The New USS Discovery....

[Rahul]

Jesus.
We don't know why Trek ships have their bridge on top (in universe). We just know almost all of them have that configuration, so there's probably a in-universe reason for it.

Maybe so that the bridge is furthest away from the center of artificial gravity on the bottom of the ship, and this is to reduce motion sickness induced by artificial gravity for the bridge crew?

Maybe that's the point where the energy shields are the strongest?

Maybe inside the core of every ship is huge friggin' machinery, and basically all habitable modules, including the bridge, are basically "on the outside" built around that core?

We just don't know. But we have to assume there is a reason for it, as it has become deeply ingrained in the design language of Star Trek. Having a window on the bridge on the other hand is non-sense. You don't navigate between planets by looking outside the window, and for all maneuvers that it would be helpful (docking etc.), there are probably a dozen cameras with better angles all around over the ship. All it adds is a structural weak spot, where otherwise two massive layers of outer hull could be.

 

[Rahul]

And just BTW: submarines have their bridge deep inside not because of an advantage in a battle situation, but because of the friggin' WATER surrounding them. A problem a starship doesn't have. If a torpedoe hits a submarine, everyone dies, wether the bridge is in the middle of the sub or somewhere else. So why is it in the middle? Because submarines are fucking blind. They hit stuff, things floating in the water. In sneak mode, when half their sensor equipment needs to be turned off, they even risk hitting rocks and the bottom of the ocean. And in this case, it makes absolutely sense to put the command module in a place the water breaches in least. Again, a problem starships clearly don't have.

Really, this is not about realism, because none of us know how faster-than-light starships would work, really. But about believability, which is strengthened if in-universe rules are enforced, and eventual contradictions explained.

 

[DrCorby]

Personally, I would rather the two find a healthy balancing point of a mix, rather than separate houses. Maybe Abrams introduced too much Star Wars to the franchise, but I'm ok with it. I mean, it's not like Star Trek's demonstration of the warp speed effect is realistic or consistent.

And I'd rather have two separate universes, telling their own stories, rather than stirring elements together. A wider range of things to watch, a broad spectrum of story possibilities, rather then a few things that share similar elements, making them hard to tell apart. Boring. It's a big universe; show me something new!

As far as Star Trek's warp effect, there were basically two varieties. TOS just showed stars flowing by. From The Motion Picture on, the movies and TV series used some variation of the "rubber band snap", a flash upon entering warp, and then stars, often stretched, moving past. And, you could see the universe around you -- ships, planets, phenomena, etc. Some small variations, but pretty consistent for most of the franchise's life.

In Abrams' Star Trek (2009), I realize he wanted the Enterprise crew suprised when they arrived at Vulcan, unaware of the battle going on or the destruction in its wake. Previously, incoming ships would have detected all this w/ long-range scanners. (See the Enterprise-D arriving at the site of the Battle of Wolf-359.) So instead, Abrams opted to use a device that he knew and already liked from Star Wars -- drop your heroes unexpectedly into a debris field, emotionally impacted by the scene of destruction while dodging the debris. Dropping out of warp into the wreckage of Starfleet perfectly recalled dropping out of hyperspace into the debris of Alderaan. And thus I was pulled out of a Star Trek movie to marvel at how a scene from Star Wars had been recreated.

I know JJ wanted that surprise, but he crossed the streams (to torture the metaphor w/ a third franchise) and made a Star Trek movie feel like a Star Wars movie in that spot. Me, I prefer one at a time. YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

Jesus.
We don't know why Trek ships have their bridge on top (in universe). We just know almost all of them have that configuration, so there's probably a in-universe reason for it.

Maybe so that the bridge is furthest away from the center of artificial gravity on the bottom of the ship, and this is to reduce motion sickness induced by artificial gravity for the bridge crew?

Maybe that's the point where the energy shields are the strongest?

Maybe inside the core of every ship is huge friggin' machinery, and basically all habitable modules, including the bridge, are basically "on the outside" built around that core?

We just don't know. But we have to assume there is a reason for it, as it has become deeply ingrained in the design language of Star Trek. Having a window on the bridge on the other hand is non-sense. You don't navigate between planets by looking outside the window, and for all maneuvers that it would be helpful (docking etc.), there are probably a dozen cameras with better angles all around over the ship. All it adds is a structural weak spot, where otherwise two massive layers of outer hull could be.

Sure, there are plenty of reasons that could be the reason, but one has never been established. It simply is. So, when there are questions about a new design, I'm honestly just curious to see it in action. The viewscreen/window bothers me so little that I don't understand the objection.

Same thing with Discovery's cutouts. I mean the Romulan Warbird has a gigantic cutout as a design, but I rarely its tactical soundness questioned. So, it just feels like objecting to change for the sake of the fact that it is change.

And I'd rather have two separate universes, telling their own stories, rather than stirring elements together. A wider range of things to watch, a broad spectrum of story possibilities, rather then a few things that share similar elements, making them hard to tell apart. Boring. It's a big universe; show me something new!

As far as Star Trek's warp effect, there were basically two varieties. TOS just showed stars flowing by. From The Motion Picture on, the movies and TV series used some variation of the "rubber band snap", a flash upon entering warp, and then stars, often stretched, moving past. And, you could see the universe around you -- ships, planets, phenomena, etc. Some small variations, but pretty consistent for most of the franchise's life.

In Abrams' Star Trek (2009), I realize he wanted the Enterprise crew suprised when they arrived at Vulcan, unaware of the battle going on or the destruction in its wake. Previously, incoming ships would have detected all this w/ long-range scanners. (See the Enterprise-D arriving at the site of the Battle of Wolf-359.) So instead, Abrams opted to use a device that he knew and already liked from Star Wars -- drop your heroes unexpectedly into a debris field, emotionally impacted by the scene of destruction while dodging the debris. Dropping out of warp into the wreckage of Starfleet perfectly recalled dropping out of hyperspace into the debris of Alderaan. And thus I was pulled out of a Star Trek movie to marvel at how a scene from Star Wars had been recreated.

I know JJ wanted that surprise, but he crossed the streams (to torture the metaphor w/ a third franchise) and made a Star Trek movie feel like a Star Wars movie in that spot. Me, I prefer one at a time. YMMV.

Agree to disagree. I think both universes can learn from the other, and have thought that since I was 12, and that there are ways to be invested in the universe, while sharing some visual language.

And, again, agree to disagree. I did not have flashbacks to Alderaan. I was in that moment amazed at the destruction, and hoping someone survived.

 

[DrCorby]

Same thing with Discovery's cutouts. I mean the Romulan Warbird has a gigantic cutout as a design, but I rarely its tactical soundness questioned.

I agree. The Next Gen warbird was pure aesthetics, big and threatening. And I'm liking what I'm seeing of the Discovery. The hull shape and the cut-outs give it a new dynamic.

Agree to disagree. I think both universes can learn from the other, and have thought that since I was 12, and that there are ways to be invested in the universe, while sharing some visual language.

And, again, agree to disagree. I did not have flashbacks to Alderaan. I was in that moment amazed at the destruction, and hoping someone survived.

Fair enough. Maybe because I read a lot of SF, I like a variety in how universes look and feel. I want Niven, Clarke, Asimov, and Baxter to all be different. And I feel the same about SF TV and movies. Looking forward to the new Valerian movie -- something very different to see!

 

[Ithekro]

Would this work better?

 

[fireproof78]

I agree. The Next Gen warbird was pure aesthetics, big and threatening. And I'm liking what I'm seeing of the Discovery. The hull shape and the cut-outs give it a new dynamic.



Fair enough. Maybe because I read a lot of SF, I like a variety in how universes look and feel. I want Niven, Clarke, Asimov, and Baxter to all be different. And I feel the same about SF TV and movies. Looking forward to the new Valerian movie -- something very different to see!

Don't mistake me. I love variety, but I think that Star Wars and Star Trek strive too hard to be different from one another that they actively ignore anything that could be useful or beneficial in the storytelling.

I love variety, have read Heinlein, Herbert, Butcher, Brooks, Bova and the rest. But, I also know that stories can build and draw upon each other and that doesn't take away from the work. Primarily because context matters so much in terms of the work.

Take your point about the destruction of Alderaan vs. the attack at Vulcan. In the former, the audience already knows what has happened, and Han Solo's skepticism is laughable. Compare that to the latter when the audience is taken along for the ride of that reveal. Similar? Maybe, but the overall impact on me was vastly different.

 

[Mach5]

Would this work better?

Jesus Christ, you people had one job.

And the window-viewscreen, apart from looking WAY cooler than a plain flat-screen TV, makes a whole lot of sense, actually. Remember TNG's "Peak Performance"?

WORF: With my knowledge of the Enterprise's security override, we may be able to convince the sensors that an enemy ship is approaching. Their instruments would lie to them.
RIKER: If you can pull that off, Mister Worf, it might just give us the edge we're looking for.
NAGEL: (a lady officer) But what about the viewscreen?
WORF: If I am successful, the computer will project a false image of the enemy ship on the main viewscreen.
RIKER: So unless someone runs to a window and looks out
NAGEL: They're going to fall for it.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Would this work better?

Jesus Christ, you people had one job.

Always go for YUP, never with YEP. YEP is too friendly...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And just BTW: submarines have their bridge deep inside not because of an advantage in a battle situation, but because of the friggin' WATER surrounding them. A problem a starship doesn't have. If a torpedoe hits a submarine, everyone dies, wether the bridge is in the middle of the sub or somewhere else. So why is it in the middle? Because submarines are fucking blind. They hit stuff, things floating in the water. In sneak mode, when half their sensor equipment needs to be turned off, they even risk hitting rocks and the bottom of the ocean. And in this case, it makes absolutely sense to put the command module in a place the water breaches in least. Again, a problem starships clearly don't have.

Really, this is not about realism, because none of us know how faster-than-light starships would work, really. But about believability, which is strengthened if in-universe rules are enforced, and eventual contradictions explained.

Will you stop using logic and making sense? Can't you see it's too frowned upon here? All someone has to do is use a stupid Cumbernope meme and instantly all your logical arguments are invalid.

 

[DrCorby]

And the window-viewscreen, apart from looking WAY cooler than a plain flat-screen TV, makes a whole lot of sense, actually. Remember TNG's "Peak Performance"?

Actually, if you want to talk about making sense in the real world, most ships the Enterprise would encounter in space would probably be too far away to see with the naked eye as anything more than a dim speck of light. We've been conditioned from years of SF movies and TV (like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate SG-1, and Battlestar Galactica) to expect to see two ships hanging nose-to-nose. That makes no more sense (in almost every case) than looking out a window on the command deck, unless you're using a telescope.

Again, it's all about the dramatic presentation, not about real-world physics. Besides, I think that a viewscreen w/ useful data superimposed, targeting solutions pinpointed, and sensor summaries scrolling on the side looks waaaay cooler than a window set into a deep frame, which restricts the viewing angle even further...

 

[Mach5]

Actually, if you want to talk about making sense in the real world, most ships the Enterprise would encounter in space would probably be too far away to see with the naked eye as anything more than a dim speck of light. We've been conditioned from years of SF movies and TV (like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate SG-1, and Battlestar Galactica) to expect to see two ships hanging nose-to-nose. That makes no more sense (in almost every case) than looking out a window on the command deck, unless you're using a telescope.

Again, it's all about the dramatic presentation, not about real-world physics. Besides, I think that a viewscreen w/ useful data superimposed, targeting solutions pinpointed, and sensor summaries scrolling on the side looks waaaay cooler than a window set into a deep frame, which restricts the viewing angle even further...

Are you going to lecture me about sounds in space next?

 

[137th Gebirg]

You...you mean there aren't sounds in space? WTF?!?

 

[DrCorby]

Are you going to lecture me about sounds in space next?

Sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative. Just seemed like you were overlooking or discounting obvious limitations of merely looking out a window to see another ship, implying it made real-world sense. No matter how amusing the quoted line was...

 

[Mach5]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative. Just seemed like you were overlooking or discounting obvious limitations of merely looking out a window to see another ship, implying it made real-world sense. No matter how cute the quoted line was...

I never expected Star Trek to make "real world sense", nor did Trek ever really strive to make "real world sense". It's a sci-fi/fantasy franchise with its own internal logic.

 

[DrCorby]

You...you mean there aren't sounds in space? WTF?!?

"Open fire!"

<pew> <pew>

"Run away!"

<whooosh!>

 

[137th Gebirg]

Everything I've ever been told has been a LIE!

 

[Psion]

I never expected Star Trek to make "real world sense", nor did Trek ever really strive to make "real world sense". It's a sci-fi/fantasy franchise with its own internal logic.

Well, then, hopefully in future Treks, they'll put in window screening so the windows can be opened to air out the bridge after a tense battle without letting space-flies in.

 

[DrCorby]

And the window-viewscreen, apart from looking WAY cooler than a plain flat-screen TV, makes a whole lot of sense, actually.

I never expected Star Trek to make "real world sense", nor did Trek ever really strive to make "real world sense". It's a sci-fi/fantasy franchise with its own internal logic.

Apparently, I completely misunderstood when you said the window "makes a whole lot of sense" in your previous post that you didn't mean "real world sense". (Emphasis mine.) My bad...

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Of course there are sounds in space. We just can't hear them.

 

[Rahul]

Trekmovie has a new article with new PICTURES of the final, approved Discovery-design:

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/20/sdc...ept-art-details-klingon-and-federation-ships/


And jeeezus do these super-long nacelles look ugly... The ones from the teaser last year were WAY more preferable...