Subject:
|
Re: Ben's LEGO Millennium Falcon back on-line
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 03:35:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
943 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
>
> "Gregory Cook" <gfoxcook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:H65FG8.3G4@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.starwars, Craig Stevens writes:
> > > Hi Gregory,
> > >
> > > The quote you used reffers to the docking rings on each side of the
> > > Millennium Falcon, not the six circular "vents." If you look closely, the
> > > circular protrusions are not covered in fan blade slits and look rather • like
> > > solar panels instead. I believe that they are hatches covering escape pod
> > > tubes for the following reasons:
>
> According to a publication called "The Official Star Wars Fact File", the
> two large circular openings at each side are escape pods. There are four
> Equipment Access Bay hatches shown at the front of the Millenium Falcon, on
> the forward mandibles, past the circumference of the circular portion of the
> Millenium Falcon. Two are shown on each mandible. There are also six vents
> shown at the back of the Millenium Falcon in this publication, and it is
> plain that they are vents, as they are clustered closely together, and have
> ventral slits on them.
Whether the 90 and 270 degree objects are escape pods, or as has been
suggested elsewhere, merely cargo transfer docking mechanisms, doesn't
matter too much to me. I merely wanted to disprove the "those aren't 6
engine-related vents, they're escape pod hatches", and therefore, thanks. I
haven't ever seen that source, but I'd like to. Is it primarily text or
image based?
> > ICS has been wrong about other stuff. Why would the ship need 6 pods,
> > anyway? That's way too many.
>
> Given the photos/plans in the Official Star Wars Fact File I mentioned
> earlier, I would have to agree here. That is most definitely the engine
> section. There is also no clear-cut means of identifying whether the ring
> corridor actually goes right around the Millenium Falcon. Although I would
> strongly agree that the engine compartment takes up a good chunk of it.
If it does, it's more likely than not serves as an engine maintenance/access
tube moreso than as the wide passenger corridor it is at the port and
starboard exits from the main hold.
> > > C) In the Empire Strikes Back, Medical Frigate's docking tube is clamped • on
> > > to one of the "vents" - more likely an escape pod tube doubling as a • docking
> > > port.
> >
> > That's addressed in one of the two links I made. It's most likely an • error.
> > Yep, even canon can contain errors. The docking ports are in the arms you
> > referring to earlier, as seen with Lando's rescue of Luke. And anyone, an
> > escape pod "tube" doubling as a docking port is kinda silly, when the port
> > and starboard docking areas are available. Also kinda unworkable. Is this
> > supposed to happen while the pod is present or while it's ejected? Either
> > way seems silly.
>
> See my point above. It is most definitely a docking port, and not an escape
> pod hatch.
I thought you'd agreed it was most definitely an engine exhaust vent and not
an escape pod hatch OR docking port. Are we talking about the same thing
here? He was referring (in his C point) to one of the 6 vents being docked
into the Nebulon-B Frigate.
> Since nobody did go all the way around the ring corridor in the films I
> would venture to say that at least 90% of the space between the hyperdrive
> engine and the gun turrets is occupied with sublight/hyperdrive engines.
> The other 10% being, of course, to have access to the engine itself in the
> likely event of repairs being needed to it.
Those %ages sound about right, give or take 10%.
> > > E) The pods had to be placed somewhere visible to the audience "Several • of
> > > the escape pods have been jettisonned..."
> >
> > That line can be explained by the fact that what we now know as the
> > Corellian Corvette/Rebel Blockade Runner/Tantive IV was originally going • to
> > be Han's ship, and the 4 big bulges on top of the midsection of the • Corvette
> > were going to be escape pods, but when the ship was deemed too similar to • a
> > ship from another movie/show (Space: 1999, I think?), and Lucas suggested
> > the hamburger shape, the Corvette was changed in scale to be much larger,
> > with a hammerhead bridge section, and the escape pods were moved under the
> > midsection, the large bulges being made into secondary gun turrets. And
> > according to ICS, additional escape pod space, but who knows.
>
> Well, from what I've seen here with the publication I have, that's totally
> wrong. Either someone has their facts wrong, or has altered them to suit
> their own theory.
What's wrong, the stuff about the Corvette? I don't believe so. There are
many many sources that talk about the Corvette originally being designed as
Han Solo's "pirate ship" before the current MF design came about, and sans
the hammerhead front, of course. Or did you mean just the scale
change/escape pods?
> > They can be nowhere, I thought this was a pretty well known option. Look, • it
> > could be either or, but there is a very distinct possibility that there • are
> > NO escape pods at all, or at least not 6 pods under the circles, whatever
> > they are. Please, though, go look at a Corellian Corvette, or even the • LEGO
> > model, even it has 4 little circles atop its engine slops that look just
> > like the MF's circles.
>
> There are escape pods all right. Two, one either side and at 90 degree
> angles to the forward mandibles, 180 degrees from each other. I don't know
> how many people they would have carried, since the official fact file
> doesn't list this information.
I've got no problem with escape pods being contained in there, in fact, it's
mentioned as a distinct possible location in the site I linked to before.
Some say the corridor where Lando pops up to get Luke is too close to the
edge of the 90 and 270 protusions you're referring to for pods to be there,
but whatever. All I care about is dispelling the engine vent/pod mixups, and
we appear to agree on that.
> I would have thought that most escape pods would be fairly standard and that
> those coming out of one ship would be not be too different from those in
> another ship, in order to prevent the problems associated with having to
> find spares in the event that one needed replacement or repair.
Maybe in ships of a similar class, but look at other things that would be
simpler if they were not too different from each other: all the cockpits of
the Rebel fighters. They're all quite different, unlike the similar TIE
cockpits. And aside from that, a ship like the Corvette can afford the space
for larger escape pods than a Corellian YT-1300 freighter (i.e. a
non-modified Millennium Falcon).
-Greg "Fox" Cook
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ben's LEGO Millennium Falcon back on-line
|
| This is fun! All of this discussion based on a single line from an email. The circle is now complete. We have the Robert Brown camp, the dissenting voice and now someone who has an official guide to Star Wars, as if that means anything. Even though (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ben's LEGO Millennium Falcon back on-line
|
| "Gregory Cook" <gfoxcook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:H65FG8.3G4@lugnet.com... (...) like (...) According to a publication called "The Official Star Wars Fact File", the two large circular openings at each side are escape pods. There are (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.starwars)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
