Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Saratoga NX-3842, Aug 16, 2008.

  1. Sheridan

    Sheridan Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Ok, this might be a little off topic but what was the reason when designing the original Enterprise to have the saucer, secondary haul and warp drives separate from each other? I'm not suggesting that we change the design but wouldn't a design like the Romulan ship that we saw in TOS be more practical? This is one of the things I've never heard explained in the design process of the Enterprise.
     
  2. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Which would be totally and completely unaffected by whether the design seen on 1960s TV had been exactly as we eventually got it or had the "mods" I'm talking about here.
    ABSOLUTELY incorrect... the pylons would be FAR more like what we have in TOS than, say, what we have in TMP. I'm only suggesting making the overall length (in the direction of the flight vector of the ship) be about 2 1/2 times what we have now... that means increase the distance of the pylon leading edge forward by about .75 of the current pylon length, and extend the trailing edge backwards by the same amount.

    By comparison, the TMP pylons are 1 1/2 times longer than TOS at the base, and about 3 1/4 times as long at the nacelle end. So... do THOSE pylons "obscure the rest of the ship?" Because they're a LOT larger (and more "obscuring") than what I suggested.

    And as for the neck structure being what I propose... well... that's exactly what Probert did with the 1701-D, except he made it a big, solid structure. I dont' want a solid structure because that, unlike what I'm suggesting, would be "massive, big and bulky" and would "ruin the grace of the ship."

    The dorsal structure I'm talking about would be TOTALLY UNCHANGED when viewed from the side. The ONLY think I'm talking about changing is going from one thin "fin" element between the same saucer and cigar we currently have, and replacing it with two nearly-identical (but slanted) "fin" elements

    I'm finding the turn of this conversation to be UTTERLY AMAZING. To remind you guys... I'm one of the guys who is OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE DESIGN OF THE SHIP IN THIS MOVIE FROM WHAT WE HAD IN THE OLD SERIES.

    Got that? I would, by far, prefer to see the ship be a "polished" version of the TOS design (and I'm still not in any fashion convinced that we won't be getting that, at least in the "final portion of the film" incarnation).

    So please stop acting like I just took a leak on the Venus De Milo... K? :)
     
  3. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    The logic for the separate nacelles is simple enough... they're big, dangerous mechanisms and you want to keep that sort of thing separate from the inhabited spaces.

    This is essentially the same argument for why they don't put the jet turbines on a 747 inside of the passenger compartment. ;)

    As for why the separate saucer and cigar... well, Jefferies played with a lot of different designs, and Roddenberry gave a lot of feedback... and the overall shape of the ship evolved over time. But the "in-universe" idea Jeffries gave was that the lower hull was where the engines and cargo and so forth would be... all the "utillities" and other dirty grubby stuff. While the saucer would be the living and "clean work" areas of the ship. Each would have different life-support requirements... one would be clean and quiet, the other would be dirty and noisy.

    This didn't really get followed on the show, because they only had a few sets (and only ONE real "corridor set" after all!). But that was really the original idea... an "updown district" and a separate "warehouse/docks" district... plus some nasty, hazardous engines put as far away from where anyone has to live and work as possible.
     
  4. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    You would make the pylons wider than the dorsal.
    It would throw the whole design of balance - and LOOK LIKE CRAP.

    Equally as ugly.
     
  5. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Okay, then... I get it.

    This isn't about you wanting to discuss the topic. You're trying to pick a fight.

    Third time in a little over a week (since I was posting my personal political thoughts in another discussion) that someone has tried to do that.

    This happened once before, too. And that time I eventually let some folks get me mad through the "let's pick a fight with Cary and then all hit 'report' at once" game. And I got a single warning which resulted a supposed "one day ban" which nevertheless somehow "mistakenly" ended up lasting for about six weeks.


    Knock it off. If you want to discuss the topic, fine... let's discuss. But if you want to just try to start a fight... which your post, above, makes VERY clear is the case... that's called "Trolling" and you need a warning for it.
     
  6. Eric Cheung

    Eric Cheung Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Then I must be confused by what you intend by your redesign (which I know you wouldn't prefer to the original ship). I guess I'd need to see it to see what you're talking about.
     
  7. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    No problem...

    First, the side view. The pylons are longer, and thus more mechanically secure in the direction from which they'd be loaded when the ship accelerates or decellerates. The dorsal section looks identical from this perspective, so no "tweaks" are needed here.
    [​IMG]

    Second, the front view. The pylons are the same thickness, so they'd be the same from this view of course. (I wouldn't object to adding a LITTLE more thickness to them, but I dont' think it's necessary)

    However, instead of one vertical "dorsal" you now have a pair of sloped dorsals. They go from the centerline of the secondary hull to the ends of the impulse deck.
    [​IMG]

    That would make for a far more mechanically robust ship, but the overall appearance would barely be affected at all.

    By the way, I've done these using the Casimiro prints as my basis.
     
  8. Sheridan

    Sheridan Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Nice work, but wouldn't it be a bit awkward for the turbolifts to go down the necks at that slanted angle?
     
  9. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    No need. Remember, this is in SPACE... all gravity is artificial gravity, remember? Just because everything we're used to seeing in Trek ships has all the decks on the same plane doesn't mean that there's ANY reason that has to be the case, does it?
     
  10. tharpdevenport

    tharpdevenport Admiral Admiral


    I don't see the proof. I see NEW bad ideas.
     
  11. Sheridan

    Sheridan Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    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. What about having simply one wide and thick neck not like the ugly Galaxy class but like the Excelsior class?
     
  12. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    You could do that but, to my sense of style, that would be less graceful.
     
  13. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    :rolleyes:

    Don't be so full of yourself.
     
  14. Sheridan

    Sheridan Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    It may look a little less graceful but wouldn't it more practical? The neck doesn't have to be black either like the Excelsior's. It could be the same color as the rest of the ship.
     
  15. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    :wtf:
     
  16. Eric Cheung

    Eric Cheung Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Ah, function following form. Watch that slope, 'tis slippery.
     
  17. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    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.
     
  18. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    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.
     
  19. Sheridan

    Sheridan Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Yeah, yeah, I know it's not science. I was speaking in context of the fictional Star Trek. :guffaw:
     
  20. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    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....