"Why the Enterprise-D Was Badly Designed"

[Macintosh]

The Omega's are literal "Battle-Carriers" in function, where they're a hybrid between the two.
Some of it's "Battle-Ship functionality was compromised" for a small Carrier Air/Space wing.
It's not that great of a "Carrier" because it isn't a dedicated Carrier.

But the Omega-class isn't supposed to be a dedicated carrier, it's a dreadnought carrying its own defensive fighter screen. It's not for deploying fighter squadrons remotely for missions etc while it holds back outside of the engagement zone. The Babylon 5 production team officially designated it as a "destroyer", which JMS acknowledged was because he knew nothing about naval terminology and thought it sounded cool – in reality a destroyer would be a small, fast, manoeuvrable escort intended to work as part of a fleet, more like the White Star (or in, Star Trek, the Defiant).

The two rotating sections are designed to balance out the rotational mass, like propellers on a plane.

I'm aware. But the reason it has two relatively narrow opposed rotating sections instead of three, or four, or a cylindrical one, is because that's as structurally simple, and therefore robust, as a large rotating section can be.

You need roughly the right amount of mass for each one and proper angles.

The number of blades or sections can be "Whatever Number" you want as long as you balance it angularly and properly attach it to the central spinning shaft.

Design Rule #1) You won't be getting very far with 1-Blade/Section, you need at least 2-Blades/Sections or more.
Design Rule #2) The # of Blades/Sections you have must be equi-angular and as close to identical in mass as possible.
Design Rule #3) If you can have a Counter Balancing rotating mass on the same axis, even better. See Contra-Rotating propellers and their benefits

I know, I've done the maths I'm a big fan of centripetal vivaria and have designed a few original ships of my own around the concept.

I do love that fan design, very awesome, would've been better with a full Cylinder for the habitat section

But why would it be better? Do you mean aesthetically? Then sure, maybe, but these ships aren't supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, they're supposed to be functional and utilitarian. (I do love the Asimov though. One of my favourite sci fi ship designs ever. It's just so... cuddly.)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But the Omega-class isn't supposed to be a dedicated carrier, it's a dreadnought carrying its own defensive fighter screen. It's not for deploying fighter squadrons remotely for missions etc while it holds back outside of the engagement zone. The Babylon 5 production team officially designated it as a "destroyer", which JMS acknowledged was because he knew nothing about naval terminology and thought it sounded cool – in reality a destroyer would be a small, fast, manoeuvrable escort intended to work as part of a fleet, more like the White Star (or in, Star Trek, the Defiant).

Yeah, JMS showed his lack of Naval knowledge when he mis-categorized the Omega-class.
But it doesn't stop the Omega-class from being cool on it's own, for it's own reason.

Yeah, the White Star is a REAL Destroyer.

The way it was designed, the goals, the capabilities.

I'm aware. But the reason it has two relatively narrow opposed rotating sections instead of three, or four, or a cylindrical one, is because that's as structurally simple, and therefore robust, as a large rotating section can be.

Let's be honest. It's "Earth-Force", they probably handed out the bid to the lowest contractor, ergo they wanted to make the habitat section as "Cheap as Possible", ergo instead of a more complicated cylindircal architecture, Mostly rectangular sections were bonded together, ergo "Cheaper" to build.

We all know from basic Geometry that a properly designed & implemented Cylinder should be stronger than a Box in most cases.

The Omega-class rotating habitat is a series of nested Boxes bonded together.

I know, I've done the maths I'm a big fan of centripetal vivaria and have designed a few original ships of my own around the concept.

I've designed a improved "O'Neil Cylinder" design that is 36 km long and 11 km in diameter.
With my nested layers, and shorter Maximum layer Height of 39.5 m, with each layer counter-rotating the layer above & below each other, I created enough surface area within my "O'Neil Cylinder" to have land area close to:
- Total Surface Area Available = 54,906.066 km²
- Total Surface Area for Park Zone = 45.257 km²
- Total Surface Area for Habitatable Zone = 48,325.074 km² (This gives you the land area of somewhere between the state of Alabama & North Carolina)
- Total Surface Area for Storage Zone = 6,535.735 km²

Combine with advanced 2D Displays & 3D Holographic Displays, the shorter height of the roof line has enough fidelity to fool residents into thinking their sky is fake and higher than it really is.

But why would it be better? Do you mean aesthetically? Then sure, maybe, but these ships aren't supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, they're supposed to be functional and utilitarian. (I do love the Asimov though. One of my favourite sci fi ship designs ever. It's just so... cuddly.)

More like you can pack more crew and a Cylinder is more Structurally sound then the "Multiple Boxes" that get stacked and bonded to each other.

 

[Forbin]

That Explorer class kills me - they tout how long it is, but a huge portion of that length is empty open framework that seems to serve no purpose.

 

[Macintosh]

Yeah, JMS showed his lack of Naval knowledge when he mis-categorized the Omega-class.
But it doesn't stop the Omega-class from being cool on it's own, for it's own reason.

I never said it wasn't cool, I just said it wasn't primarily a carrier.

Let's be honest. It's "Earth-Force", they probably handed out the bid to the lowest contractor, ergo they wanted to make the habitat section as "Cheap as Possible", ergo instead of a more complicated cylindircal architecture, Mostly rectangular sections were bonded together, ergo "Cheaper" to build.

We all know from basic Geometry that a properly designed & implemented Cylinder should be stronger than a Box in most cases.

We have other considerations, like making it easier to fit particular equipment and making the environment much more modular and easier to repair/refit. Besides, there's no reason why these rotating sections can't be using cylindrical or spherical internal pressure vessels. Some of the schematics for Babylon 5 itself show some of the inhabitable regions, like blue sector or red sector, to be toroidal pressure vessels inside the larger cylindrical hull of the station.

The Omega-class rotating habitat is a series of nested Boxes bonded together.

Since a cylindrical rotating section would also be essentially composed of "a series of nested boxes bonded together" as you'd be unlikely to be casting it out of a single piece I don't see why this would necessarily be a problem.

I've designed a improved "O'Neil Cylinder" design that is 36 km long and 11 km in diameter.
With my nested layers, and shorter Maximum layer Height of 39.5 m, with each layer counter-rotating the layer above & below each other, I created enough surface area within my "O'Neil Cylinder" to have land area close to:
- Total Surface Area Available = 54,906.066 km²
- Total Surface Area for Park Zone = 45.257 km²
- Total Surface Area for Habitatable Zone = 48,325.074 km² (This gives you the land area of somewhere between the state of Alabama & North Carolina)
- Total Surface Area for Storage Zone = 6,535.735 km²

Combine with advanced 2D Displays & 3D Holographic Displays, the shorter height of the roof line has enough fidelity to fool residents into thinking their sky is fake and higher than it really is.

Tom McKendree would like a word... (It's O'Neill with two Ls by the way). Do love an O'Neill cylinder though!

More like you can pack more crew and a Cylinder is more Structurally sound then the "Multiple Boxes" that get stacked and bonded to each other.

Why do they need to "pack more crew" in when the existing structure is already large enough? Apart from being an altogether grander design.

 

[Macintosh]

That Explorer class kills me - they tout how long it is, but a huge portion of that length is empty open framework that seems to serve no purpose.

Since we're told one of the key roles of an Explorer-class is building jump gates, I assumed this is where all the jump gate components were normally stored, and the few Explorers we've seen have been unloaded for one reason or another. Certainly when we first see the Cortez in "A Distant Star" it's just finishing servicing a jump gate.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That Explorer class kills me - they tout how long it is, but a huge portion of that length is empty open framework that seems to serve no purpose.

Open area to mount modules, hardware, gear, etc.

They might've already setup the jump gate and came back empty.

I never said it wasn't cool, I just said it wasn't primarily a carrier.

Fair enough. The air wing on a Omega-Class seems more defensive / recon than for offense.

We have other considerations, like making it easier to fit particular equipment and making the environment much more modular and easier to repair/refit. Besides, there's no reason why these rotating sections can't be using cylindrical or spherical internal pressure vessels. Some of the schematics for Babylon 5 itself show some of the inhabitable regions, like blue sector or red sector, to be toroidal pressure vessels inside the larger cylindrical hull of the station.

Depends on your construction method, whatever works best for the solution and what building methodologies are available.
In Zero-G space, you have ALOT of volume to do single-piece manufacturing that you can't when you're limited on planet with gravity. Monolithic construction is generally stronger than bonded together parts.

Since a cylindrical rotating section would also be essentially composed of "a series of nested boxes bonded together" as you'd be unlikely to be casting it out of a single piece I don't see why this would necessarily be a problem.

Depends on future Zero-G manufacturing, you might be able to make Cylinder Levels / Toroids out of single pieces and seamless merge them together, ergo not needing too many Rectangular boxes.
Or find ways to manufacture parts of a cylinder and bond them together so seamlessly, that they appear to have been manufactured as one unit.
Or Layer the Cylinder floors on top of each other so that each floor is a single piece.

Tom McKendree would like a word... (It's O'Neill with two Ls by the way). Do love an O'Neill cylinder though!

My bad!

Why do they need to "pack more crew" in when the existing structure is already large enough? Apart from being an altogether grander design.

You don't expect crew to be operating 24/7, given multiple shifts, you need more crew then you think, running on a skeleton crew can cause problems in a fire-fight if some crew dies and you don't have enough people who can handle certain systems or area of specialty.

So you usually want some level of low to mid tier redundancy in extra man power.

And not over-working everybody on the crew, just because you can is nice.

A well rested crew is one that is better ready for a emergency when shit hits the fan.

 

[JesterFace]

Badly designed or not I think Enterprise-D looks awesome.

 

[fireproof78]

Tom McKendree would like a word... (It's O'Neill with two Ls by the way). Do love an O'Neill cylinder though!

No sense of humor

 

[Forbin]

Since we're told one of the key roles of an Explorer-class is building jump gates, I assumed this is where all the jump gate components were normally stored, and the few Explorers we've seen have been unloaded for one reason or another. Certainly when we first see the Cortez in "A Distant Star" it's just finishing servicing a jump gate.

Ah! Good point.

 

[Jedi Marso]

I always hated the design and the exterior look, but loved her life and times.

 

[Whizkid]

Blasphemy. The Galaxy class starship is the peak of Star Trek design, and easily the most beautiful spaceship design in the history of science fiction. It was the catalyst of my fandom as a child, and remains my favorite thing about Star Trek ever.

I agree! Blasphemy, I tell you!

 

[somebuddyX]

In regards to Omega class Destroyer, maybe word usage changed in 300 years. Like star destroyer. And flagship.

 

[Bea Jonas]

I'm drawn to the "Seek Out New Life and New Civilizations" aspect of Star Trek, so I always liked the sets created for the Enterprise-D, especially the bridge, which seemed to echo the one from the "ship of the imagination" in Carl Sagan's Cosmos (PBS, 1980).

 

[Whizkid]

Why specifically Enterprise-D?

 

[Whizkid]

You're the only person who has mentioned Cosmos. (Or perhaps others have, though I think not)

Thank you.

 

[Tallguy]

You're the only person who has mentioned Cosmos. (Or perhaps others have, though I think not)

Thank you.

Yeah, that caught my attention as well. They both have that 70's "Make it look how you want / function follows form" that I know Probert was going for. (And nobody ever again since.)

Nice connection.

 

[Bea Jonas]

You're the only person who has mentioned Cosmos. (Or perhaps others have, though I think not)

Thank you.

I've always felt the Enterprise-D bridge set had a warmth about it—a place where a group of explorers would feel at home—not the grey sterility of some of the later bridge sets—and It was the same feeling I got from the 1980 Cosmos set. If Andy Probert designed both (something I had forgotten about) then their similarity certainly makes sense. As fan of stories featuring the peaceful exploration of space, I liked when TNG highlighted the Cousteau aspect of Picard with the Enterprise-D as his futuristic Calypso.

BTW, I also have a great fondness for the TOS bridge set because the colors always gave it a warm, homey feel (at least to me), too. As a daydreaming Trek fan, both the TOS & TNG bridge sets were places I wanted to visit. On the other hand, I find the bridges of some modern ships (the Titan from Picard, for example) too dark and severe looking.

 

[JesterFace]

I've always felt the Enterprise-D bridge set had a warmth about it—a place where a group of explorers would feel at home—not the grey sterility of some of the later bridge sets.

This.
The bridge on Enterprise-D looks comfortable, not like something out of a submarine.
If people are going to spend years on a mission on the same ship having more than just grey bulkheads everywhere makes sense.
Some say it's too beige. But in what way is that bad?

 

[DonIago]

Given that we know the bridge modules can be swapped out, and that there's presumably some room for captain's discretion in terms of how they ultimately appear, is it possible that the bridge of the E-D looks the way it does in part because it's what Picard wanted? It's a bit consistent with his personality/sense of aesthetics particularly earlier on in TNG.

Though I also agree that the aesthetics make sense for what the E-D was going to be doing based on the original series premise. It even works based on how the show ultimately evolved, though I'd be shocked if they'd built a ship with a bridge like that during wartime.

 

[fireproof78]

Some say it's too beige. But in what way is that bad?

Because Beige is an ugly color that makes me annoyed. Beige reminds me of a poorly designed car my parents had in the 90s that had no personality. Just flat, ugly and dismissible. The beige of the bridge makes me want to turn the show off.