Starship design history in light of Discovery
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
I second that and yes that would be an awesome ship name or even the USS Tesla.
Tesla finally gets redeemed with wireless power running disconnected warp nacelles.
Size chart?
Stop nagging.
If someone wanted to do it they would have said something.
EAS has some nice charts maybe you can figure it out
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/fleet-charts.htm
Last edited:
You could ask Mezro to update his interactive size charts. They’re some of the best I’ve seen. They just need to have the new Disco ships added.
Guys, The Art of Star Trek Discovery has a partial map of the ship and inludes the FUNHOUSE! Which is offically called the "systems hub". No way is that as big as it appears on screen, but they tried.
(and two TOS-style warp cores!)
(and two TOS-style warp cores!)
...Although that probably should really be one core and two engine rooms, both at an angle, as implied by the VFX.
Lots of room for the funhouse there: the entire neck area is thick enough to be part of it, and all the portholes are into corridors that run along the outer surface. Indeed, the front surface of the neck is a porthole-free slab that might hide just about anything. And this being a flying lab for testing all-new wonder weapons, was no doubt intended to do just that.
What's that funny drooping tube below the stern? Do we have a reason to think that the "Brother" pods would need to be deployed that way? The drooping can't explain their mile-long accelerations, or anything...
Timo Saloniemi
Lots of room for the funhouse there: the entire neck area is thick enough to be part of it, and all the portholes are into corridors that run along the outer surface. Indeed, the front surface of the neck is a porthole-free slab that might hide just about anything. And this being a flying lab for testing all-new wonder weapons, was no doubt intended to do just that.
What's that funny drooping tube below the stern? Do we have a reason to think that the "Brother" pods would need to be deployed that way? The drooping can't explain their mile-long accelerations, or anything...
Timo Saloniemi
Eh?
They come out from under the shuttlebay in Brother, but if you look at the exterior in any other shot that wouldn't work. This is probably the art team trying to justify it.
They really needed to nail down what compartments should be where right out of the gate. Here we have an after-the-fact attempt to reconstruct what they think should be where. And those telescoping docking ports towards the end of season 2? Should we assume more than the four we saw?
Stamets' lab space was carved out of something called "Starboard Engineering". I'd expect separate compartments for the impulse drive systems on port and starboard...
Stamets' lab space was carved out of something called "Starboard Engineering". I'd expect separate compartments for the impulse drive systems on port and starboard...
I'm still mad that they never made use of the obvious story engine set up in "Context is For Kings." Weekly X-Files style adventures where Burnham stumbles into some new, bizarre science experiment in a previously-unseen lab? Yes please!
The angled layout is rather suggested in "Saints of Imperfection" where we see the exterior angle of the "water surface" and the corresponding interior angles. But there's also a zoom-in through the ceiling in another S2 episode, might be "Obol for Charon", which has Stamets' kingdom aligned with the exterior diagonal "reinforcing elements".
In addition, we have the chart of Jeffries tubes in the secondary hull, again diagonal even though "Context Is for Kings" shows one aligned with the engine room wall (on the Glenn, admittedly, but Burnham bets her life on this being the standard layout).
What's the problem with the pods coming out of the round things right below the shuttlebay door? We never see them do anything that would contradict the launching functionality. (There. Are. Three. Round. Lights, rather than four. But the pods merge through a manifold of some sort, presumably emerging from a single tube, but possibly from three.
Timo Saloniemi
In addition, we have the chart of Jeffries tubes in the secondary hull, again diagonal even though "Context Is for Kings" shows one aligned with the engine room wall (on the Glenn, admittedly, but Burnham bets her life on this being the standard layout).
What's the problem with the pods coming out of the round things right below the shuttlebay door? We never see them do anything that would contradict the launching functionality. (There. Are. Three. Round. Lights, rather than four. But the pods merge through a manifold of some sort, presumably emerging from a single tube, but possibly from three.
Timo Saloniemi
What I meant was a size chart that included the new sizes I provided but there isn’t one since ex Astrid scientists is too busy whining about how much they hate discovery.
I have to admit. I quite like the detached nacelles.
Not just because I think it's a good design but because it finally shows a bit of creative initiative from the art team.
Not just because I think it's a good design but because it finally shows a bit of creative initiative from the art team.
I like the idea of it, but I’m still not sure how it “improves maneuverability” as Saru claimed. Is it because they’re not attached and therefore not including the nacelle mass in the overall inertia, thereby using less energy in the thrusters and making it easier to steer? I would think that whatever means that the nacelles are pulled along may decrease mass but increase drag, so therefore not saving anything. Law of conservation of (potential) energy and all that. Physics was never my strong suit in school, but I’m really trying to figure out why floaty nacelles is better beyond the obvious “kewl” factor. I, too, will give mad props to the art design team for thinking out of the box with the new 32nd century starship tech, though.
My take on these detached starship appendages is that they create greater distance between the secondary hull and a potentially compromised nacelle.
At least, as of the two strong Parrotdog beers I’ve just ingested, this makes a modicum of sense... [saddestmoon, sitting on a train, hurtling through the evening towards home, thinking likely-not-so-profound thoughts and staring at the heavy rain on the pane]
At least, as of the two strong Parrotdog beers I’ve just ingested, this makes a modicum of sense... [saddestmoon, sitting on a train, hurtling through the evening towards home, thinking likely-not-so-profound thoughts and staring at the heavy rain on the pane]
Last edited:
I'm not sure where this exactly fits, but this is the closest to appropirate topic I can think of.
I love how we have a USS Nog and a USS Yelchin.
So randomly stumbled on these blueprint designs for an Enterprise design that never was. Looks VERY similar to those Connie looking ships in the 32nd century: https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/ma-nx-1701-a-enterprise.php