Discovery starship discussion [SPOILERS]

[Crazy Eddie]

Has there been any information/speculation about the sizes of the ships in this show?

Well, there is this:

Its about the same length as the 1701 more or less

I don't think so. It seems clear to me that Discovery has a much longer and thinner silhouette than the original Enterprise. On the other hand, the shuttle bay has about the same height as the Constitution class, and the bridge module is about the same size. This tells me the proportions of most of its main features are comparable, which means we have a good estimate for length and width.

As in the above diagram, which seems to draw on the same cues, discovery is considerably longer than 1701, easily in the 700 meter range (so the 790 figure from Trekyards could well be correct), which would give Discovery about 18 decks and a somewhat greater volume than the Constitution as well.

The Shenzou looked around half the size of the 1701, based on the picture we were shown of Burnham standing on the edge of the saucer, both the engineering section and the saucer itself look considerably smaller than the 1701.

In this case, size is almost meaningless to compare; Shenzhou is a bulky vessel that consists almost entirely of saucer and a smallish engineering section attached to its belly. The saucer section alone is probably the size size as the Constitution's saucer if not slightly larger, with the long nacelles extending aft behind it. That would give it an overall length of about 300 meters or more; longer than the TOS Constitution, but still smaller in every way that counts.

I would be fine with a big 500-600m Discovery but it really doesn't look anything like that big to the naked eye in the footage we have seen so far

It's at least 600 meters measuring from the shuttlebay to the front of the saucer. Those ample nacelles add a bit to the profile, though.

 

[David cgc]

Looks like those diagrams were more literal than they seemed. When the Discovery fires up the Spore Drive, the upper and lower surfaces of both saucers spin. The rims don't, though, so it's not the entire saucer that moves, just the outside surfaces, so we don't have to worry about how all the corridors and turboshafts and whatnot stay connected.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Which one of those technologies would enable a pilot to safely fly an aircraft at low altitude without windows?


What futuristic FTL starship technology would enable a pilot to safely operate a one hundred thousand ton starship without windows?


We've established that they need to be able to see the ground at least to a certain extent, and that aircraft whose visibility is limited have historically had problems doing this. Significantly, every combat aircraft currently in service -- even craft designed to engage targets well beyond visual range, even craft that are capable of taking off and landing without a pilot's intervention, even aircraft that can be flown entirely by infrared sensors without any external visuals at all, still have a large transparent canopy to enclose the pilot, usually at considerable cost to design utility (bubble canopy ruins stealth characteristics on tactical fighters and is terrible for the craft's aerodynamics.

I mean, I totally get that It's The Future and our technology should be too advanced to deal with something so primitive as windows... but in that case, why do WE still use windows, given the technology we already have?

Lest you think that's a rhetorical question, the answer is this: because people who operate flying machines need to be able to see where they're going. The easiest way to see where you're going is, more than than not, by looking out of a window.

In this case, increased ground visibility, the utility of which was demonstrated literally fifteen seconds into Discovery's first appearance, is one very likely advantage of having the bridge positioned on the bottom of the saucer.


I am not aware of a single manned spacecraft in all of human history that DIDN'T have any windows. From Vostok-1 to the Space Shuttle, they ALL have them.

So saying that spaceships and aircraft don't/won't have a need for windows is more than a little pretentious on your part: for whatever reason, people way smarter than either of us, people who get paid millions of dollars to design things that cost billions of dollars, on which lives often depend, on which the destinies of entire nations often depend, still continue to install windows on their designs.

Windows? Seriously? Who’s talking about windows? So, after losing the argument you decide to change the subject. For the last 2 pages this discussion was about bridges and cockpits and their placement in starships, aircraft and ships. In your last post you decide to talk about... windows? When did I say anything in this thread about windows or their lack of? That’s right, nowhere! Because the debate was about the position of the bridge. Top or bottom, up or down, above or below. In fact it was a discussion that you yourself started!!! Remember?...

So nobody's going to comment on how awesome it is that Shenzhou's bridge is on the BOTTOM of the saucer?

So either address the debate subject that you started or don't bother quoting me with irrelevancies like windows and rear-view mirrors.

Clearly you should go work for Northrop Grumman or something, set all those silly people straight about how pointless it is to put windows on their fucking airplanes since they're so incredibly useless in the 21st century. Here's their careers page if you want to apply; your engineering knowledge is surely too impressive for them to pass up, since you know better than every aerospace engineer on the planet how combat aircraft, space ships and commercial airliners out to be designed.

Thanks but I’d prefer Lockheed Martin or Boeing. Better hours.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Windows? Seriously? Who’s talking about windows?

When I said

Sensors don't give you enough information to navigate by at low altitudes. Even video/camera feeds probably wouldn't suffice for that. There are entire series of aircraft whose low altitude performance was hindered by poor pilot visibility due to overly large noses (the Concord and the F-111 being the most famous examples).

What the hell did you THINK I was talking about? Cupholders? Were you confused and thought I was talking about the noses on the pilots' faces?

the debate was about the position of the bridge. Top or bottom, up or down, above or below...

... and why the position of the bridge -- and therefore the WINDOW -- makes more sense on the bottom of the saucer than it does on the top.

Because flying at low altitude is easier and safer if the pilot/helmsman can see the terrain around and below the ship. "Seeing" is facilitated by the presence of...

Wait for it...

WINDOWS

Drink some coffee or something and try to keep up, dude.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

When I said

What the hell did you THINK I was talking about? Cupholders?

Oh I’m pretty sure you’ll be diverting the conversation to cup holders soon enough.

... and why the position of the bridge -- and therefore the WINDOW -- makes more sense on the bottom of the saucer than it does on the top.

Are you sure this is about the position of bridge? Maybe you really want to discuss windshield wipers?

Drink some coffee or something and try to keep up, dude.

Thanks. I’ll do that while you have fun...

Anyway I’m done with the window cleaning.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Oh I’m... [nonsense snipped]

So as usual, after being called out for making a ridiculous statement you CLEARLY failed to properly think through, you have now shifted to Maximum Butthurt in an attempt to save face.

 

[Spike730]

Discovery was built at San Francisco Fleet Yards according to the dedication plaque.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

So as usual, after being called out for making a ridiculous statement you CLEARLY failed to properly think through, you have now shifted to Maximum Butthurt in an attempt to save face.

Let’s see...

So nobody's going to comment on how awesome it is that Shenzhou's bridge is on the BOTTOM of the saucer?

the bottom of the saucer is a much more logical place to put the bridge

The hanging gondola puts the bridge in a much safer position

the bridge in that position

t's CERTAINLY a better place for the bridge

All in all, the Gondola Bridge

the position of major engineering components (secondary hull and/or warp nacelles) reduces the line of fire to the bridge and makes that position

adding extra protection to both the warp core AND the bridge

Having the bridge hanging below the saucer serves the exploration purpose for a ship that likes to fly around in atmo.

and why the position of the bridge

makes more sense on the bottom of the saucer than it does on the top

And the punchline...

What the hell did you THINK I was talking about?

Wait for it...

WINDOWS

 

[Avro Arrow]

"United Federation of Planets ... Edition 0.001"? (<- do the little question marks even show up for those of you using the default white theme?)

 

[Timo]

The surfaces rotate nicely so that even the phaser banks remain static...

Stamets basically claims the ship was built to his specs. The spinning parts appear to be a spore drive addition; is the entire saucer configuration a spore drive thing, or something adapted for the purposes of Stamets?

This ep makes it clear the ship was really built to be a "science vessel" and now has to cope with being a warship. I guess this is the first time a science vessel is so much larger than all the onscreen combat ships of the era...

The Discovery being a science ship is a great excuse for the Security Chief getting involved in the space combat aspects; we don't have to believe in TNG style nonsense here if we don't want to.

What else? Am I reading the doors right and Burnham lives on Deck 7? That's surely in the saucer, right? (Could be the neck as well, though.)

A weird attack on Corvan II - just a gaggle of Birds of Prey. Is this the force that overwhelmed the local starship defenses? Would more substantial Klingon forces be on their way, along with Starfleet reinforcements?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cpt. Kyle Amasov]

- Corvan II was mentioned on TNG.
- Lorca's map correctly places much of the Empire in the Beta Quadrant. Did they use the star charts as a template? That map looks oddly familiar.
- The emergency message mentions that all patrol ships were destroyed. I suppose that, combined with planetary shields and the defense ring, was considered sufficient to protect the planet (we don't know how thin their ressources are stretched). Also, the next ship is 48 hours away. I guess the planet is not that close to the border.
- the use of that old UPF seal
- finally a good view of the Klingon cruiser and the sarcophagus ship. I start to like them both.
- all those who were concerned about the Star Wars-hyperjump effect: Discovery going to warp looks just like it should, including rainbow streaks.
- First look at sickbay, and I really like that one.
-... and I absolutely loved the visuals of the scenes aboard the derelict Shenzhou.
- Also, Shenzhou warp core. Did we see that set before? It does remind me a little of the TMP/TWOK look of the core.
- Looks like the engineering section on the Glenn (and Discovery) is located close to the shuttle bay. Glenn did not have a forrest, unlike Discovery. They stored the spores in their cargo bays, which are located at the bottom of the secondary hull.
- We get a quick look at an MSD-type graphic, showing the deck layout of the Glenn
- something about distances: they talk about Bird of Prey being 1000 kilometers, then 500 kilometers away while they clearly buzz around the ship. But Trek was never any good at handling distances in space (or in the atmosphere, for this matter)
- from the data file: Georgiou was born on Earth in 2202 and attrended the academy from 20-24, Burnham was born on Earth in 2226 and attended the Vulcan Science Academy from 2245-2249

Overall, a really satisfying Star Trek episode. As for Trek-iness, possibly the best one yet.

Reference photos: https://imgur.com/a/o5PU3

 

[Timo]

- The Shenzhou derelict has actually lost gravity! Amazing. Except it's restored for Voq's banishment.
- The BoPs might have been interpreted as really being hundreds of miles away (but not thousands of kilometers!) in some shots if we accept those are not "window mode" shots but "viewscreen mode" ones, with extreme zoom. But then there's the outside view of the BoPs swarming the hero ship while still either "500 km" or at least "20 km" off...
- Still no shot of a graphic or plaque that would show a commissioning date.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gonzo]

Well, there is this:

I don't think so. It seems clear to me that Discovery has a much longer and thinner silhouette than the original Enterprise. On the other hand, the shuttle bay has about the same height as the Constitution class, and the bridge module is about the same size. This tells me the proportions of most of its main features are comparable, which means we have a good estimate for length and width.

As in the above diagram, which seems to draw on the same cues, discovery is considerably longer than 1701, easily in the 700 meter range (so the 790 figure from Trekyards could well be correct), which would give Discovery about 18 decks and a somewhat greater volume than the Constitution as well.



In this case, size is almost meaningless to compare; Shenzhou is a bulky vessel that consists almost entirely of saucer and a smallish engineering section attached to its belly. The saucer section alone is probably the size size as the Constitution's saucer if not slightly larger, with the long nacelles extending aft behind it. That would give it an overall length of about 300 meters or more; longer than the TOS Constitution, but still smaller in every way that counts.


It's at least 600 meters measuring from the shuttlebay to the front of the saucer. Those ample nacelles add a bit to the profile, though.

Yeah I have seen those pictures already and in my comparison I ignored the extremely long nacelles so as not to upset those who wont like the larger size, I myself don't mind how big it is.

My main reference point for the size of the Discovery was the shuttlebay which was a couple of stories high and no more than 75 metres across, with the engines and pylons for the nacelles continuing on each side that gives a rough idea of the size of the engineering hull.

I don't use bridge modules to judge size as they can vary depending on how many seated positions there are on the bridge and the function of the ship.

Hence why I said the overall size was comparable but the Discovery wins hands down on volume simply due to how it is designed.

Must admit I haven't gone into the sizing properly yet as we only had the one episode to compare and I am not the sort to start measuring windows and airlocks.

Still if we include the extended nacelles in that length which I didn't then that would make the superstructure of the ship about 400-450m with the nacelles the rest.

I based the Shenzou sizing on the picture of Burnham standing on the edge of the saucer in one of the prerelease pictures, the saucer looked much smaller than that of the saucer in the new films for instance, it could be bigger but I haven't got any rulers out or anything like that.

It didn't look that big in the footage with only a single deck at the edge but I used only my eyes to judge so it could easily be bigger.

If the Discovery is in the 600m total length range that begs questions about the size of Starfleets ships we saw in the first two episodes like the Europa, they were quite small when compared to T'Kuvmas ship, which would make it the size of a Romulan Warbird or bigger.

I am erring on the side of caution for now with ship sizes as we may see one of the Constitution class ships and if the Discovery and Shenzou are bigger what will that mean for the Enterprise if it is encountered as this is supposed to be prime timeline.

It would set off the whole reboot or no reboot discussion all over again.

I myself like the idea of it being about the same overall size and volume as the Excelsior with the nacelles an additional length beyond that, other may (violently) disagree.

I haven't seen last nights episode yet so hopefully we will get some new footage.

 

[Spike730]

Huh, after seeing the "new" UFP logo it's no wonder the Klingons think of the UFP as a Homo sapiens only club.

 

[oberth]

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere (hard to keep up with the threads in the Discovery forum!), but according to the Eaglemoss website, the Discovery is a Crossfield Class starship.

I guess I was hoping for something more spacey or majestic (like, say, "Discovery" ), but apparently in this era Starfleet likes to name their class ships after test pilots.

it's a test ship -> methinks that's fitting

the bigger problem is what happened to uss crossfiled? as i understood it discovery is alone now = there's no more ship with a shroom drive out there. the crossfield class is obviously built to test that shroomdrive (moving saucer segments !!). i expect an explanation in a later episode.

 

[Timo]

With foreheads that bumpy and spikey...?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

Might be the class is built to do science, and to accommodate crazy experiments - and that one accommodating feature is a swappable saucer, in this model swapped for a Spore Drive Bleedoff Ring Thing.

One just wonders what else is optional. Do all Crossfields have the long nacelles?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Spike730]

That's supposed to be hair IMO.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

it's a test ship -> methinks that's fitting

the bigger problem is what happened to uss crossfiled? as i understood it discovery is alone now = there's no more ship with a shroom drive out there. the crossfield class is obviously built to test that shroomdrive (moving saucer segments !!). i expect an explanation in a later episode.

Good question. If the Discovery’s class is indeed the Crossfield-class, is there a USS Crossfield and if there is what happened to it. In naval and Starfleet tradition the name of a ship class is most commonly the name of the lead ship, the first ship commissioned or built of its design. So a USS Crossfield must exist. It’s implied though that only the USS Glenn and the USS Discovery where fitted with the experimental Spore Drive. So either not all ships of the Crossfield-class where chosen for the field tests, or that the Glenn and Discovery belong to a subclass of ships. In the course of building a class of ships, design changes might be implemented. In such a case, the ships of different design might not be considered of the same class; each variation would be a subclass of the original class. So maybe the USS Crossfield doesn’t even have negative saucer space and the counter-rotating rings of the Discovery or the long nacelles. Perhaps when/if we see it, it will have a more conventional appearance like the early promotional material of the USS Discovery showed.

 

[oberth]

I'm sort of wondering whether the bridge of the Shenzhou even offers any sort of a view down. I mean, the helm pulpit is set so far back that the windows aren't much help there - the "lower horizon" would be just as bad if the bridge were atop the ship.

But the vistas for idle observation are nice, for those officers who walk all the way to the edge of the bridge.

Timo Saloniemi

shouldn't this gondola look a lot like an he-111 fishbowl cockpit?