The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Professor Moriarty, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. therealfoxbat

    therealfoxbat Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    I agree that the ship is a classic timeless design, but it does need to have some changes, if only to preserve story continuity. There is evidence (from more than one source) that the Enterprise has undergone at least two refits between the time of its construction and the TOS period. These should NOT be massive changes (such as what happened between TOS and TMP), but there should be a few Star Trek Enterprise elements on the new design which would be logically eliminated as the ship progressed toward the TOS period.

     
  2. therealfoxbat

    therealfoxbat Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    The impression I got from observing TOS and TNG together was that TOS had a form of replicator that required source matter, while TNG had advanced to the point of replicating matter using just energy.

     
  3. Ptrope

    Ptrope Agitator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    Welcome to the board, therealfoxbat. Please take a couple minutes to review the board rules, especially those regarding "spamming":
    Participation is a good thing; just keep it organized and within the rules. :bolian:
     
  4. therealfoxbat

    therealfoxbat Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    If you guys are talking about the "Shield Grid" as in the radial lines on the top of the saucer hull, those were invented by Franz Joseph, who included them on his drawing of the Heavy Cruiser (TOS Enterprise) in the Star Trek Technical Manual. That drawing (including the "Shield Grid" seams) was used by AMT/ERTL to design the first production plastic model of the TOS Enterprise, and we've had them ever since. The "Shield Grid" seams weren't actually part of canon Star Trek until they were included on the new Enterprise model used to film TMP.

     
  5. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    Why assume this? they're NOT building it out of steel or out of any other material we can use/think off today. :)
     
  6. therealfoxbat

    therealfoxbat Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Sorry about that. I found this nice long thread a few hours ago and I was responding to comments as I came across them. I'm also figuring out the quote function by trial and error.

    I seem to be having trouble locating that rules section. A little help...?

     
  7. Irishman

    Irishman Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    I'm encouraging perspective.
     
  8. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    The lines were there on the 11 foot model, drawn in pencil on the painted surface. They were purposely drawn very faintly, and are only visible in certain shots (like the two-shot with the Constellation in "The Doomsday machine").
     
  9. Ptrope

    Ptrope Agitator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    Important board information is linked in the boxes on the right side of the page, at the top.
     
  10. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Incorrect. The radial and concentric panel lines were on the original model from the very beginning. They were pencilled on lightly so as to be realistically inconspicuous. They're visible in most shots that show a closeup of the top of the saucer section. Franz Joseph didn't event them. The AMT model exaggerated them severely however.

    And the AMT model was released during the run of Star Trek in the 1960s, while the Franz Joseph tech manual was released in 1975, so I kinda doubt the model was based on the TM, ya know? :)
     
  11. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    If I remember the story right, they were penciled in under MJ's protest sometime during season one, because Roddenberry was wanting some of the 'tech' mentioned in the series to be more reflected on the model.

    But, yes, FJ didn't invent the grid lines, they were there in the official literature as the show was produced.
     
  12. Holytomato

    Holytomato Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Someone disavowing the Matt Jefferies', Franz Joseph's, Greg Jein's, ENT's, The Smith's refurbish, and TOS'R models because of the deflector shield grid!? :confused: :wtf:

    Otherwise known as the "No lines on the hull! It must look the way it did on screen!" position.

    Its been a long time.

    I had forgotten. :D
     
  13. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    You're largely correct in your thinking, I think. I don't believe (and this trailer doesn't SHOW) that the Enterprise was ASSEMBLED on the ground. We see some components, but it seems fairly evident (or at least, it seems evident to ME) that these components aren't attached to each other in their "final positions." In par4ticular, I reference what appears to be the primary hull dorsal... or perhaps one of the nacelle pylons?... being constructed at a distance, and orientation which is completely "wrong" compared to where it SHOULD be, relative to the saucer we can see in that same scene.

    I've also become convinced that what I originally believed was the backside of a nacelle is much more likely the top of the secondary hull. I assumed it was a nacelle because I could see no evidence of a dorsal or of a saucer... but the scale, and the visible detailing, is nearly "right" for the secondary hull but totally "wrong" (IMHO) for a nacelle, if you accept that the dorsal hasn't been attached and it's sitting somewhere else other than "right under" the primary hull.

    They're building it in chunks, then lifting those chunks into space for final assembly, system-integration, etc.

    As for painting the hull... well... the obvious argument is that, since this doesn't really look like the original Enterprise, they needed to do that in order to make sure that the audience would "get it."

    However, if, say, the outer surface of the hull is composite... and some laminated construction at that... they may well have ceramic materials and so forth laminated on top of hull metal on those plates. If so, it might well be that the non-metallic portions of the hull plating are best applied in smaller areas. I mean, if we were really talking about just putting paint on top of bare metal, you'd probably be right. But think about the "printing" on the buttons on your cell phone keypad, where there are actually two colors of plastic, one molded right around the other one. Maybe THAT's what they're doing.

    I don't have a big problem with what I'm seeing here, except that it's not the original (and thus I'll never be able to "suspend my disbelief" that this is the Enterprise... "I KNOW the Enterprise, I've grown up with the Enterprise, and sir, YOU ARE NO ENTERPRISE!" ;) )
     
  14. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Ed Mirecki over-emphasized the existing hull lines and "weathering" on the Enterprise in his work for the Smithsonian - that was his only substantial error on the thing. Considering the previous dreadful refurbishments (the model had never been displayed in original screen condition at NASM), the decrepit condition of the model at that time and the Smithsonian's unwillingness to pay what they'd been told by experts that a full museum-quality restoration would cost, Ed deserves fannish appreciation rather than the snippy censure he so often receives.
     
  15. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Actually, think about HOUSE CONSTRUCTION as a great example of why this form of construction is not only plausible and reasonable, but actually PREFERABLE (and also why you would prefer, as in TOS, to have shapes that have similar cross-sections all the way around, rather than with TNG-and-later which have shapes that don't share the same cross-section at any point around their rotation!).

    Let's say you were going to build a Constitution-class primary hull. You'd build a series of flat frame sections (just like they do with house construction) and arrange them radially around a central "hub" structure. Theses flat "pie-wedge-cut" sections would be VERY STRONG initially. You'd then build up interconnections between these wedges... building "floor/ceiling" framing. And you'd have a VERY STRONG structure up-front, long before the first plating or internal structure was put into place.

    That's how REAL construction is done today... for ships, for aircraft, and for houses. The "girder at a time" construction used in SKYSCRAPERS is really the exception, not the rule, yet that's the form of "steel construction" that most people think of when they think of that.

    For the secondary hull... again, you'd do a series of flat "ring" shapes, string them up in the right sequence, then build the ceiling/floor structure to connect them together.

    For the dorsal and pylons... well, you can figure THAT part out I'm sure. ;)

    Once the basic structural framework is in place, you'd start filling it in, and once it was largely filled in, you'd put on the outer skin.

    It makes perfect sense to have the thing largely constructed that way (in an environment where the workers can operate without spacesuits) prior to lifting it into space.

    I've always sort of assumed that surface-based construction was a practical necessity (ie, it was MUCH easier to do it this way and lift the components than to build them all in the vacuum of space!) until post-TOS.

    Why Post-TOS? Well... you see the answer to this in Star Trek III. SPACEDOCK... or "Starbase One." It has a big interior space which is clearly zero-G, but which also (demonstrated clearly by the fact that you have spotlights inside which have VISIBLE BEAMS) has an internal atmosphere.

    If you had something like Spacedock, you would have the best of both worlds... the ability to build in a "shirtsleeves" environment but in zero-gravity. And any maintenance that required a lot of outside-of-the-ship maintenance (say, for instance, that you'd been in a firefight without shields and the hull of your ship had been torn up), you'd dock in there because that's where they could most easily do the exterior work that would put your ship's hull RIGHT again.

    It all really makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

    Now, as for the supposed DISADVANTAGES of building on the ground... other than a humorous post a while back about finding dead leaves and squirrel droppings in the lower portions of the secondary hull, there really aren't any. They have antigravity, so lifting into orbit is TRIVIAL. (That can also be applied to your concerns about the structure "collapsing" can't it?). The ONLY issue that might really apply would be if you were concerned about the negative effects of atmosphere on the structural framework... steel components in orbit wouldn't rust, and there might be a little rust if you did the work right next to the San Francisco Bay. ;)
     
  16. Arlo

    Arlo Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    While as a nacelle it's certainly big, that shot looks way too *small* to me to be the secondary hull. I'm still going with nacelle. Everything matches up to what we've seen so far, down to the position and shape of the intercooler winglets (the angle of which looks too shallow to be nacelles struts).
     
  17. Shaw

    Shaw Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    They don't wait until ships are finished now, so why would it change over the next few hundred years?

    [​IMG]
     
  18. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    Oh, god!
    You do know that this will trigger another screen-page(s) long post, don't you?

    ;)
     
  19. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    Since they also had to install all those lights for the number, in that case it only makes sense for the number to be painted on at the same time.

    The big question is was the number on the flight deck painted on at this time?
     
  20. Vektor

    Vektor Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Location:
    Spokane, WA, USA
    On the subject of something like the Enterprise being able to support itself during construction in Earth-normal gravity, did anyone else notice that the saucer section appears to be substantially unsupported by scaffolding or other structures? I mean, yeah, there are a few here and there, but particularly in the shots with the precariously perched welder in the foreground and the saucer in the background, it looks like the thing is just floating there with very little to hold it up. You can see a lot of columns and scaffolding surrounding the saucer, but if you scrub the video back and forth, it’s obvious that very little of it is attached.

    I don’t really have any problem with the ship being built on Earth, but I would have expected it to be virtually encased in scaffolding and support structures, especially underneath. Unless they already have the structural integrity fields online, the ship’s framework ain’t build out of steel. Carbon nanofiber, maybe, or something more Trekkian like duranium or rhodinium.