Starship design history in light of Discovery

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

2160s(?)

Daedalus-class

2190s(?)

Einstein-class (assuming Federation: The First 100 Years)

???-class

???-class

2220s(?)

Shepard-class

Cardenas-class

Hoover-class

Nimitz-class

Crossfield-class

2240s(?)

Constitution-class (assuming Robert April date of 2240s)

Saladin-class

2250s(?)

???-class (Ralph MacQuarrie study model from Qualor II)

2270s(?)

Constitution-class refit

What are everyone's thoughts on how well the starships of Burnham's era fit in?

Obviously this is just for fun, so please treat everybody's opinions with respect.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Could someone edit the thread title, I basically pressed enter and it posted - was gonna say Star Trek: Discovery at the end.

 

[Galaxy]

Crossfield class would appear to be the newest of the bunch.

Also it would appear that they are going for the Constitution class having a unique design language. Granted, a bit bold of me to say that, since they have never shown it, but I would say that the novel Desperate Hours is semi-canon considering that the Discovery staff had input.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Thanks cultcross!

@Galaxy - Yeah, it seems that they might be suggesting the Constitution class programme was a special exploration initiative like the Apollo missions, for Starfleet and the Federation. Interestingly, Star Trek: Continues, which just ended, made this suggestion too, and I can't recommend it strongly enough, it was amazing and tied into The Motion Picture's themes to an astounding degree. It suggests that the Constitution class are the top-of-the-line explorers, which fits nicely with what Burnham said about getting a posing on a Constitution class - they are like a special assignment. If Star Trek: Discovery's uniforms represent the mainstream duty uniforms, and Pike's uniforms are the special ones for the 5 year missions, that would make sense.

 

[F. King Daniel]

2160s

Daedalus-class

2190s

Einstein-class

???-class

???-class

2220s(?)

Shepard-class

Cardenas-class

Nimitz-class

Crossfield-class

2240s

Constitution-class

Saladin-class

Thoughts on how well the starships of Burnham's era fit in?

The Kelvin was launched 2225 according to the recent Trek Encyclopedia.

In answer to your question, I don't think they do at all and I don't think they're trying to. Same with the Klingon ships. It's a new Trek with a new look.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The Kelvin was launched 2225 according to the recent Trek Encyclopedia.

In answer to your question, I don't think they do at all and I don't think they're trying to. Same with the Klingon ships. It's a new Trek with a new look.

That's an understandable position, if you feel the designs jar against old ones too much, however they are apparently meant to fit:

“We are the original timeline with the TV shows and movies that fit into that,” Goldsman said during a press conference at New York Comic Con. “We are wildly aware of everything that appears to be a deviation from canon and we will close out all of those issues before they arrive at the 10-year period and hit The Original Series.”
​

Looking at the material props and stuff of The Motion Picture era, I am not convinced that Discovery is too far from what we saw of Star Trek around then - security officers wearing body armor - space suits with thruster packs - etc.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The TOS Enterprise's overall design dates back "about forty years" per The Making Of Star Trek (1968), so that's 2220s, even if she herself wasn't individually launched until 2245 per later background materials. (Neither was ever specified onscreen.) Where are the Bonaventure, Franklin, NX, other various ENT ships, TAS freighters and drones, Shenzhou, Oberth, Miranda, etc.? It's misleading to interpolate/extrapolate a straight line (or smooth curve) from scattered points, especially when you've omitted a lot of known points.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The TOS Enterprise's overall design dates back "about forty years" per The Making Of Star Trek (1968), so that's 2220s, even if she herself wasn't individually launched until 2245 per later background materials. (Neither was ever specified onscreen.) Where are the Bonaventure, Franklin, NX, other various ENT ships, TAS freighters and drones, Shenzhou, Oberth, Miranda, etc.? It's misleading to interpolate/extrapolate a straight line (or smooth curve) from scattered points, especially when you've omitted a lot of known points.

The dates are guesses and non-canon speculation, based on things like the Chronology, First 100 Years, etc. They are entirely free to move around. I should have put more question marks to indicate their unofficial/provisional nature.

 

[Tuskin38]

the Discovery was described as 'Brand new' and the most advanced ship in the fleet, so I'd put it after the Connie.

IMO the ships in Discovery (other then the Shenzhou) are in between 2250s and the 2270s based on how the nacelles are designed and other hull details, like the weapon hardpoints.

 

[Infern0]

We have been through this type of thing before, they can't have corny 60's looking ships flying around that look like they are made of empty toilet roll tubes hanging on wires against a matte painting of stars. It's 2017, just gotta deal with it, if it tells a good story then who cares.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Please God, no!

 

[XCV330]

I love the old ugly Daedalous. I wish it would make an appearance. Or an Einstein. Or even an ancient old Intrepid type, or Franklin type.

I have a thought in my head there is probably nothing to it, but I wonder if they avoided the look of round nacelles not only to keep them clear of the Abrams ship looks, but also of (I hate to say it, but I'm going to say it) Axanar.


edited to add: or just bring out this: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/B-24-CLN
it's already canonical and could be the non-Spore drive Crossfield class

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

the Discovery was described as 'Brand new' and the most advanced ship in the fleet, so I'd put it after the Connie.

IMO the ships in Discovery (other then the Shenzhou) are in between 2250s and the 2270s based on how the nacelles are designed and other hull details, like the weapon hardpoints.

This is an interesting possibility - it would be understandable, if, like you say, these designs represented what came after TOS but before TMP. Originally. before the show started, that is where I would have guessed Ralph MacQuarrie's design came from - poetically, in real life, it was designed before the refit Enterprise too.

I wonder where the Walker-class fits in - the Shenzhou was considered an older ship, as you say. It seems to share some elements with the others, probably mainly because they all came from John Eaves. One possibility is, perhaps they might push the Constitution class back to the 2220s, and have the Shenzhou still be more modern, like 2231 - but higher registry might still broadly mean newer.

I love the old ugly Daedalous. I wish it would make an appearance. Or an Einstein. Or even an ancient old Intrepid type, or Franklin type.

I have a thought in my head there is probably nothing to it, but I wonder if they avoided the look of round nacelles not only to keep them clear of the Abrams ship looks, but also of (I hate to say it, but I'm going to say it) Axanar.

Yeah honestly, when I heard they were deliberately told to not have round nacelles, my first thought was also "maybe they are trying to distance their designs from Axanar", but didn't want to say it.

I would also love to see some ugly old utilitarian designs turn up, even if only as a wreak or hulk.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Okay, a revised list, with some non-canon additions for fun:

2160s(?)

NX-class refit

Daedalus-class

2170s(?)

Bonaventure-class

2190s(?)

Baton Rouge-class

2200s(?)

Walker-class

2220s(?)

Einstein-class

???-class

???-class

???-class

2230s(?)

Constitution-class

Saladin-class

Antares-class

2250s(?)

Shepard-class

Cardenas-class

Crossfield-class

2270s

Constitution-class refit

Miranda-class

Constellation-class

2280s(?)

Oberth-class

Excelsior-class

Notably, if this sort of order is correct, registry would not seem to correspond at all to the apparent age of the design - the Saladin class has a three digit registry - the Mayflower, Newton, etc, types have registries higher than the newer USS Enterprise - so this lends substantial credence to Tuskin38's interpretation - and would lend a lot of evidence to the idea registry represents something different to production number - in the past I thought registry generally represented age, but something like this:

Perhaps the original contract of 12 ships bear consecutive registries (and that the reason for lower numbers on later ships is because other shipyards were awarded contracts to build ships prior to their contract being sent) - obviously this is for fun and has no basis canon:

Batch 1 (San Francisco Fleet Yards):

USS Constitution NCC-1700
USS Enterprise NCC-1701
USS Hornet NCC-1702
USS Hood NCC-1703
USS Intrepid NCC-1704
USS Independence NCC-1705
USS Franklin NCC-1706
USS Midway NCC-1707
USS Iwo Jima NCC-1708
USS Lexington NCC-1709
USS Yorktown NCC-1710
USS Wasp NCC-1711

Batch 2 (Antares Fleet Yards):

USS Constellation NCC-1017 ???
USS ?????????? NCC-???? ???

Batch 3 (Utopia Planet Fleet Yards):

USS Potemkin NCC-1659 ???
USS ??????? NCC-???? ???
USS ??????? NCC-???? ???
USS ??????? NCC-???? ???
USS ??????? NCC-???? ???
USS Excalibur NCC-1664 ???

Batch 4 (41 Eridani Fleet Yards):

USS ????? NCC-???? ???
USS Exeter NCC-1672 ???

Batch 5 (San Fransisco Fleet Yards):

USS ?????? NCC-???? ???
USS Defiant NCC-1764 ???

Batch 6 (Utopia Planetia Fleet Yards):

USS ???????? NCC-???? ???
USS Endevour NCC-1856 ???​

But where that made a fair bit of sense, perhaps the registry does not even represent contracts, but something more like what I once saw suggested by someone else once - like a component of two numbers - the first two digits represent the first two digits of an appropriations bill, or the last two digits, or something - and the second represent the production number within that bill. I dunno if that makes sense, just throwing the idea out there:

Federation Council / Appropriations Bill SC-098-05 - Stardate 2223:
Batch 01, Ship production number 14, San Francisco Fleet Yards
USS Kelvin, NCC-0514
​

But then that also would not explain the production numbers of some of the Constitution class ships in official canon, so I guess some combination of the two systems might make sense, or there are more than two components to the reigistry:

Federation Council Appropriations Bill SC-H76-117
San Francisco Fleet Yards Contract XGY98-00
Build at Earth:
Ship 1: USS Constitution NCC 1700
Ship 2: USS Enterprise NCC 1701

Federation Council Appropriations Bill SC-H76-216
Utopia Planetia Shipyards Contract XFS09-72
Built at Mars:
Ship 1: USS Exeter NCC 1672
Ship 2: USS ?????? NCC 1673

Federation Council Appropriations Bill SC-H76-310
41 Eridani Shipyards Contract HYU17-16
Built at Vulcan:
Ship 1: USS ??????????? 1016
Ship 2: USS Constellation 1017
​

Or with shipyards having a rolling counter that re-sets every hundred maybe? I dunno, just throwing some ideas out. Maybe like warp scales, they were re-calibrated to a five digit number before TNG, except where ships had a special lineage like the USS Enterprise.

 

[Tim Thomason]

My interpretation of registry numbers is that, sometimes, ships undergo decades of scrapped plans in the design stage. The Kelvin, Constellation, Glenn, and Discovery may have all been originally designed as something else that was cancelled, and the registry (and ship name?) re-used at a later period in either a "modernized" program or alongside a class similar to its original plan.

The first two (originally one, later three) numbers might represent class, with the final two representing the contracted ship. But San Francisco or Utopia Planitia "buys" these contracts and sometimes, due to shortages or mass orders, holds onto them for decades and has to utilize them for different purposes at later dates, when Starfleet stops contracting ships for some reason.

That might be why the Kelvin is 0514 instead of 514. It was built in a period where four digits was the norm, instead of alongside the other Class 5s (Antares class?). Einsteins might be Class 13 (which might make the USS Republic an Einstein class ship).

 

[Christopher]

I try to be flexible on the exact details of design. Roddenberry's own view seemed to be that what we saw onscreen was just an approximation of what we were supposed to imagine was really there, which was why he felt free to update all the designs for TMP. So his intent was probably that Starfleet tech (and Klingon anatomy) had always looked more like it did in TMP, that we just couldn't see the details on our fuzzy little 1960s TV screens (although that's harder to justify in the age of HD remastering -- or in the age where you can actually go to the National Air & Space Museum and study the restored Enterprise miniature up close, which is an experience I strongly recommend). The designers of the Kelvin films and DSC appear to be operating on a similar assumption, using TMP-style detailing on pre-TOS ships.

But anyway, I like how several of the DSC ships tend to look like intermediate steps between the NX class and the Miranda class, while the Cardenas is sort of an evolutionary stage between NX and Constellation. Some of the background Kelvin designs (which I think were also by Eaves) are along similar lines. There are some odd ones out here and there, but it gives a sense of unity to the design lineage.

 

[TrekMD]

I have to wonder if they'll ever show a Constitution-class ship and, if they do, what they will do with the design.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

If it does, I would personally just like to see a bit more surface detailing, hints of panels, but nothing else changed - I don't think it would distract viewers too much. But if people have strong opinions one way and another, maybe its best to just not show it, and let viewers imagine what they want.

 

[Tim Thomason]

If it does, I would personally just like to see a bit more surface detailing, hints of panels, but nothing else changed - I don't think it would distract viewers too much. But if people have strong opinions one way and another, maybe its best to just not show it, and let viewers imagine what they want.

I'd rather them do what they did with the Millennium Falcon in First Contact, and just keep the Enterprise/Constitution-class ship off in the corner distance somewhere. We fans can write pages and pages on how it was present here, here, and here, but it won't confuse or distract casual viewers with its mismatched appearance.

 

[Christopher]

We fans can write pages and pages on how it was present here, here, and here, but it won't confuse or distract casual viewers with its mismatched appearance.

One option would be to feature a different Constitution-class ship. That way, any differences in detail from the Enterprise could be chalked up to customization or refit variations.