From: starride@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (David Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: 1701-D Flagship
Date: 6 Jan 1993 11:45:03 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu

jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:

>>	In the episode that I am thinking of it travels at warp 4
>>to meet up with the Enterprise. Also the warp engine nacelles
>>are transwarp nacelles not the normal warp engines of old. Plus
>>it would not take a large engine to push(warp) something as big
>>as the saucer section. Remember that by the time of STNG  
>>even large shuttles have limited warp capacity.

>Pure, unadulterated, horse-puckey. Transwarp is dead. Paramount
>has said the -D does not use Transwarp. The Tech Manual says it
>doesn't use Transwarp.

>According to the Tech Manual, the Primary Hull (Saucer Section)
>can 'coast' at Warp velocities for a time. This could be
>accomplished by generating a very low level subspace distortion
>field with the impulse engines, just enough to maintain the Warp
>field. 

>>	The reason the all the Enterprise's look like they do is
>> that is the ship look that the producers thought the audience
>> would go for the most.

>Speculation on your part. Probert designed the -D to look new,
>but still have the same general shape - saucer, secondary hull,
>warp nacelles. I can dredge up the Starlog and a quote if you
>really want. The fact that this would make the fans happy isn't
>really relevant. Like most of this discussion.

>> Many of the things that are taken for granted as being
>> locically thought out. A statement that is INCORRECT. Many of
>> the StarTrek standards are standards because people believed
>> them to be and then the producers/writers/fans tried to make
>> sense out of them.  

>Uh, right. I think. At any rate, if you're going to say "it
>doesn't make sense from the point of view of the characters
>solely because it wasn't designed from the characters point of
>view", then of *course* its not going to make any sense. You're
>intentionally trying to see inconsistancies where you want them,
>and that is indeed your right. Wow, you've seen them. The rest of
>us don't, or ignore them. I don't think there's any argument
>about that.

>Joshua

	Well I see that someone flamed me before I got to do it
to myself. A friend of mine told me and showed me were I was wrong 
about the saucer going warp speed by itself, ie it does not have its 
own warp drive.


	AND now to flame back. If what you say is true then you have just
proven my point; most of the things that are done are not thought out in
logical and clear detail. And boy you cann't read very well either. You 
took out the part about the Enterprise's look being the original one.
Of course Probert didnt want to change that look, the audience/fans wouldnt
have gone for it. (I take it you dont go to very many conventions if at all.)

	As for your point of this discussion. If it isnt relevant then why 
did you waste your PRECIOUS time rebutting it.

	Also as for me trying to see inconsistancies where I want them maybe 
you should try doing some reading/research on what all has been written and
approved by Paramount. Secondly am I to take that you do know of some 
   inconsistancies from this statement;

     The rest of
>us don't, or ignore them.



	Or are you maybe just slightly educated beyond your intelligence.


	NO I dont claim to know every thing but I do claim that I do and will
admit my mistakes.
	I ALSO WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRADE INSULTS WITH ANYONE WHO DOES 
NOT LEAVE ANY ROOM FOR SOME ONE TO MAKE ERRORS. (Joshua)

	David Chase

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech