Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

[Eric Cheung]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

You could do that but, to my sense of style, that would be less graceful.

Ah, function following form. Watch that slope, 'tis slippery.

[ST-One]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

You could do that but, to my sense of style, that would be less graceful.

But two angled dorsals are graceful?

The original is good the way she was designed and built.

The new movie still needs, and will get, something different of the same.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sheridan wrote:

---

I'm aware of artificial gravity but I didn't know you could change it in specific parts of the ship without affecting the rest of the ship.

Trek "artificial gravity" is magic, not science. You can have it do whatever you need to.

The dual-neck thing does sound ugly. If you're not going to just leave the design alone, you might as well do something good-looking.

[Sheridan]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

Trek "artificial gravity" is magic, not science. You can have it do whatever you need to.

The dual-neck thing does sound ugly. If you're not going to just leave the design alone, you might as well do something good-looking.

Yeah, yeah, I know it's not science. I was speaking in context of the fictional Star Trek.

[ST-One]

Sheridan wrote:

---

Yeah, yeah, I know it's not science. I was speaking in context of the fictional Star Trek.

In the context of Trek: In 'Enterprise' we have seen that in some places of the ship the gravity is first nullified and then reversed.
But since that transition is very noticable it wouldn't be very practical to have the gravity change within the turbolift-shaft in that angled dorsal....

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sheridan wrote:

---

Yeah, yeah, I know it's not science. I was speaking in context of the fictional Star Trek.

But the point is, in the context of the fictional Star Trek the right answer to that changes depending on what the story needs are. The tech isn't consistent.

[Cary L. Brown]

Eric Cheung wrote:

---

Ah, function following form. Watch that slope, 'tis slippery.

Right now, you and Sheridan are having a real conversation with me... please don't "follow suit" with those who just want to play "chest-beating territorialist." There's no need to be even a little bit snide.

I did not, and HAVE NOT EVER, suggested that I think that the design of the 1701 should be changed. What I said, which was very clearly stated, was that "if I had been there in the beginning, this is what I would have done" and the reason I gave was "because the apparent mechanical fragility of the design is the one legitimate criticism of it which I've seen." So, what I threw out, above, is simply a way to keep things as close to the original MJ intent and style as possible while addressing that legitimate complaint.

So, it's not a "slippery slope" really. What I want to see on-screen is the 1701 which we all know, not what I just presented. You know what I said and you know what I meant, don't you? Please don't join in the "oooo... we see an opening... go for blood!" thing a few other folks are trying to get started here, OK?

[Cary L. Brown]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

But the point is, in the context of the fictional Star Trek the right answer to that changes depending on what the story needs are. The tech isn't consistent.

Absolutely true. Some stories have made it clear that every car has its own independent gravity system on-board, for that matter... and it only makes sense (though TNG and ST-V contradicted this) that you wouldn't have gravity at ALL in the turboshafts.

Remember, all I said here was what I would have done "in 1964/65" has I been there working with MJ. I'd have kept the design exactly as it is, including keeping fairly "graceful" interconnecting structures (as opposed to big, chunky bulky ones) but tried to increase strength in the directions that you'd see the greatest stresses applied.

Oh, and... I got a private email a few moments ago reminding me that there had been a Starfleet ship with the general dorsal connection scheme I mentioned previous to my coming up with it earlier. Seems that in the old game "Klingon Academy" there's a ship called the "Ulysses" class dreadnought. I was provided with these pictures of it... this is a bit broader and flatter than what I had in mind and I don't care for the "clump" near where the two dorsals come together, but it does show how this sort of thing might look in 3D.

[Eric Cheung]

It's still kind of meh--which isn't surprising. The video games had a lot of kitbashes that seemed kind of arbitrary so that they could have brand new classes of starships.

[ST-One]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

What I want to see on-screen is the 1701 which we all know,

But the fact of the matter is that the new movie has (probably) a new design aesthetic (one from 2008) with only elements from the 1960s designs.
So the original Enterprise (as presented on the TV) wouldn't fit in the new setting.

[ST-One]

Eric Cheung wrote:

---

It's still kind of meh--which isn't surprising. The video games had a lot of kitbashes that seemed kind of arbitrary so that they could have brand new classes of starships.

And this one is particularly ugly.
This makes the 'Norway' and 'Sabre' classes look good

[Sheridan]

If I were to do a redesign of the TOS Enterprise I would have it look similar to the NX-01 but still have a secondary haul underneath. I still think they should maintain from Jefferies' design though but I'm just explaining how I would design it if I was asked to do a redesign different from Jefferies'.

[ST-One]

Sheridan wrote:

---

If I were to do a redesign of the TOS Enterprise I would have it look similar to the NX-01 but still have a secondary haul underneath. I still think they should maintain from Jefferies' design though but I'm just explaining how I would design it if I was asked to do a redesign different from Jefferies'.

Today I too would use the NX-01 design elements to re-design the TOS-Enterprise, tomorrow I would probably use those of the new movie-TOS-Enterprise.
My tastes and interestes shift quite a lot in that regard. And I have no problem with up-dating an old design.

But then, the NX-01 is also a sore point for some here.
Shall I tell the new people here about the 'Conestoga-conspiracy', Cary?

[Sheridan]

ST-One wrote:

---

Today I too would use the NX-01 design elements to re-design the TOS-Enterprise, tomorrow I would probably use those of the new movie-TOS-Enterprise.
My tastes and interestes shift quite a lot in that regard. And I have no problem with up-dating an old design.

But then, the NX-01 is also a sore point for some here.
Shall I tell the new people here about the 'Conestoga-conspiracy', Cary?

Well, I googled Conestoga and came across this:

http://img.skitch.com/20080822-ct3bf...c59hi8yn68.jpg

Which I have to say is the most awesome looking Star Trek ship I've ever seen. But I don't understand how this is related to the subject we're are talking about nor do I want to get off track on this thread so I'll figure out whatever this 'conspiracy' is eventually.

[ST-One]

Sheridan wrote:

---

Well, I googled Conestoga and came across this:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/conestoga3.jpg

Which I have to say is the most awesome looking Star Trek ship I've ever seen. But I don't understand how this is related to the subject we're are talking about nor do I want to get the off track on this thread so I'll figure out whatever this 'conspiracy' is eventually.

It is a great design, I agree.
Around here are people who think that this ship was designed as the NX-01 before the the actual NX-01 was aproved as the show's hero-ship.
TPTB, according to those people, have since then covered up the fact that Conestoga was actually going to be the NX-01 and not the 'Akiraprise' we got.
Ridiculus and stupid.
These are some of the people we have to deal with here.