What Enterprise is the better design part 2 ?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Stardate, Jan 10, 2008.

  1. RyanKCR

    RyanKCR Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Location:
    RyanKCR is living here in Allentown
    There is an organic design concept to the D that was lacking in the original and refit. The E began to lose a lot of the organic look. The D had way too many rounded edges and that eye staring at you was very freaky. Plus the top heavy saucer is no where near what the orginal and refit was with their balance. The only good angle on it was the rear view.
     
  2. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    You're comparing totally different tech, a jet and a conventional plane. In trek terms, that'd be like comparing a warp driven starship with a garbage scow. The TOS ship and the TNG ship have similar function and capability, so you need to find a different analogy (like how different a Cessna is from a spad or fokker ... is it all that different?)
     
  3. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Galaxy class, hands down. The Sovereign is a monstrosity.
     
  4. General_Phoenix

    General_Phoenix Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    Bespin
    Galaxy Glass, hands down. Always been a fan of the design. Too bad she the Enterprise D went before her time, I'm sure she could've had a long and healthy life like the original NCC-1701 had.
     
  5. StarryEyed

    StarryEyed Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Florida Keys
    I like the Sovereign better overall. The Galaxy is nice viewed fore or aft but awful in profile.
     
  6. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    The starships being discussed have warp drive nacelles, saucers, engineering hulls and various features like impulse engines and deflectors. The aircreaft I compared have an airfoils (wings), tailplanes, elevators, cockpits, and method of propulsion. If you object to the engine types, let's do prop to prop, jet to jet, fighter to fighter, airliner to airliner. A Spad and a P38. An F-80 and a F-117. A 707 and a Concorde. A YB-49 and an XB-70, or a B-47 and a B-1.

    As different in lines and forms as the TOS ship and the D. Shall I continue hauling out examples?
     
  7. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Trot out as many as you like, but comparing a jet to a non airbreather is not a good call when you're doing it with 2 FTL starships that are both using the same pseudotech. METHOD OF PROPULSION ALONE is enough to make your comparison invalid; one is a jet, the other ain't, yet both of these fictitious space vessels are FTL starships (not an FTL starship and a NERVA- or ORION-style nuclear propulsion interplanetary vehicle.)
     
  8. VileMike

    VileMike Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    I've always thought that the Ent-D was a more graceful design. I prefer the curves of her, than the angles of Ent-E. I figure, D was the dancer, E was the fighter.
     
  9. azzurri08

    azzurri08 Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    Personally I like the ENT-D better. I think it's much nicer. On the other hand when the next generation came out and up until the ENT-D came out it was defiantley the best designed ship out there.
     
  10. Ryan Thomas Riddle

    Ryan Thomas Riddle Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Location:
    The Bay Area
    I have to add that I prefer the representation of the Galaxy-Class in the 6ft model and the CGI model in TATV than the bulky, with the overdone surface, of the 4ft model.
     
  11. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    I addressed your objection by listing pairs of aircraft that have similar propulsion systems but which are as different or more different in shape and look and the TOS ship and the D. Every pair of examples in the list are of aircraft in the same general category (airliners, fighters, strategic bombers) with related propulsion types, e.g. an F-80 and a F-117A are both air breathing jet aircraft.
     
  12. Kaijufan

    Kaijufan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Location:
    Amana, Iowa
    I went with the Sovereign, it looks much nicer then the Galaxy class.
    It's funny, I don't really like the Galaxy class all that much, but the Nebula class is my third favorite class, after Akira and Sovereign.
     
  13. Gotham Central

    Gotham Central Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I've never understood the appeal of the Sovreign class. Its a complete throw back to the TOS era without any of the elegance and simplicity.

    The Galaxy class was meant to convey the idea (quite correctly) that as technology advances it tends to get smaller even while becomming more powerful. All of the 24th century starships (until First Contact) reflected this simple and reasonable philosophy. The engines are smaller because they SHOULD be smaller and take up less space (just as the engines on a modern naval vessel need not be the size of the massive boilers that once propelled ships like the Titanic. Thus if you notice, the engineering section on ALL 24th century starfleet vessels are smaller and have small nacels.

    The Enterprise E is a complete violation of the tecnological direction establised for the 24th century. The Sovreign Class does not look like it fits within the lineage of Enterprise. If you look at all of the Starships down the line, there is a logical prgression of the ship shapes (from steadily shrinking engines to curvier more organic shapes. The Sovreign Class looks like it should follow right behind the Excelsior Class. From the Shape of the warp engines to the large dual impusle engines and circular deflector...the SC looks like the Excelsior writ large.


    The Sovreign Class also violates some of GR's basic visual ideas about hero ships. He wanted their lines to bbe simple and largely uncluttered. Look at the Sovreign class....what is all that crap on the underside of the saucer? What is with the out of control paint job?

    The ship is a monstrosity and an exaple of excessive design. The Number of torpedo launchers featured on the Nemesis version is just ridiculous. Starfleet ships are not supposed to be flying weapons platforms.
     
  14. A beaker full of death

    A beaker full of death Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    That IS the appeal.
    True.

    But it LOOKS like shit. This is a visual medium. A ship with a giant head and stubby little nacelles looks like a midget. It looked awful.

    Please. GR was totally senile by 1988.
     
  15. Stardate

    Stardate Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Actually Roddenberry didn't like those small nacelles. Probst originality had design shorter nacelles but Roddenberry told him to make it longer.
    Sovereign nacelles are much better in my opinion.

    Yeah, you have a point and i agree with you regarding the underside. Elves scold have designed it smother. However the overall the oval-shaped Sovereign saucer are much more appealing then oversized circular Galaxy saucer
     
  16. RyanKCR

    RyanKCR Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Location:
    RyanKCR is living here in Allentown
    With this new design lineage and things getting smaller then explain the Excelsior.

    The Galaxy was ugly and just did not look right.
     
  17. Gotham Central

    Gotham Central Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    The Excelsior is easily explained. The Excelsior was not designed as a "normal" starship. It was the 23rd centruty equivalent of a concept car. Remember it was called "The Great Experiment." The Transwarp engine design was meant to serve as a revolution in Warp technology. It was in essence a first generation engine design and thus significantly larger than its predecessors. The experiement "failed" (conjecture) but the overall design was retained. Subsequent starship engines got smaller. Of course it is best that we ignore the travesty that was the Enterprise-B. That ship was the first victim of the art department throwing logic and simplicity out the window in favor of hideous buffoonery. That ship was a crime and had no business being shown on screen.
     
  18. CaptJimboJones

    CaptJimboJones Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Location:
    Hotlanta
    I like them both, although I probably prefer the sleeker E-E. But then, my favorite Enterprise is the NX-01, so what the hell do I know?
     
  19. mattwitz

    mattwitz Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    the Enterprise D wouldn't be so ugly if the oversized head weren't exacerbated by the thin little neck AND the tiny little engines.

    And that argument about engines getting smaller doesn't quite work because modern ships like the akira and the saber have nacelles that run almost the entire length of the ship.
     
  20. Holytomato

    Holytomato Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    The Galaxy, aka "The ship not designed by a retard with ADD."

    I have ADD. Congrats you insulted me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    These are what the Enterprise-D should have looked like.

    The Enterprise-A from the proposed ending of Star Trek the Motion picture. Had a circular saucer, and the TMP refit pylons. not the flipped up TMP K't'nga pylons. Became the Enterprise-C.

    The Enterprise-E. This originally was the 1964 Cage pre production design.

    1. The bridge module, main sensor dome, impulse engines, secondary hull, curved dorsal, the deflector shield grid on the saucer section, and secondary hull, the vertical lines on the dorsal, swept back pylons, and the horizontal lines on the edge of the saucer were given to the Phase II movie design.

    2. Everything from above, and the shortened height, and increased length of the warp nacelles were given to the Phase II tv series design.

    3. Everything from above and the full internal main nav deflector was given to the TMP refit.

    I gotta nominate the Star Trek XI design as well.

    The Enterprise-D design is basically the Excelsior dumped on the proposed TMP ending design, and they screwed with it. GAG.

    I was on a website where the Enterprise-C model builders *DENIED* they based the design on anything previous. I was reading "The Art of Star Trek" so I knew this was a lie.

    When "Yesterday's Enterprise" was originally on, I covered the Excelsior style pylons. It looked like the TOS Enterprise. When I turned color to black & white. It looked like the TMP Refit. Also the impulse enginess' output color was blue. Not a bridge to the E-D.