Discussion in 'Enterprise' started by ArcherNX01, Jan 19, 2013.
Except it's not a future insignia relative to Enterprise, but a past and current one. VGR: "Friendship One" established that the arrowhead insignia was the United Earth Space Probe Agency logo as far back as the 2060s. What's more, it was already in use on Starfleet uniforms during Enterprise. You have to look closely, but a very small arrowhead was part of the rating insignia worn by enlisted crewpersons like Cutler.
I ike that one : (
I'm into designs where the remit hasn't been to make it flatter and more streamlined. That stuff shouldn't matter in space. It's why pretty much everything post (and including) Enterprise-E is a load of rubbish
I'm sorry but I have no idea who crewmember Cutler is or was or will be. I'm sure he was an important and valued part of the crew though.
Seriously, the background info is both appreciated and interesting. Thank you.
With full acknowledgement of what you said, I still think an arrowhead design would have been an improvement over what we were given, BUT what we got was pretty good.
Elizabeth Cutler, played by Kellie Waymire, was a recurring character in the first season of the show, starting with the second episode. She was an entomologist and medic, and a potential romantic interest for Dr. Phlox. She was only in a few episodes, but after Waymire died suddenly in 2003, it kind of raised her character's profile in fandom's eyes.
Not "rubbish" at all. Aesthetics is a very valid factor in design. And I would think even more so for a starship design. You'd want something to stir the imagination and appeal to peoples romantic sense of exploration.
You know, it's just occurred to me that streamlining might not be entirely without purpose in space travel. After all, there's a lot of dust and micrometeoroids in space. Sure, you have the navigational deflector to handle that, but maybe the occasional speck might get through. And the smaller the forward surface area you present, the lower the probability of some stray piece of debris hitting your hull.
It could also serve a purpose in combat, in that a smaller forward profile would be a bit harder to detect by enemy radar/sensors and could have the same advantage against weaponry that it had against space debris (as long as you engage the enemy facing forward).
Yes, aesthetics is important but it's also entirely subjective.
However, subjective or not, I do not see how flattening ships down to the size of a pancake appeals to anyone's 'romantic sense of exploration'. Surely the opposite would apply in which spaceships looked more like old seafaring tall ships with huge masts (pylons) and sails (warp engines)?
Perhaps the streamlining and symmetry of ship design somehow improves efficiency of the warp field or deflectors/shields surrounding the ship.
That's the usual excuse used in Trek -- that the shapes of starships are a function of their warp geometry. Although realistically, if there were some shapes that were better for warp geometry than others, then you'd expect most species' ships to converge around a common shape, the way different aquatic species like fish and cetaceans independently evolved into the same basic shape because it was the most hydrodynamic. Sure, there's room for some variation -- rays, squid, jellyfish -- but there's a degree of convergent evolution, form following function. The fact that most species' ship designs are wildly different from each other suggests that the main factor is simple aesthetics (which, of course, is true of their design in real life).
We need Rick Sternbach in here, his input on the matter would be useful.
Aesthetics being subjective is not the point. Though it makes me chuckle imagining the Vulcans, with their furrowed brows, being highly critical and irratated of the emotional elements of the earthmen's starship designs.
The point is simply and solely whether consideration and incorporation of aesthetics would be valid with respect to the design of a starship. Answer is, as with any humon endeavor, yes (ergonomics, of course, being another consideration, etc. ...).
The form, or lineage of thought, regarding how all that would manifest itself is moot as the contextual reality within "Star Trek" is what it is. They settled on what they settled on. Times change. Fashion sense changes.
From Enterprise: "Home":
Uh yeah, I suppose if I had been able to stomach "Enterprise" long enough to make it up to and through season four I would have known that ... but I couldn't so I didn't.
And folks tried to skewer me along the lines of spending too much time on things 'round here. Yeesh!
I think most would agree that the Enterprise-E is an improvement over the D. My problem with the E is the main dish is too small. I've also seen closeups of the CG model where the aztec plating is all just slapdash and random lucky-charms shapes instead of nice clean rectangles that follow the contours.
I also didn't like how each successive generation has to be as big if not bigger, than the previous. I guess they felt that the larger the ship, the more "epic" it starts to look, but the way things were going, they'd eventually reach SDF-1 Macross absurdity.
In that respect, extrapolating back to the NX-01 with no secondary hull might have made sense.
Then you must not have been able to "stomach" TOS either. Spock admired the beauties of Stratos (notably Droxine herself, though I felt that was grossly out of character) in "The Cloud Minders," and when he returned to ShiKahr in "Yesteryear," he reflected in his log about having forgotten how beautiful it was. Vulcans have always admitted to an appreciation of aesthetics and art.
I could go off on how Spocko was half-human, but I don't need to as I never said Vulcans didn't appreciate beauty. All I did say was how I thought it would make for a humorous scene with some Vulcan being irrated at some of the human aestethets flourishes. The humor being rooted in the running gag within Trek of Vulcans constantly finding irratation with humans ... that's it.
What I find truly funny is your determined efforts against an aside that had little to do with the point being discussed. Even further, going after me on a point wherein I am actually in support of "Enterprise" - I liked the look of the ship (exterior) - interior was more of a mixed bag with me.
I checked your blog - Good stuff. I too am a fan of "The Man from UNCLE" and would recommend to you (if you haven't already read it), "The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Book: The Behind-the-Scenes Story of a Television Classic" by Jon Heitland. Whether a fan of the series' or you just love behind-the-scenes books this one was excellent.
And spending time in a hotel in Detroit, brother, you are hands down braver than I. Just looking at Detroit on a map makes me nervous.
What "determined efforts?" I made a passing allusion that you reacted to with a gratuitous slur against Enterprise that proved you'd completely missed my point. So I wrote one whole extra paragraph clarifying my point. You've expended more verbiage and effort on the topic than I have.
I dunno, maybe digging through four seasons of "Enterprise" to find a bit of dialogue to repost verbatim ac litteratim? And, once again, considering the clearly disproportionate level of voracity you're devoting to a minor musing that was beside the main point being discussed is fascinating to me. It also frames your responses as being dangerously close to "ad hominum" territory. Again, interesting.
On the contrary. I remembered the exchange off the top of my head, and just needed to Google "beauty site:www.chakoteya.net/Enterprise" to find the exact quote, then copy and paste. Very simple. I watched Enterprise clear through twice last year as research for my upcoming novel Rise of the Federation: A Choice of Futures.
I'm totally bewildered that you see it that way. I was just making a comment that I thought would be cute, as part of what I thought was a friendly, casual conversation. Your reaction has been inexplicably defensive to the point of paranoia. I'm just going to walk away now.
Separate names with a comma.