Subject:
|
Re: Ben's LEGO Millennium Falcon back on-line
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:41:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1252 times
|
| |
|
|
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 it has an LFL stamp on it, there are
publications printed before and since which contadict it. The gulf in
accurate information on the Millennium Falcon has been filled in the most
part by Robert Browne's "Ship of Riddles" website. That's not to say he
should have the monopoly on the "truth." I found that his material would not
provide me with an accurate guide with which to build my Lego Millennium
Falcon, so I started from scratch. Whether you agree with it or not, I have
constructed a corridoor network without major compromise to the Star Wars
films and included six full sized escape pods.
The theory that a space craft has no means of escape in an emergency is just
not acceptable to me. I'm even building escape pods into my Shuttle Tydirium
which might tick some people off (I'll wait for the throthing emails). I
listed my reasons behind my theory but if anyone has a Millennium Falcon
flying around inside their head with a back half filled with engine, I'm not
going to convince them otherwise. The only heavywieght on my side is Star
Wars researcher Frank Bitterhoff but as far as I know, he's not been active
for years (In a Star Wars sense that is Frank!). Lego is the perfect way of
exploring the issue of the Millennium Falcon's escape pods. I have solved it
to my mind, so has Ben Fleskes in his own way. I'd be fascinated to see how
other AFOLs tackle this issue in their own models of the "fastest hunk of
junk in the galaxy." I hope they don't shrug their shoulders and say the
escape pods don't exist.
Craig Stevens.
In lugnet.starwars, Gregory Cook writes:
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ben's LEGO Millennium Falcon back on-line
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
