ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Enterprise F

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 3:24 pm

The Enterprise from the first Six movies has nacelles worth classic car fins.

The goofy dreadnought has three nacelles and people excuse it or love it.

And as the original arrival of the Narada was pretty traumatic to both sentient life and the timeline then ship design could has changed dramatically following it.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 3:37 pm

Both the Abramsprise and the 1701-FAIL suffer from lack of balance, being too fat in parts and too thin in others.

I've made my case against the FAIL. In the case of the Abramsprise, he redesigned the wheel instead of modernizing it. Look at how BSG changed the Galactica but it was still clearly the same ship. I've seen fan designs where this is done to the original, but Abrams has blue bussard collectors, the neck is too thick, the secondary hull too thin, and curving pylons that just don't look positioned correctly.

Both STO and the new movies suffer from people trying to completely change the franchise and Starfleet design principles to create monstrosities that disrespect what has come before.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 3:48 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Jan. 10 2012, 3:37 pm

Both the Abramsprise and the 1701-FAIL suffer from lack of balance, being too fat in parts and too thin in others. I've made my case against the FAIL. In the case of the Abramsprise, he redesigned the wheel instead of modernizing it. Look at how BSG changed the Galactica but it was still clearly the same ship. I've seen fan designs where this is done to the original, but Abrams has blue bussard collectors, the neck is too thick, the secondary hull too thin, and curving pylons that just don't look positioned correctly. Both STO and the new movies suffer from people trying to completely change the franchise and Starfleet design principles to create monstrosities that disrespect what has come before.


Pfah. Balance? Design philosophy? Have you seen the Galaxy Class while *not* drunk? And what about the Intrepid? It has FLIPPERS. Don't even mention the Defiant.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 4:28 pm

All the ones you mentioned look very longitudinally balanced. However, the Intrepid does need bigger nacelles; they are nontraditionally small. The galaxy could use more junk I'm the trunk but the lower nacelle placement and wide pylons help make the rear look thicker.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 4:31 pm

Quote: leroybrock @ Jan. 10 2012, 3:48 pm

>Pfah. Balance? Design philosophy? Have you seen the Galaxy Class while *not* drunk? And what about the Intrepid? It has FLIPPERS. Don't even mention the Defiant.


What? There aren't any fins on the Intrepid. Not that I saw, anyway. And I liked the small nacelles; they made it look less like an Enterprise-wannabee.


And the Defiant was supposed to have a more functional look to it, given its status. I think it still looks good.


 


I do agree with everyone about the Abramsprise, though. That thing was hideous.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 4:39 pm

Sadly the Intrepid's flippers were its nacelles. A pointless gimmick that added nothing of value to the design.

As far as the Defiant goes if we're going to talk about things that spit in the face of tradition I'll just say that it's not the kind of Star Trek I grew up on. The new Enterprise is practically a love poem to the original show compared to the Defiant and Intrepid.

And the best part is that it's here, it's canon and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

>:)

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 6:50 pm

I agree the moving nacelles were pointless, especially since they put the collectors where they are blocked by the saucer (not that bussard collectors make sense).

The A did have mini fins in the back of the nacelles, but so did the original.

The Defiant was the first and only federation battleship so of course it looked different. I agree it was a big departure but you have to think of it as not having a secondary hull, much like the nx. Apparently the inspiration of the model designers was a turtle, which is saucer-like.

Great discussion, btw.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Jan. 10 2012, 8:39 pm

Part of the reason I like the 2009 Enterprise is that in many ways it's a return to form. If you look at the tv shows we've been handed a lot of weird gimmicks over time and some pretty odd ideas.

TNG started it with the "saucer separation" gimmick. It apparently was to solve the problem of how to protect the mini-city full of children and civilians you've attached to a warp core and then sent hurtling out into harm's way. A better way to solve that problem is not to send children and families out into deep space to explore wild uncharted places and fight with dangerous species. Never mind the fact that by the time you'd know to plop them down somewhere you're probably already getting pieces blown off of you. And let's not even discuss what a bad idea it would be to intentionally place what must be a structural weak point at a crucial area of the design.

Then we've got the Intrepid and its flippers. Why would you put a point of mechanical failure, especially such a large one on such an important part of the ship? And the Prometheus... Let's design a ship that's designed to fall apart into littler bits. It clearly wouldn't be a better idea to just make a ship with three times the shielding and weapons.

Was there one long-lived alien star ship designer in Star Fleet who was just trolling? Like maybe his kid were to come in someday and say "can I see your spaceships daddy?" And then he'd say "Well this one has a few bolts holding its freakish giant head full of women and children on that's designed to fall off on demand and here's one that has nacelles that wiggle around and the last one here falls apart and attacks things on autopilot. And over here's the Defiant, it's full of hard to resolve design flaws, can't take too much of a pounding and can barely shoot anything that isn't sitting directly in front of it."

And his child would look at him and say "Those sound like they might dangerous and bad ideas daddy. Why did you design those?"

And the father would say "Look my child, it's a big galaxy with a big history. It's hard for people to make a name that lasts. If I don't work up and get people to build all these batshit crazy things who's going to remember me?"

And then the child would say "... "

And then we have our good old JJ Enterprise, complete with no batshit crazy falling to pieces or cities full of children on board. Red is my favorite color but if we get a starship that wasn't designed by a lunatic out to see just how many bizarre and unnecessary design flaws they can incorporate into it then I'll settle for blue nacelles.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 8:11 am

Apparently Jeffries had nothing to do with ship design beyond TOS. Even in TOS, someone else designed the shuttlecraft when Jeffries' design was much better. I often wonder what future shuttles would have looked like if Jeffries' shuttle was used (I wish STO would use the Jeffries shuttle).

Jeffries was the only starship designer I know of who had aerospace experience. Mark Rademaker who designed the Vesta is a boat designer. Jeffries used his experience to design simple planforms where every feature could be realistically explained. Later ships were just designed to look cool without any type of engineering thought. The simplicity of the original was its beauty and the more complicated new designs get with useless curves and structures, the more stupid and monstrous they look.

That is why I dislike STO and Abrams ships. They over complicate their designs and neglect a basic engineering principle- keep it simple. The Abramsprise itself angers me because they over thought it, losing the simple grace of the original.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 10:49 am

What is simply overwrought to one is another's expression of elegance. When these ships are created they're bot simply garbage trucks or fancy taxis, they themselves are representatives of the people who produced them and their culture. With every ship the Federation makes like the JJ Enterprise or the Star Cruiser they're saying we're no stagnant husk of a people; we are vibrant and vital. Even with this incorporation of aesthetics technology and known scientific principles will be integrated into what you consider "pointless curves".

As far as "engineering thought" is concerned let's just let that sulk in the corner. Star trek is muddled in so much fake science that concern for 21st century notions of engineering are... toletated at best. All of this seems to boil down to a lot of people saying "that's not what I was looking at the first time! Why didn't you ask me first so I could check it against my manual of fake Star Trek science!"

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 10:56 am

I still have yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why that kitbashed, visual abortion of a dreadnaught from *one* episode of TNG that involved and alternate future is so beloved while the JJ Enterprise is so disrespected.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 11:00 am

If you look at the tv shows we've been handed a lot of weird gimmicks over time and some pretty odd ideas.


"Weird gimmicks" and "odd ideas" are pretty much the main ideas behind most of what Star Trek is.


TNG started it with the "saucer separation" gimmick. It apparently was to solve the problem of how to protect the mini-city full of children and civilians you've attached to a warp core and then sent hurtling out into harm's way. A better way to solve that problem is not to send children and families out into deep space to explore wild uncharted places and fight with dangerous species. Never mind the fact that by the time you'd know to plop them down somewhere you're probably already getting pieces blown off of you. And let's not even discuss what a bad idea it would be to intentionally place what must be a structural weak point at a crucial area of the design.


I have to agree with the part about civilians. And I also don't like the Saucer Seperation idea, but it does have several benefits:


- the crew can escape the Stardrive section in the event of an imminent warp core breach (as was done in Generations).


- gives an enemy two different targets to deal with.


Both make sense in my opinion. And I imagine that the Galaxy has a lot of defenses around the neck to prevent people from exploiting it.


Then we've got the Intrepid and its flippers. Why would you put a point of mechanical failure, especially such a large one on such an important part of the ship?


I don't like the moving nacelles either, but it only happens when the ship's at warp and most of the time it isn't. (not that we see, anyway). And why would they be a "mechanical failure"?


I personally still think it looks good, because if the nacelles were upturned all the time it would A: look really ugly and B: look like an Enterprise impersonator.


And the Prometheus... Let's design a ship that's designed to fall apart into littler bits. It clearly wouldn't be a better idea to just make a ship with three times the shielding and weapons.


As I indicated above, it's better to have three smaller but still heavily-armed ships than one super-heavily armed ship that all enemy tagets can concentrate on.


Was there one long-lived alien star ship designer in Star Fleet who was just trolling? Like maybe his kid were to come in someday and say "can I see your spaceships daddy?" And then he'd say "Well this one has a few bolts holding its freakish giant head full of women and children on that's designed to fall off on demand and here's one that has nacelles that wiggle around and the last one here falls apart and attacks things on autopilot. And over here's the Defiant, it's full of hard to resolve design flaws, can't take too much of a pounding and can barely shoot anything that isn't sitting directly in front of it." And his child would look at him and say "Those sound like they might dangerous and bad ideas daddy. Why did you design those?" And the father would say "Look my child, it's a big galaxy with a big history. It's hard for people to make a name that lasts. If I don't work up and get people to build all these batshit crazy things who's going to remember me?" And then the child would say "... "


Lol.


And then we have our good old JJ Enterprise, complete with no batshit crazy falling to pieces or cities full of children on board. Red is my favorite color but if we get a starship that wasn't designed by a lunatic out to see just how many bizarre and unnecessary design flaws they can incorporate into it then I'll settle for blue nacelles.


You really like the Abramsprise - which departs from all classic Trek ship designs - more than the other TNG-era ships that have color and still look reminiscent of the original 1701?


And just out of curiosity, what's your favorite Starfleet ship design?


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 11:06 am

Quote: leroybrock @ Jan. 11 2012, 10:49 am

>What is simply overwrought to one is another's expression of elegance. When these ships are created they're bot simply garbage trucks or fancy taxis, they themselves are representatives of the people who produced them and their culture. With every ship the Federation makes like the JJ Enterprise or the Star Cruiser they're saying we're no stagnant husk of a people; we are vibrant and vital. Even with this incorporation of aesthetics technology and known scientific principles will be integrated into what you consider "pointless curves". As far as "engineering thought" is concerned let's just let that sulk in the corner. Star trek is muddled in so much fake science that concern for 21st century notions of engineering are... toletated at best. All of this seems to boil down to a lot of people saying "that's not what I was looking at the first time! Why didn't you ask me first so I could check it against my manual of fake Star Trek science!"


 


Actually Star Trek is filled with a lot of realistic or feasible science.  The warp shell concept has actually been theorized by phyisicists.  The original ship designer was an aerospace engineer who applied his knoweldge of structures to his design.  Though many of the physical principles in trek are on proven, most of them are possible or have been theorized with mathematical principles. 


I myself am an aerospace engineer.  I've worked on space craft and now work on airplanes.   I can tell you that the engineering structures in trek make sense in many ways.  They have also served as inspiration for many moden engineers and astronauts who will tell you Starfleet design theory may not be too far off from how it will actually be done one day.


Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 11:08 am

Quote: leroybrock @ Jan. 11 2012, 10:56 am

>I still have yet to see a reasonable explanation as to why that kitbashed, visual abortion of a dreadnaught from *one* episode of TNG that involved and alternate future is so beloved while the JJ Enterprise is so disrespected.


I hate them both, actually.


Though I hate the Abramsprise way more. It's like the illegitimate child of a Constitution refit and an Imperial Star Destroyer.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 11 2012, 11:22 am

I like the Dreadnaught because the 3rd nacelle balances the look, adding more mass/structure to the rear.  A 3rd nacelles also makes sense to me because space travel is in 3 dimensions.  A 3rd nacelle in a different z-axis position would theoretically give you better pitch control at warp speeds. 


That scene against the neghvars was also one of the most dynamic battles in TNG.  The enterprise was portrayed as more maneuverable than earlier scenes (granted this was more budget that anything) and the phaser lance tore up that Klingon ship.  I've been disappointed with how weak the lance is in STO.


But if you hate the Galaxy, you're gonna hate its refit.  Though I like the Galaxy, I prefer the Sovereign.  I like the Galaxy design but it is very 80s, not as timeless as the original.  If you weren't a kid in the 80s, you prob don't like the Galaxy from an aestetic sense.


Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum