration. That said we've also seen Archer ferry diplomats, conduct negotiations, checking settlements, engaging hostile forces, and carrying other equipment around to help. I would therefore say that the NX and the Connie were both designs for the same purpose. the Galaxy's primary was also exploration, and we have also seen it perform all the other functions you described.

What Mikey said was not that the form of the NX being better suited for its role was irrelevant, just that the form for better function arguement is irrelevant when you consider two ships designed to perform the same function. But while we're on the topic of form and function:

Tiberius wrote:I NEVER SAID THAT THE NX AND AKIRA CLASSES WERE MADE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

You have based an argument on the form for function idea. If the Akira and NX have different functions why then would they have the same form?

So, isn't it entirely reasonable that the NX layout is well suited to that kind of limited type of mission starship? And if I am correct, doesn't the Akira class have a rather limited mission profile?

If we're talking form and function again, it's important to note that even if they have limited mission types, they are both very different. the NX as you pointed out was an explorer by design. the Akira was, i would argue, designed for heavy combat and humanitarian missions. These roles are pretty different you'd think the design aesthetic would reflect that especially since the slight difference between a limited explorer and a jack-of-all-trades ship is the inclusion of an entire secondary hull by your logic.

Tiberius wrote:I'm sorry, but WHERE was that established? Which character said it? Or in which episode did it appear on screen? Where was it said that an explorer MUST have the Connie layout?

It wasn't said by a character, it was shown that explorers DO have the Connie layout. Nice try to throw another herring, though.

First of all, where was it said that the NX was intended to fulfill the same multi-role purpose that the Connies, Galaxies etc were built for?

Secondly, just because the main ships we have seen fit that layout, it does not mean that this is the only layout that is used for these ships. Once again, you have the attitude "if we don't see it, it ain't there" even when the existence of the NX class in canon indicates very strongly otherwise.

to answer your questions in order:
1) Throughout 5 seasons of Star Trek Enterprise when the NX was listed as primarily an explorer and was then seen to do all the extra things the Connies, Galaxies, etc were seen doing.

2) That isn't the attitude Mikey has, but it is a perfectly acceptable one. Before the NX it would have been ludicrous to assume that there were saucer only designs in the fleet because there was no evidence of them existing until the Akira. Nothing has changed except for the CONJECTURE that the Akira and NX are part of the same design lineage and therefore must have a connecting chain of ships. Nothing is wrong with this; however it by no means indicates that those ships do exist.

Tiberius wrote:So was Professor Galen's shuttle, and yet it was identical to countless shuttles used on Starships.

And ice cream has no bones. Both statements have similar bearing on the discussion.

My point is that ships used by the Federation generally fall into the Starfleet design lineage.

Or that he bought it from the local military surplus store. Regardless I don't know how this helps your argument that the NX isn't just a rip-off of the Akira.

Tiberius wrote:And since the Raven was very clearly referenced as a USS designation (see the aforementioned field notes in Dark frontier), how do you know that it wasn't some ex-Starfleet ship that was given to them?

We DON'T know that it wasn't an ex-Starfleet vessel. But we don't know that it was, and you can't assume something like that and then call it evidence. It just doesn't adhere to the dictates of logic and common sense.

The clearly-stated USS in front of the name suggests it was.

Regardless of weather it was or wasn't I still don't see how this helps your argument. You've pointed out several ships that differ from traditional design philosophies; however none of them are:

a) ships of essentially the exact same design separated by a few centuries
b) related to the design lineage of the two ships this discussion is actually about
c) evidence of anything other than Starfleet does have some adaptability to it's designs for certain functions

however point c does more to hurt your argument because we've actually SEEN them. canon tells us that these ships exist and that starfleet has moved away from the traditional saucer, secondary hull nacell configuration on a few instances. we've never seen another saucer-nacell link to connect the NX and Akira.

I'll summarize my argument...

In one of your earlier posts, you said, "I don't have a problem with the design of the NX of itself, which you'd know if you'd read what I wrote - but there is a HUGE problem with it being the design for the NX' given place in the history of human (and later Starfleet) spaceship design." And it seems to me that your logic for this conclusion is because, in your words, "The designed role of the NX-class is the same as that of the Connie, which is the same as that of the Ambassador-class, which is the same as that of the GCS" and therefore they should have the same or similar hull layout. However, as I have argued, I think the claim that the NX had the same role as the connies, ambassadors or galaxies is not supported. Yes, they were all used for exploring. But the Connies, Ambassadors and Galaxies were also used for many things that we rarely if ever saw the NX class doing. So I think yoiur claim that they all have the same role is conjecture on your part.

So my argument is as follows:

If we take the NX class layout as being one suitable for ships with a very limited role, then it is perfectly plausible for the same layout to be used for the Akira class. It is, however, NOT plausible to claim that all ships that have a similar role must have a similar layout. We've seen that the Miranda class, the Nova class and the Oberth class have very different layouts even though they are all science vessels.

We also have the New Orleans class, which is roughly similar in layout to the Galaxy, with a saucer section, a secondary hull below it, and warp nacelles on pylons that come off the sides, yet the New Orleans class is described as a frigate, not an explorer.

And for the record, there are several other ships that display the saucer, booms going back and nacelles on the end, such as the Norway class. The steamrummer class is also rather similar.

[/quote]

If the saucer only is good for limited roles why do we see ships like the Nova, a limited role science ship with the saucer, secondary configuration? In fact almost every ship we've seen regardless of mission purpose has been of the Connie configuration with some differences, if we generalize to a radial primary, a secondary, and nacelles that covers the great majority of ships for every conceivable purpose.

This evidence leads to the conclusion that it is the connie layout that is favored by starfleet for almost every roll and while they adapt it and create some odd balls in every generation the connie is the one they have stuck with through out their existence.

I may be mistaken, but I believe Mikey's problem with the NX and it's place in history has less to do with needing a connie look to make sense, this is after all before the connie, it would be very weird for earth starfleet to just pop out the design that lasted centuries by chance on the fifth try, it should have taken years to get that design style as more research was done. no his problem with it, is the same as my problem with it if I'm correct and that it is too much like the Akira. The Akira is the end result of a design evolution starting with the Daedalus, an adaption on the traditional design that gives it certain advantages and disadvantages arrayed in favor of the ships primary mission. It makes no sense for the precursor to the Daedalus to essentially be an Akira. The design lineage makes no sense. Why would Starfleet go from a successful design in the NX/Akira and decide to start fresh from the ground up an entirely different design? They showed that they are more that willing and able to simply evolve the designs as they did with the Daedalus into the Connie into the Ambassador into the GCS into the Sovereign.

To head off the comment about there being two design lineages one based on the NX that lead to the Akira and another based on the Daedalus that lead to the Sovereign. Why would they waste their time? If they have the NX class which works well why start from the ground up on an entirely different design style rather than investing those resources into improving and perfecting the NX design style. Starfleet has shown that they consider evolutions of a design favorable as outlined above with the Connie evolution, and as you pointed out with the non-traditional designs they've demonstrated they can adapt a primary-secondary-nacelle design to fit any other roll, stands to reason they could do the same with a saucer-nacell configuration, so they have no need to develop entire other design styles for different roles.

In short, it makes no sense for them to develop two different design styles instead of investing their resources into the one style. It makes even less sense when you look at the evolution of the Connie to the Sovereign and compare that to the evolution from the NX to the Akira.

Keep in mind when I said the NX class was a ripoff of the Akira class, I meant in real life. It is as obvious as it can be without being a reuse of the Akira model...

You can make up any reason why the NX class design was reused for the Akira class all you want. Just don't expect the US Navy to start fielding sailing ships any time soon. Nor see bi-planes with jet engines or a modern Model T with a 3.5 liter V6 engine or a modern submarine that looks like a WW2 sub even with gun tubs and everything.

Lt. Staplic wrote:No, we simply have to view the Olympic as a slightly different evolution of the design aesthetic - as a medical ship one that favors increased volume of a sphere over the more warp efficient saucer. This is the same attitude held toward the Akira until the NX showed up on screen showing an almost identical ship reflected over the x-y plane.

However, in both cases we have a very old ship with a particular design feature and a very new ship with a particular design feature, and no ships seen in the intervening years with that design feature.

Tiberius wrote:How do you know that the NX/Akira style layout wasn't better suited to a vessel with a specialized role and the Connie layout was better suited to a multi-role design?

I don't, nor do I claim to, as I've said in the past. What you failed to grasp when you brought up the point about role playing a function in design is that while such a point may be true, it doesn't bear on a discussion of the NX-class vs. its similar-role successors.

We have numerous examples of Archer saying that the primary mission of the NX was exploration. That said we've also seen Archer ferry diplomats, conduct negotiations, checking settlements, engaging hostile forces, and carrying other equipment around to help. I would therefore say that the NX and the Connie were both designs for the same purpose. the Galaxy's primary was also exploration, and we have also seen it perform all the other functions you described.

What Mikey said was not that the form of the NX being better suited for its role was irrelevant, just that the form for better function arguement is irrelevant when you consider two ships designed to perform the same function. But while we're on the topic of form and function:

I also said that whenever we saw the NX 01 ferrying diplomats or doing any of that other stuff, it was more because there was some other reason for it apart from it being in the Enterprise's mission specs. They checked on Terra Nova because they were the first ship to make it out that far (all previous ships would have taken a long time to get there - too long to justify just to check up on a small colony). And a lot of the time when Archer dealt with negotiations involving the Andorians, it was because Shran had taken a liking to him and asked him.

Tiberius wrote:I NEVER SAID THAT THE NX AND AKIRA CLASSES WERE MADE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

You have based an argument on the form for function idea. If the Akira and NX have different functions why then would they have the same form?

My argument was that the NX style layout was suitable for a LIMITED ROLE.

The NX has a limited role - it's meant to boldy go where no one has gone before and not much else. It's not as well suited for science missions (even though it carries a good sensor suite, it isn't as estensive as a dedicated science vessel). It's not well suited for colony establishment - they're already doubling up bunks in the junior officers quarters! It's not well suited for ferrying supplies - not a large enough cargo bay to make the trip worthwhile.

The Akira class also has a limited role - it's a frigate. It's not an explorer, or a cargo ship, or a science ship or anything else, and while it can perform those jobs if it needed to, it would never be able to do them as well as a dedicated vessel.

On the other hand, the Connies are able to cover a wide variety of missions. Is it an explorer? Yes. Is it well suited for negotiations? Yes. Remember Journey to Babel? Is it well suited for science missions? Yes. Is it well suited for fighting enemies? Yes.

The same can be said about the Excelsiors, the ambassadors and the galaxies.

So, isn't it entirely reasonable that the NX layout is well suited to that kind of limited type of mission starship? And if I am correct, doesn't the Akira class have a rather limited mission profile?

If we're talking form and function again, it's important to note that even if they have limited mission types, they are both very different. the NX as you pointed out was an explorer by design. the Akira was, i would argue, designed for heavy combat and humanitarian missions. These roles are pretty different you'd think the design aesthetic would reflect that especially since the slight difference between a limited explorer and a jack-of-all-trades ship is the inclusion of an entire secondary hull by your logic.

You think the inclusion of a secondary hull is a slight difference?

By including it, you can move engineering, shuttlebays and main sensors out of the saucer, leaving much more room for crew quarters (suitable for bringing large diplomatic parties, colonists etc) on board. You also have more room for cargo bays (so you can carry more cargo for anything from regular cargo deliveries to colony establishment), larger sickbay facilities for medical missions, more science labs for scientific missions...

Now, if you didn't move the engineroom, shuttle bay, main sensors and all that out of the saucer, pray tell, where would you put all the extra quarters? The extra cargo bays? Extra labs? More medical facilities?

Tiberius wrote:First of all, where was it said that the NX was intended to fulfill the same multi-role purpose that the Connies, Galaxies etc were built for?

Secondly, just because the main ships we have seen fit that layout, it does not mean that this is the only layout that is used for these ships. Once again, you have the attitude "if we don't see it, it ain't there" even when the existence of the NX class in canon indicates very strongly otherwise.

to answer your questions in order:
1) Throughout 5 seasons of Star Trek Enterprise when the NX was listed as primarily an explorer and was then seen to do all the extra things the Connies, Galaxies, etc were seen doing.

2) That isn't the attitude Mikey has, but it is a perfectly acceptable one. Before the NX it would have been ludicrous to assume that there were saucer only designs in the fleet because there was no evidence of them existing until the Akira. Nothing has changed except for the CONJECTURE that the Akira and NX are part of the same design lineage and therefore must have a connecting chain of ships. Nothing is wrong with this; however it by no means indicates that those ships do exist.

First of all, there were only FOUR seasons of Enterprise.

Secondly, how many of those instances were because the NX class was DESIGNED to do them? It seems to me that many of those instances were because the ship got drawn in some other way. Phlox being kidnapped to help the Klingons. T'Pol's mum being involved with that Vulcan stuff.

My point is that ships used by the Federation generally fall into the Starfleet design lineage.

Or that he bought it from the local military surplus store. Regardless I don't know how this helps your argument that the NX isn't just a rip-off of the Akira.

Mikey was claiming that Starfleet ships fall into design lineages, each ship being based on what came before. hence his opposition to the NX being a suitable design for the Enterprise - there just wasn't the intermediary stuff between it and the Akira, suggesting that Starfleet decided that the NX layout was a poor one, which is contradicted by the appearance of the Akira.

However, I pointed out that the Raven type has no design lineage at all (though one could argue that it is descended from earlier ships like the Conestoga). And yet the USS in front of the name suggests that it is a ship that Starfleet uses (even if the Raven itself wasn't working for Starfleet). It even has the same kind of engines (blue on the side with the red Bussards on the front), they use LCARS...

So, we have again a situation where there is a Starfleet design ship, yet doesn't fit into a design lineage. And I think that if someone is going to make an argument that a particular ship isn't a good choice of design because it doesn't fit in with a design lineage, then that argument should be applied to ALL ships where this is the case. However, Mikey is not doing this. He applies it to the NX class, but not to any other situation.

The clearly-stated USS in front of the name suggests it was.

Regardless of weather it was or wasn't I still don't see how this helps your argument. You've pointed out several ships that differ from traditional design philosophies; however none of them are:

a) ships of essentially the exact same design separated by a few centuries
b) related to the design lineage of the two ships this discussion is actually about
c) evidence of anything other than Starfleet does have some adaptability to it's designs for certain functions

however point c does more to hurt your argument because we've actually SEEN them. canon tells us that these ships exist and that starfleet has moved away from the traditional saucer, secondary hull nacell configuration on a few instances. we've never seen another saucer-nacell link to connect the NX and Akira.

First of all, since when are the NX and Akiras "essentially the exact same design"? You think that they use the same warp core? The same sensors?

Secondly, why do any other examples need to be related to the NX/Akira layout?

Thirdly, if there is evidence that Starfleet "does have some adaptability to it's designs for certain functions", why do you just assume that this doesn't apply for the similarities in the external similarities between the NX and the Akira?

I'll summarize my argument...

...

If the saucer only is good for limited roles why do we see ships like the Nova, a limited role science ship with the saucer, secondary configuration? In fact almost every ship we've seen regardless of mission purpose has been of the Connie configuration with some differences, if we generalize to a radial primary, a secondary, and nacelles that covers the great majority of ships for every conceivable purpose.

Because the Nova class is so small that if they put engineering, sensors and all that stuff in the saucer, there wouldn't be any room for anything else.

This evidence leads to the conclusion that it is the connie layout that is favored by starfleet for almost every roll and while they adapt it and create some odd balls in every generation the connie is the one they have stuck with through out their existence.

Then how do you explain the Miranda class, the Nebula class, the Defiant class, the Welles class (the time ship from "Relativity), the Oberth class, the Raven type, the Constellation class, the Cheyenne class, the Danube class, the Kelvin type, the Soyuz class, the Sydney class, the Steamrunner class, or the Springfield class?

I may be mistaken, but I believe Mikey's problem with the NX and it's place in history has less to do with needing a connie look to make sense, this is after all before the connie, it would be very weird for earth starfleet to just pop out the design that lasted centuries by chance on the fifth try, it should have taken years to get that design style as more research was done. no his problem with it, is the same as my problem with it if I'm correct and that it is too much like the Akira.

I'm sorry, but you got sidetracked here with your justification of why the NX didn't need to look like a connie. It has less to do with the NX needing a connie look and more to do with what?

The Akira is the end result of a design evolution starting with the Daedalus, an adaption on the traditional design that gives it certain advantages and disadvantages arrayed in favor of the ships primary mission.

Says who? Who says that the Akira class is from a design lineage that started with the Daedalus class? Why couldn't it have been from a parrallel design lineage that began with the equally-old NX class? because we never saw any intermediaries? That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

And anyway, one could argue that the Miranda class is an intermediary. Take the NX layout - saucer, booms, and then a wing going across the back with the warp nacelles on the ends. In the NX class, those wings angle upwards, right? Now, angle them down (like the Akira). The middle part of the wing can then lift up to form an arch. Now make the booms shorter, shorter, shorter until they disappear altogether. The wing now intercepts the saucer, going down underneath the saucer to hold the nacelles, and above the saucer to hold the little pod. Sounds like a Miranda class to me.

Now, I'm not saying that this is what happened. But I'm showing a possible way in which it might have happened.

It makes no sense for the precursor to the Daedalus to essentially be an Akira. The design lineage makes no sense. Why would Starfleet go from a successful design in the NX/Akira and decide to start fresh from the ground up an entirely different design? They showed that they are more that willing and able to simply evolve the designs as they did with the Daedalus into the Connie into the Ambassador into the GCS into the Sovereign.

But bear in mind that by the End of Enterprise (when the Daedalus class was first developed), Starfleet was founding the Federation, it had already made first contact with many new species. They were beginning to realise (Even from Archer's adventures) that any new starships would need to do more than just go somewhere far away and see what was there. They would need to be able to conduct diplomacy and lots of other things. And that is why they started the connie line of designs - because that layout was better suited to carry out the larger scope of missions that they would be doing.

In fact, have you seen what they were going to do to the NX class in Season five (if they had ever made it)? They were going to gie the NX a secondary hull! And this fits in well with my hypothesis - they were adding a secondary hull to make the NX class more adaptable for the many missions they'd realised that a front line exploratory vessel would be required to perform.

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2011/03/ ... fit-plans/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/12/ ... t-goes-on/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/more-refit/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/12/ ... the-fleet/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/06/ ... lerdrolet/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/06/ ... ck-sketch/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... t-diagram/

To head off the comment about there being two design lineages one based on the NX that lead to the Akira and another based on the Daedalus that lead to the Sovereign. Why would they waste their time? If they have the NX class which works well why start from the ground up on an entirely different design style rather than investing those resources into improving and perfecting the NX design style. Starfleet has shown that they consider evolutions of a design favorable as outlined above with the Connie evolution, and as you pointed out with the non-traditional designs they've demonstrated they can adapt a primary-secondary-nacelle design to fit any other roll, stands to reason they could do the same with a saucer-nacell configuration, so they have no need to develop entire other design styles for different roles.

I believe I answered that in my above paragraph. Use the Connie layout with the primary and secondary hulls for the vessels that would be required to perform a wide range of missions - like the Connies, ambassadors, galaxies etc - and leave the NX layout for vessles that needed little more than the essential stuff to keep the ship going and the crew to run it. That's why the NX had it - it just needed to be able to go to a place and see what was there. That's why the Akira class has it - it just needs to find the enemy and shoot at it. The NX class wasn't equipped with stuff like conference rooms, large cargo bays for supplying colonists or extensive medical facilities, and I doubt the Akira class is either.

In short, it makes no sense for them to develop two different design styles instead of investing their resources into the one style. It makes even less sense when you look at the evolution of the Connie to the Sovereign and compare that to the evolution from the NX to the Akira.

Then why don't ALL federation starships have the Connie lineage? I posted an extensive list of vessels above which are used by Starfleet that AREN'T based on that lineage. And if it's a bad idea for them to have two lineages, it's an even worse idea for them to have three, four or half a dozen.

Unfortunately, the nature of Trek canon is such that unless it is in an episode/movie, it does not exist. We can guess that it might have existed, but for debate purposes, it doesn't.


For Trek canon, if we do not see/hear about it, it does not exist.

McAvoy wrote:a modern Model T with a 3.5 liter V6 engine

This... would be awesome at a car show so silence yourself!

stitch626 wrote:For Trek canon, if we do not see/hear about it, it does not exist.

Without diving into this argument because I have the personal feeling that the only fix of the NX is to burn it. Stitch's comment here sums it up. I've had to point this out a number of times to a lot of people, Mod's included, but as Mikey as stated... If it is not in Canon then it cannot be treated as canon. If someone is going to use and opinion BASED on canon then that fine but remember to state it as such. "I believe this because it fits WITH canon even though it is not canon."

Deepcrush wrote:

stitch626 wrote:For Trek canon, if we do not see/hear about it, it does not exist.

Without diving into this argument because I have the personal feeling that the only fix of the NX is to burn it. Stitch's comment here sums it up. I've had to point this out a number of times to a lot of people, Mod's included, but as Mikey as stated... If it is not in Canon then it cannot be treated as canon. If someone is going to use and opinion BASED on canon then that fine but remember to state it as such. "I believe this because it fits WITH canon even though it is not canon."

This would seem to suggest that we can assume nothing ever happens unless we see it happen.