Poll Does the Discovery look good?

[F. King Daniel]

I love the Ralph McQuarrie concept art but am not a fan of the Discovery. I think it's the nacelles, both their boxy shape and the way they lay flat against the wings. Fuller's comment about legalities makes me wonder if the differences were necessary to avoid issues with the McQuarrie estate or something.

I like the Kelvin influences, particularly the saucer rim. I'd ditch the navigational deflector, or swap it out for something like an antenna array.

I almost want to learn 3D modelling so I can make my own version.

 

[publiusr]

The good thing about a triangular secondary hull is that it allws great forward port forward starboard firing arcs--and it allows very wide shuttlebays. That would make such designs great for any sci-fi cross-overs.

I can easily see the Millennium Falcon, Space 1999 Eagles, vipers and all kinds of smaller ships in a super-wide secondary hull.

 

[Kemaiku]

And a much more massive surface area for the enemy to pound with their weapons.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Unless they have shields. That makes the shape of the ship irrelevant. Federation ships have their bridges in a very obvious and vulnerable spot after all. Not to mention their propulsion systems (/nacelles).

 

[Kemaiku]

But the shields are always down to [insert stupidly low percentage here] or "failing" in every episode. They really need a new contractor.

 

[Salinga]

I don't think I ever thought the Falcon was ugly. It's essentially a disc, which is a good shape, with an adjustable wrench jaw at the front, which gives it direction and a bit of attitude. The busy surface texture was preceeded by ships and tech in Space Odyssey and Silent Running. The cockpit is from a classic WWII bomber. The only oddity is the cockpit being skewed to one side.

Because in the middle is the docking port for freighter ships. The cockpit is sideways so you can look at the freighter ship while docking it.

It's design is clear: The Falcon is a tool, so it basically looks like one. It's purpose is not to look good, it's purpose is functionality.

 

[JWPlatt]

The things that protect a ship are also the things that decrease the action or drama, so the writers hobble them as necessary. No matter what there is, it will fail.

 

[Salinga]

Actually: Ships in the future dont need bridges. You can connect a terminal to the ship functions everywhere and control the ship there. Already today many connect from home to their workplace, and while they sit in their living room, on their display they see the computer inside the network of their office, maybe even half around the planet. So in "reality" a ship like the Enterprise doesnt need a physical bridge with physical consoles anymore. They wouldnt even need captain within the ship, because the 1701-D could be 100% controlled remote (like drones already do today).

So only for dramatic and story telling purposes the 23rd and 24th century ships still need physical bridges. Even today you could do that with a network connection, a couple guys each with a tablet or laptop and a videoprojector for the viewscreen. The Star Trek ships in this case are pretty 20th century.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Actually: Ships in the future dont need bridges. You can connect a terminal to the ship functions everywhere and control the ship there. Already today many connect from home to their workplace, and while they sit in their living room, on their display they see the computer inside the network of their office, maybe even half around the planet. So in "reality" a ship like the Enterprise doesnt need a physical bridge with physical consoles anymore. They wouldnt even need captain within the ship, because the 1701-D could be 100% controlled remote (like drones already do today).

So only for dramatic and story telling purposes the 23rd and 24th century ships still need physical bridges. Even today you could do that with a network connection, a couple guys each with a tablet or laptop and a videoprojector for the viewscreen. The Star Trek ships in this case are pretty 20th century.

What if something interfered with their signals?

 

[OpenMaw]

You could, but you probably shouldn't.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Because in the middle is the docking port for freighter ships. The cockpit is sideways so you can look at the freighter ship while docking it.

Unless you have one of the many YT-1300 variants with a central cockpit.

https://echostation57.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/yt-1300-variants-from-galaxy-guide-6.jpg
http://orig02.deviantart.net/40a5/f..._freighter_variants_by_reiko_foxx-d4mnxxg.png
http://pre08.deviantart.net/723a/th...rangmouth_d69qkob_by_baronneutron-d6hgivd.png
http://pre05.deviantart.net/3426/th...t_1300_seventh_moon_by_reiko_foxx-d7dpdjb.png

(Which are as canon as your pic.)

It's design is clear: The Falcon is a tool, so it basically looks like one. It's purpose is not to look good, it's purpose is functionality.

Agreed. It's also supposed to look like junk.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Actually: Ships in the future dont need bridges. You can connect a terminal to the ship functions everywhere and control the ship there. Already today many connect from home to their workplace, and while they sit in their living room, on their display they see the computer inside the network of their office, maybe even half around the planet. So in "reality" a ship like the Enterprise doesnt need a physical bridge with physical consoles anymore. They wouldnt even need captain within the ship, because the 1701-D could be 100% controlled remote (like drones already do today).

So only for dramatic and story telling purposes the 23rd and 24th century ships still need physical bridges. Even today you could do that with a network connection, a couple guys each with a tablet or laptop and a videoprojector for the viewscreen. The Star Trek ships in this case are pretty 20th century.

I want the command centre of the new series to be a beach on the holodeck, where the crew lay in the sun and fly the ship from their PADDs.

 

[JWPlatt]

Actually: Ships in the future dont need bridges. You can connect a terminal to the ship functions everywhere and control the ship there. Already today many connect from home to their workplace, and while they sit in their living room, on their display they see the computer inside the network of their office, maybe even half around the planet. So in "reality" a ship like the Enterprise doesnt need a physical bridge with physical consoles anymore. They wouldnt even need captain within the ship, because the 1701-D could be 100% controlled remote (like drones already do today).

So only for dramatic and story telling purposes the 23rd and 24th century ships still need physical bridges. Even today you could do that with a network connection, a couple guys each with a tablet or laptop and a videoprojector for the viewscreen. The Star Trek ships in this case are pretty 20th century.

This is a great concept, theoretically. On a military ship, for example, distributed command - like the internet - would be less prone to failure in battle than if the conventional bridge were hit and destroyed. However, this is probably an idealistic or beginner's concept brought on by academia that an experienced command, or a savvy engineer, would never approve. Basically, you are introducing complexity and more modes of failure which can translate to severe support and reliability issues when under duress. Keeping it simple is paramount. All a conventional bridge crew needs to communicate is an atmosphere to carry the sound waves of local voice commands to the ear. Distributed technology in this profile could introduce critical delay or command failure.

 

[publiusr]

And a much more massive surface area for the enemy to pound with their weapons.

Having a large surface area can be a help on re-entry

On big saucer designs
http://www.astronautix.com/l/lenticularvehicles.html
Kehlet argued that a lenticular vehicle, as a manned spacecraft launched into orbit by a conventional booster, had clear advantages over ballistic, lifting body, and winged designs. At hypersonic re-entry speeds it would undergo lower heating and require less shielding. At the same time it was more maneuverable at subsonic speeds than a winged design, and could land at sea or on land without undercarriage.

Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed. from the wiki about wing-loading

I can imagine Flat and wide--means you can put a hole in something--and still have a lot of margin left--than on a smaller cigar.

Unless you have one of the many YT-1300 variants with a central cockpit.

https://echostation57.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/yt-1300-variants-from-galaxy-guide-6.jpg
http://orig02.deviantart.net/40a5/f..._freighter_variants_by_reiko_foxx-d4mnxxg.png
http://pre08.deviantart.net/723a/th...rangmouth_d69qkob_by_baronneutron-d6hgivd.png
http://pre05.deviantart.net/3426/th...t_1300_seventh_moon_by_reiko_foxx-d7dpdjb.png

I love those

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I like the look of it.

 

[Philip Guyott]

These pictures are interesting as they show that this radical ship design is already established in canon as it has already appeared on screen.

I was trying to guess if the Discovery is the predecessor or successor to these ships. Could they actually be pictures of the Discovery, perhaps a refit design?

Source: http://losttrek.weebly.com/ralph-mcquarries-concept-art.html

 

[eyeresist]

Really, an arrowhead shape automatically means Klingons? The arrowhead/delta/whatever has meant Starfleet for 50 years.

I was also thinking about the positioning of the nacelles.

 

[DavidBu]

Should have an option with something a bit stronger than "slightly". The word fugly comes to mind.

 

[eyeresist]

We need another poll with more options:

• Beautiful
• Not beautiful but interesting
• Not great but acceptable
• Ugly and/or inappropriate, but not a total deal-breaker
• GAAAH! My eyes! My eyes!

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

We need another poll with more options:

• Beautiful
• Not beautiful but interesting
• Not great but acceptable
• Ugly and/or inappropriate, but not a total deal-breaker
• GAAAH! My eyes! My eyes!

That's more like it.

I'm definitely on the "Not beautiful but interesting" camp.