The upside-down Enterprise

[Wingsley]

Lest we forget the beautiful Starship Spitfire by Starscape...

Or Starscape's equally impressive Corona.

[scotpens]

Wingsley wrote:

---

Lest we forget the beautiful Starship Spitfire by Starscape...

Or Starscape's equally impressive Corona.

Forbin, I think I've just found your next kitbashing projects!

(Unless you've already done one or both of these.)

[Warped9]

Wingsley wrote:

---

Lest we forget the beautiful Starship Spitfire by Starscape...

Or Starscape's equally impressive Corona.

They just look upside down with a few tweaks.

[JarodRussell]

E-DUB wrote:

---

In space there is no up or down.

In relative coordinate systems there is always and up and a down.

[sbk1234]

Of course, Reliant was approved upside down.

[Robert Comsol]

scotpens wrote:

---

That would be this one.

"There she is..." I think this one is definitely the design inspiration for the USS Reliant in ST II which then gave birth to the design of the USS Grissom which, IMHO, is the evolutionary link between Enterprise and Reliant

(unfortunately nobody wants to listen to this theory, mind read my 9 page theory treatise...)

Bob

P.S.
Just last week I read the anecdote Albertese was quoting. I think it was from the Star Trek Sketchbook.

[Wingsley]

Warped9 wrote:

---

They just look upside down with a few tweaks.

Or perhaps you could look at the Connie as just an upside-down version of Matt Jefferies' earlier concept drawings.

[Mytran]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

(unfortunately nobody wants to listen to this theory, mind read my 9 page theory treatise...)

Well I did finally get round to reading your Oberth essay, and found it very interesting! I particularly like your approach to using the saucer module, a much more believable solution than other ones I've seen, such as using tiny turbolifts to slide down the pylons. Why, oh why....

[Robert Comsol]

@ Mytran

Thanks for the kind words. Since I suggested the Oberths' saucer module's undeniable similarity with the Jupiter 2 from "Lost in Space" to be a deliberate hint that we are looking at an older design, maybe I should publish my essay in the current Star Trek / Lost in Space thread?

Bob

[Metryq]

YARN wrote:

---

Meh, ships should not be designed with bilateral symmetry either.

Moment arms? Maybe that only applies to rockets and not starships with artificial gravity and inertial damping fields. "Warp engines the size of walnuts" would present a problem, otherwise.

[Tiberius]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

In relative coordinate systems there is always and up and a down.

Relative to what?

[JarodRussell]

When you're in orbit, it's the orbital plane, when you approach a planet, it's the ecliptic plane, when you're in the galaxy, it's the galactic plane, when two spacecraft meet, they're going to settle for one coordinate system as well. Point is, there is ALWAYS an Up defined. Otherwise you couldn't navigate properly.

And if you have a single spaceship, then Up is simply where the ceilings are. And nobody would design a spaceship with an interior where there is no recognizable up and down, because humans would go crazy. Every module of the ISS has a ceiling and a floor, despite zero gravity.

[diankra]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

And if you have a single spaceship, then Up is simply where the ceilings are. And nobody would design a spaceship with an interior where there is no recognizable up and down, because humans would go crazy. Every module of the ISS has a ceiling and a floor, despite zero gravity.

Actually, they did. The MDA section of Skylab was deliberately designed with no up or down, and consoles on any surface they would fit, in contrast to the more conventional design of the main section, so NASA could see which approach suited the crew best. As 8 of the 9 Skylab astronauts preferred the up-down approach, that's the one that's been used ever since.

[Metryq]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

When you're in orbit, it's the orbital plane, when you approach a planet, it's the ecliptic plane, when you're in the galaxy, it's the galactic plane, when two spacecraft meet, they're going to settle for one coordinate system as well.

Where, exactly, is the "orbital plane" around Earth? Is it over the equator, while all highly "inclined" orbits are illegal? Uranus has an axial tilt of 97 degrees—should one orbit in the ecliptic, or based on the local rotation of the planet? For that matter, why should vessels in the same orbit have the same attitude?

Suppose another ship of the fleet is approaching from zenith or nadir, thus making its plane of reference along that line of flight. What's the proper etiquette in that situation? Should the ship reaching the rendezvous point second reorient (for no useful reason I can imagine) just to be polite, or should the first ship tumble around to make the arrival feel more welcome?

To paraphrase Doc Brown, "You're just not thinking three-dimensionally!"

Keep in mind that these are starships designed for crossing unimaginably vast distances. While delicate maneuvering around spacedock may be possible, why would ships meeting in deep space even get close enough for naked eye visibility? Their communication (including transporters) is effective without having to rub elbows.

Don't confuse navigational conventions with the attitude of the ship. Heck, every 3D artist knows there are global and local coordinates.

[anh165]

Something discomforting about an upside down image of the Enterprise. I think I will need to lay down.