• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Starship design history in light of Discovery

Tuskin38 said:
Saw this cool fan art of the USS Defiant with the Terran Modifications

https://www.deviantart.com/thraxllisylia/art/Iss-defiant-variation-781172244

iss_defiant_variation_by_thraxllisylia_dcx38d0-fullview.jpg
Click to expand...

...So they broke their pylons and weren't all that good at gluing them together again. Sounds pretty familiar to anybody who has tried to construct one of 'em kits without first putting extra reinforcement inside the pylon bits.

The fun part is speculating why the Terran remake looks so much like the DSC standard version of NCC-1701 as of 2257. The impulse engine boxes, say.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I doubt they put any real thought into the wireframe in the show, they probably just wanted to make it look like it's been through 100 years of Terran control.
 
As an engineer, I always believe that form follows function. When I see any feature on a spaceship or piece of equipment, it must have an important purpose. That's why I love Matt Jefferies' and other Star Trek designs. We (and he) may not know exactly what it does, but we all imagine it serves a purpose. It's just up to our imaginations, and then we get to debate it for 50 years. :techman:
 
Tuskin38 said:
I doubt they put any real thought into the wireframe in the show, they probably just wanted to make it look like it's been through 100 years of Terran control.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it would have been nice to get some sort of in-universe reason for the specific changes. Otherwise it’s just changing something for the sake of changing it.
 
Dukhat said:
Yes, but it would have been nice to get some sort of in-universe reason for the specific changes. Otherwise it’s just changing something for the sake of changing it.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as change for the sake of change. If the ship had been in the hands of the Terrans for 100 years and looked identical to the original ship...well, THAT would strike me as odd. Why does EVERY little tweak need to be explained in-universe? If they explained every change there wouldn't be a show, just 45 minutes of explaining crap.
 
ozzfloyd said:
Why does EVERY little tweak need to be explained in-universe? If they explained every change there wouldn't be a show, just 45 minutes of explaining crap.
Click to expand...
I agree, it doesn't need explaining on screen. That's why we have 50 years of speculation on some web site. :whistle:

Speaking of speculation for what it's worth, as some of the posters previously presented in their posts: any changes to the designs over 100 years in Terran hands should look almost identical to the other universe's design after the same time or it wouldn't be a mirror universe. To do so breaks the whole premise of the existence of the two universes and how they coexist. Ships, people, planets, missions, events all occur at the same time, but with some mirror effect. Even with outrageous twists, those things (ships, people, planets, missions, events) may flow differently on parallel courses, but they eventually end up at a similar joined point. USS Enterprise and crew is there on a mission and so is the ISS Enterprise with the many of the same crew. DS9 and personnel are there on mission and so is the mirror DS9 and many of the same personnel. Some minor changes can occur, but major items are forced to be present by the coexistence of the two universes. Too many breaks in continuity, then both universes cease to exist.
 
ozzfloyd said:
I don't see it as change for the sake of change. If the ship had been in the hands of the Terrans for 100 years and looked identical to the original ship...well, THAT would strike me as odd. Why does EVERY little tweak need to be explained in-universe? If they explained every change there wouldn't be a show, just 45 minutes of explaining crap.
Click to expand...

My point in this particular case is that the changes seem to just look cosmetic (i.e. there was no real reason for the changes other than someone thought it looked cool) instead of having a specific purpose behind the change.
 
Dukhat said:
My point in this particular case is that the changes seem to just look cosmetic (i.e. there was no real reason for the changes other than someone thought it looked cool) instead of having a specific purpose behind the change.
Click to expand...

At what point should they have stopped the story to explain "Hey, these differences must be because x and y?". It just stands to reason that SOME sort of changes would take place over a century. Every bit of background data doesn't require any explanation or specific purpose. If we get down to the minutia of the specific purposes of every item, bit of tech, whatever, we cease to have a story and we have a tech manual. And "someone thought it looked cool" is a plenty good enough explanation. Use your imagination to explain it if you must...it's. just. a. tv. show. ;-)
 
ozzfloyd said:
At what point should they have stopped the story to explain "Hey, these differences must be because x and y?". It just stands to reason that SOME sort of changes would take place over a century. Every bit of background data doesn't require any explanation or specific purpose. If we get down to the minutia of the specific purposes of every item, bit of tech, whatever, we cease to have a story and we have a tech manual. And "someone thought it looked cool" is a plenty good enough explanation. Use your imagination to explain it if you must...it's. just. a. tv. show. ;-)
Click to expand...

Because they went out of their way to show that diagram and the differences thereof, and not have the crew react in such a way that it was anything out of the ordinary, when they didn't know the existence of the MU or what happened to the Defiant. It was a simple wire mesh that could easily have just been of the usual TOS Constitution class. But because they decided to change it and not mention why, it made me curious. It's not about "the TE changed it over the years." That much is obvious. And I don't think it's a crime to ask about it. YMMV.
 
Normally I'm not a fan of the change for change's sake approach to Trek but in this case depicting a Defiant that had gone through about 101 years of repeated engineering alterations and other cosmetic changes makes sense. After a century in the hands of first Empress Sato and her scientists and then teams under the control of her successors on the throne the NCC-1764 boarded and claimed for the Terran Empire by Mirror Archer's crew would be at best a resemblance of her old self and be a Frankenstein's Monster of technological adaptations and weapons alterations to make her as deadly as possible.

The fact that she was still recognizable as the TOS-era Defiant says a lot after more than a hundred years in the hands of a brutal militaristic empire with a fetish for weaponry. So, yeah, I have no issues with her changes nor can we expect much onscreen explanation for what was changed and why.
 
For what it's worth I'd have had Burnham or Tilly utter a line such as: "What did they do to her?!?" That way we'll know that the MU refit of the Defiant looked dramatically different from the way Constitution-class starships looked in "our" universe in that decade, but still...the fact that no character remarks on the Defiant's appearance isn't a dealmaker or a dealbreaker for me.
 
Indentations at the saucer rim... Why, obviously the Empire ripped out important bits and pieces for study! Broken pylons... Why, obviously they weren't very good at it initially.

Timo Saloniemi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top