RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,242
Posts: 5,348,201
Members: 24,613
Currently online: 595
Newest member: blabla1

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 20 2014, 11:23 AM   #1
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Why the Enterprise shape?

Has anyone ever explained why Starfleet ships tend to follow the saucer/engineering hull/nacelles configuration? I remember reading somewhere that the shape was meant to be "warp dynamic" (i.e. moves well through subspace), but if that was the case, why don't any other species follow the same design pattern, and why does Starfleet constantly re-arrange those same parts in other ship designs?

Also, why would the ships be getting more and more streamlined, to the point where Voyager, the Enterprise-E, the Prometheus and others are halfway between the old Enterprise shape and a missile? It doesn't make sense.

(Yes, I know the real answer to all the above is that they look cool, and TPTB don't want to "confuse" viewers with similar designs on non-Federation ships)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 12:12 PM   #2
SPCTRE
Weltmeister
 
SPCTRE's Avatar
 
View SPCTRE's Twitter Profile
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

Heretic! Heretic!
__________________
““I’m gonna say such a nasty thing about you on Yelp.” Oh really? That’s great because I’m gonna cut your throat and leave your body in the dumpster out back. And no one will convict me because you’re subhuman trash, ‘Mr. Mayor!’”
— Jeff Gerstmann
SPCTRE is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 01:01 PM   #3
HIjol
Captain
 
HIjol's Avatar
 
Location: Currently U.A.E (a lot like Tatooine!)
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

SPCTRE wrote: View Post
Heretic! Heretic!
For God's sake...will SOMEone get the Design Mod!!!...hide the children!!!...
__________________
"If man is to survive, he will delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear" Gene Roddenberry
HIjol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 08:44 PM   #4
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Has anyone ever explained why Starfleet ships tend to follow the saucer/engineering hull/nacelles configuration?
There was an idea, either proposed by Roddenberry or Jefferies (I think), that the nacelles needed to be a certain distance from the habitable areas of the ship due to "radiation" or whatever. As far as why a saucer, another idea proposed here and there was that in the event the secondary hull had to be jettisoned, it could enter a planetary atmosphere and make a safe landing like a flying saucer.
I remember reading somewhere that the shape was meant to be "warp dynamic" (i.e. moves well through subspace), but if that was the case, why don't any other species follow the same design pattern, and why does Starfleet constantly re-arrange those same parts in other ship designs?
Others like the Klingons, TNG-era Romulans, and the Andorians also utilize a similar (albeit not identical) dual hull configuration for their ships. Rather than use a saucer, they have different shapes for their primary hulls. But I think the general shape of any starship is dependent on a number of factors, including its purpose and how many people it's supposed to carry.
Also, why would the ships be getting more and more streamlined, to the point where Voyager, the Enterprise-E, the Prometheus and others are halfway between the old Enterprise shape and a missile? It doesn't make sense.
It could be chalked up to just progress as well as a change in shipbuilding policies over time. I think more and more future starship designs will move away from the dual-hull configurations and more towards single-hulls. They may also get smaller rather than larger as faster engines (like slipstream drive) could lead to more efficient specialized starships rather than larger multipurpose ones, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 08:56 PM   #5
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

I've read, somewhere, that they were supposed to be 'futuristic space satellites' or something along those lines.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 09:24 PM   #6
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

We all know that Starfleet hired the descendent of an artist who came to some attention in the latter 20th-early 21st century. This descendent's engineering concepts helped maintain a uniform look to ship design.
__________________
Curly: Moe, Larry, the cheese! Moe, Larry, the cheese! (Horses Collars, 1935)
Melakon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 11:20 PM   #7
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
There was an idea, either proposed by Roddenberry or Jefferies (I think), that the nacelles needed to be a certain distance from the habitable areas of the ship due to "radiation" or whatever. As far as why a saucer, another idea proposed here and there was that in the event the secondary hull had to be jettisoned, it could enter a planetary atmosphere and make a safe landing like a flying saucer.
Yes, Matt Jefferies felt that the nacelles were "hazardous" and needed to be designed "away from the ship". He also considered these a component with a lot of wear and tear so that these occasionally would have to be replaced (which is what he did on planes during WW II).

It also depends how you power the warp drive. The Klingon Battlecruiser always looked to me that it needed more mechanical components and only could feature a small primary hull (= payload). The Official TMP Blueprints almost make it look as if the Klingons only had nuclear fusion energy they converted into warp energy by means of dilithium crystals.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 02:13 PM   #8
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

I don't know about in-universe, but in reality I think the explanation is pretty simple. My personal opinion here is that when Jeffries and Roddenberry designed the original Enterprise, if you look at it in the context of the 1960s, they basically combined several familiar features and made it one. When later incarnations appeared, they were basically just riffing off the original design.

here's how I think the saucer/nacelle combo came to be:

In most sci-fi movies and series prior to and of the time, space ships were often depicted as saucers.


Also, with the space race in full swing, you had rockets being seen frequently, which is exactly what the nacelles resemble:



...as for the secondary hull, I believe it resembles an old galleon, in shape.


So, when you combine all of these elements, what do you get?

IMHO, the Enterprise.
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 02:25 PM   #9
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

^^ Interesting thoughts. Yet, Jefferies' various pre-production sketches for the TOS Enterprise suggest he was considering a sphere for the main hull and rings instead of warp nacelles.

I won't exclude, however, that in the final process the allusions to a flying saucer, rocket engines and a sailing ship's hull helped to settle the final design.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 07:07 PM   #10
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
^^ Interesting thoughts. Yet, Jefferies' various pre-production sketches for the TOS Enterprise suggest he was considering a sphere for the main hull and rings instead of warp nacelles.

Bob
And that might actually be what works. The ship has to be a self-contained nacelle.

But in terms of looks--the Enterprise is a smiling swan...and what is more beautiful than that?

As for me--I hate the arrowhead designs...keep the saucer round, and the nacelles high.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 08:56 PM   #11
The Old Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

The neck separating the saucer and secondary hull in many Starfleet designs would be to allow clearance for any cone-shaped emissions from the deflector/sensor dish. Voyager's secondary deflector on top of the primary hull apparently compensates for the lack of clearance above the dish.
__________________
50 years ago on July 6: A Hard Day's Night premieres in London.
The Old Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 12:42 AM   #12
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
^^ Interesting thoughts. Yet, Jefferies' various pre-production sketches for the TOS Enterprise suggest he was considering a sphere for the main hull and rings instead of warp nacelles.

I won't exclude, however, that in the final process the allusions to a flying saucer, rocket engines and a sailing ship's hull helped to settle the final design.

Bob
Ha, take my theory FWIW.

I'm just saying when I look at the original Enterprise, that's what I see, and what I think may have influenced them. But that's in all honesty a guess on my part.

But those sketches you posted are very interesting. Some look like they were reused later on. I see ships resembling the Pasteur, Kelvin, reliant, and even some having nacelles resembling the TMP refit!
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 03:59 AM   #13
Push The Button
Captain
 
Push The Button's Avatar
 
Location: Smithfield, Rhode Island USA
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
^^ Interesting thoughts. Yet, Jefferies' various pre-production sketches for the TOS Enterprise suggest he was considering a sphere for the main hull and rings instead of warp nacelles.

I won't exclude, however, that in the final process the allusions to a flying saucer, rocket engines and a sailing ship's hull helped to settle the final design.

Bob
Those Jefferies sketches are awesome.

So it was originally named "Engineering - Power Shaft", but later renamed in honor of Jefferies.
__________________
Let's make sure history never forgets...
the name...
Enterprise
Push The Button is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 08:29 PM   #14
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

So the 17th design is where we get the 1701 from?
http://www.trekcore.com/specials/alb...t17Cruiser.jpg

That just stands out. There really is something iconic about that shape. It is hard to describe
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 09:10 PM   #15
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Why the Enterprise shape?

Push The Button wrote: View Post
Those Jefferies sketches are awesome.

So it was originally named "Engineering - Power Shaft", but later renamed in honor of Jefferies.
"Jefferies Tube" was a name used by the production staff that eventually became in-universe canon -- like the X-Wing and Y-Wing designations for Rebel spacecraft in Star Wars.

As you may know, one of Jefferies' concept sketches with a spherical main hull was fan-retconned into the Daedalus-class starship.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.