I think what I like about this design is how you made it look like it could've come from the 1950's...as if Star Trek could've had their start there instead of the '60's. You did say pre-TOS, and you captured that look with great success. Visions of the future change with each decade. When Enterprise (later Star Trek Enterprise) came out, they had a heck of a time trying to make the technology look older than TOS technology, and yet look cooler than what we have in real-life present day. What you did was capture a look as if Enterprise had been conceived in the '50's, and did so very effectively....in my very humble opinion.
I would agree that it does capture the pre-TOS look completely. For Enterprise, I'd've preferred to see a variant of this particular design without the secondary hull. I think that would've captured the look I'd've done.
Although my b&w images evoke a vintage feeling I didn't conciously set out to make the ship look like it could have been designed in the 1950s. The ideas of the future were different in the '50s then a decade later as best evidenced by the sci-fi films made at the time such as Forbidden Planet. I simply tried to find a design that looked somewhat less evolved than what we saw in TOS yet still look convincing if we'd actually seen it onscreen. The Botany Bay in "Space Seed" certainly looks distinctly more primitive than the Enterprise, but it doesn't look like it was designed in the '50s or any previous decade. Admittedly ENT had a challenge: how to depict a pre TOS era without looking dated. They tackled that by mostly ignoring the issue to satisfy their idea of general audience expectations. But I think they compounded the problem by ignoring a lot of other things that didn't seem right in a pre TOS era. They introduced too many familiar elements introduced in the the TNG era series and treated their prehistory setting as if it were little different than the TNG era setting. Instead of trying to create a setting that seemed somewhat familiar yet also largely different they basically redressed what they already had and went with that. It didn't really feel like the "opening up of the galaxy" because we saw so much (too much) of what we were already familiar with. Some simple beauty shots. And what if...
And here is a quick and dirty approximate size comparison to ponder. In terms of dimensions then try these. Hercules-class star clipper L.O.A. = 750.560 ft. (228.770m) W.O.A. = 320.564 ft (97.707m). H.O.A. = 189.892 ft. (57.879m) Vanguard-class star cruiser L.O.A. = 707.906 ft. (215.769m) W.O.A. = 394.945 ft. (120.379m) H.O.A. = 215.439 ft. (65.665m) Size can be misleading and most particularly length. The clipper is the second longest of the ships in comparison yet it has the least amount of interior space due to it's configuration (and it's the narrowest and shortest in height) and the bulkier machinery and systems of its era. Nacelle size is also deceptive. The nacelles of the ships in comparison aren't that different in overall size and yet the clipper is definitely the slowest (though not really that much slower than the star cruiser) and yet both are significantly slower than the TOS era ships. If I had to guess in terms of deadweight with the Constitution-class being 190,000 then I'd peg the Vanguard-class at about 120,000-140,000 tons and the Hercules-class at about 110,000 tons. There is a conceptual evolution at work here, but there's a missing link (and maybe two) between the Vanguard and the Hercules I haven't worked up yet. The class preceding the Vanguard could be very much like my original drawings for this design.
You brought up some good points about Enterprise. Yeah, another big problem they had was that in trying to make everything seem pre-TOS, it really did end up feeling rather "Next Generation"-ish in other respects. Those latest images are really quite cool! Be proud! Be very proud!
What next? Here is the beginnings of my Independence-class cruiser. It's a pre-pre TOS cruiser, or the evolutionary link between the Hercules-class star clipper and the Vanguard-class star cruiser. I was challenged with trying to make something that could be quite stugy looking look, well, not so much. The main saucer is reminiscent of the Hercules saucer and the drive section extending back from the saucer is a variant of the Hercules' aft section. This time There are two space warp nacelles and they are fitted on either side of the aft section rather than a single nacelle slung below. Now slung below a secondary/support hull with facilities previously in the star clipper's aft section, including the shuttlecraft facilities. In terms of detail the design will be similar to that of my star clipper design, understandably since they are of much the same era. Please note that what you see here is a basic outline, of course, before getting into finer details. The backstory is the Independence-class is meant to be one of (if not the) last major design built for UESPA. When the Star Fleet is established it will inherit a number of Hercules and Independence class ships until newer and more suitable designs are available to better suit the Star Fleet's needs, the first major design being the Vanguard-class. So far my working name for this ship is the U.E.S.S. Ranger, registry SR-2209. In terms of size this design should be only somewhat smaller overall than my Vanguard-class.
So here we have the basic canvas on which I start layering details. From this I think you can see the evolutionary bridge from Hercules clipper to Vanguard cruiser. The essential elements of the familiar Starfleet design are there, but in bulkier and less graceful form.
Some nacelle detailing. Note the offset positioning of the nacelle spikes. It was also offset on the clipper design, but it might have been less noticeable because it was offset in elevation. Here the spikes are offset forty degrees from the nacelle's horizontal centreline.I went with this detail to make it visually interesting as well as to have a similar design cue as the clipper. Note also the nacelle domes will not be coloured, but will remain closer to hull colour, again to be like the clipper. The long hal-round detail bits running along the frward section of the nacelles are all the same length, but they are not all positioned at the same angles. In keeping with the idea of a measuring of asymetry in tandem with symetrical design the outboard strips are set at fifty degrees while the inboard strips are set at forty degrees. The aft sections of the nacelle have a corrugated like surface as does the impulse engine housing. I went with a straight vertical cut-off for the aft end of the nacelles rather than a more familiar angled or shaped cut. Also the ending edge of the nacelles are beveled inward.
Gettin' back to the 22nd century...to work out the details. Getting in a little more obvious asymetrical detailing (upper surface of impulse section) as well as some detailing reminiscent of the Hercules star clipper design. Actually I was beginning to wonder if this design might look a bit too clunky (for my liking), but as I add details it starts to look better overall.
I like it... I particularly like the detailing you've done so far. Just a quick thought that you should feel free to ignore... might it not create a stronger link to the star clipper lineage if you flipped the Independence, to have the cargo section on top and the nacelles below? As I recall there was a Jefferies concept that was more or less this way, and I think this would strengthen the lineage to the Hercules (via having nacelles below) but retain the connection to the Vanguard (by having two nacelles.) Just a thought.
^^ Except for the Reliant concept I've always found having the nacelles on the bottom and something up top looks upside for some reason. It just looks visually weird, to me anyway.
A quick look at a schematic like representation. I think I have only a few small bits of detailing to go before moving on to signage and colouring. Going forward I'm trying to be mindful of what bits I add other than the standard signage and windows and lights. If I clutter it too much then it doesn't look like it could be in the same familiar TOS universe. I feel I need to add a bit more in surface detailing, but I'm presently pondering what that little extra might be and still maintain the right look (in my eyes anyway). Sometimes I try something only to discard it when I doesn't look how I had envisioned it, but then that can also give me a better idea of what can work.
Warped9, I really like this ship. In some ways, I like it better than NCC-1701. It's so much more practical-looking! Will you add any docking hatches? Another thing I like is the big, round exhaust nozzles for the impulse engines. And -- like the original Enterprise -- they're at the ship's center-of-mass if you consider the warp engines more dense than the inhabited hulls. It's also very easy to consider this design modifiable for a tug mission ala Franz Joseph. I really just love this ship!
Yes, it's easy to see how later on a variant of this design could become a transport/tug of some kind just by swapping out the secondary hull and modifying the dorsal.