"Warp 7 beauties" = the Daedalus class?

[CaptChris42]

But that wasn't what he said.

It's best to just ignore the line rather than trying to come up with some convoluted way to make it fit. It's not like people are trying to come up with reasons why that tombstone said "James R. Kirk."

I agree the ship has sailed, as it were. Would only work with a very broad strokes take on TAS lore anyway (but lo and behold - SNW cometh)

Still, they may have leaned that way for a time. Witness the background ship chart in TNG (and in Keiko's DS9 class room) that featured another Bonaventure ship concept, designed to be much more primitive looking, and almost pre (recognizable) warp. Plus a painting, I recall.

As for the Man-Kzin wars - I can see one maybe being fought pre 2161. But the majority would have to be way later, if there had been as many as four.

Also, by 'war' it would often be by only the loosest definitions. Closer to 'police action' generally.

 

[Dukhat]

As for the Man-Kzin wars - I can see one maybe being fought pre 2161. But the majority would have to be way later, if there had been as many as four.

Also, by 'war' it would often be by only the loosest definitions. Closer to 'police action' generally.

The Kzinti were going to be introduced in season 5. Perhaps that might have fixed that problem.

 

[HotRod]

The Kzinti were going to be introduced in season 5. Perhaps that might have fixed that problem.

I seem to recall either Drexler or Eaves had designed a Kzinti Starship and posted it on their blog. I should look for that.

 

[HotRod]

Ok, so apparently it wasn't designed by either of them, but by Court Jones. It was for a proposed animated feature. The design was later revised for possible use in Season 5 of Enterprise.

 

[evilchumlee]

Same, Lord Hierarch. TOS has always been its own thing to be. The connections to TNG forward were specious at best and did not fit.

I just don't see how its more difficult than TMP. It's an adjustment of visuals...never mind. Won't belabor the rotting corpse of a dead horse any longer.

Sure it's a dead horse but this point seems to get misunderstood far too often.

I don't think TOS is at all incompatible with TNG.

What makes the DSC/SNW "visual update" unable to work is that it's not moving forward. I can suspend my disbelief enough to believe that the TOS style gave way to the TMP style over a few years, and then whatever changes happen going forward.

The DSC/SNW issue is that this new style is happening at roughly the same time as the TOS style, making me unable to suspend my disbelief. Those two things just can not exist concurrently. To make it even worse, they have introduced things like the Enterprise that are different now and can't possibly exist concurrently with one another.

I'm ok if things change in a progression... Klingons looked one way.... then in the future, they look a different way. Ok? Sure whatever. Something happened.

What I can't believe is that Klingons looked one way... then in the future, they look a different way... but then prior to that, they looked different again, even though we already knew what Klingons looked like at that time period... then in the future, they look different again.

tl;dr changing things that occur after other things is totally fine... changing things that happen previous or concurrent to others is not.

Once I came to terms with it, my interest in post-TOS Trek has really evaporated.

I'm a 90's kid, so i'm primarily in the TNG/DS9/VOY camp but still hold TOS dear.

It was once the Kurtzman era decided to erase TOS that I lost interest in the new stuff. PIC is cool, but they're bound and determined to keep beating the 23rd century horse.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm ok if things change in a progression... Klingons looked one way.... then in the future, they look a different way. Ok? Sure whatever. Something happened.

That's the most ridiculous explanation ever. Something happened in the future but something can't happen in the past?

Even in real world historical uncovering we are constantly learning about timelines, and the presence of different people groups, and how soon some technology was introduced. I don't get this assumption that we know everything around Star Trek's history.

What I can't believe is that Klingons looked one way... then in the future, they look a different way... but then prior to that, they looked different again, even though we already knew what Klingons looked like at that time period... then in the future, they look different again.

Except, we have a built in excuse from Enterprise. Enterprise established, before TOS, that a genetic augment virus had a direct impact upon Klingon phenotypes. The TOS films showed us no less than five different ridge types across multiple Klingons and films. Very few looked the same as the other. So, this line feels entirely arbitrary.

The DSC/SNW issue is that this new style is happening at roughly the same time as the TOS style, making me unable to suspend my disbelief. Those two things just can not exist concurrently. To make it even worse, they have introduced things like the Enterprise that are different now and can't possibly exist concurrently with one another.

And this is were I will constantly different. Since I don't take TOS as literal history (haven't since TMP and the way to short of a time for a ship rebuild, uniform redesign, and complete attitude adjustment) I treat TOS as an approximation of events, with ships, technology and characters but the actual details can wiggle.

Which is how real life history gets studied. I don't hold to 1:1, and if I do, TOS is separated from TMP forward and cannot cross over for me.

Mileage will vary. And I am backing off because we have derailed this thread enough.

 

[evilchumlee]

That's the most ridiculous explanation ever. Something happened in the future but something can't happen in the past?

Yes? Like... almost by definition.

Here's an easy pictoral view.

This..

Became this...

And then became this again...

That doesn't make any sense.

This

Became this..

And then became this...

If, in both instances, we only used the first two pictures... totally reasonable. Makes sense. That's a progression.

But instead now we get a progression and then a regression and then a progression again.

 

[fireproof78]

If, in both instances, we only used the first two pictures... totally reasonable. Makes sense. That's a progression.

But instead now we get a progression and then a regression and then a progression again.

Ok, I can work with it.

Others can't.

Mileage will vary. None of which has to do with Daedalus class. My bad for derailing. I'm sure there are other threads to work this out.

 

[BillJ]

tl;dr changing things that occur after other things is totally fine... changing things that happen previous or concurrent to others is not.

Which is why I just treat it all as a multiverse. Then I don't waste time trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

 

[Macintosh]

I always liked the Daedalus-class as a concept. Okay, so aesthetically it's... challenging... but I like the more primitive starship designs. Maybe it's because it looks like the Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of my favourite fictional starships of all time. It has a certain charm.

Big fan of the EC Henry version from the Pacific 201 fan film.

 

[BillJ]

I always liked the Daedalus-class as a concept. Okay, so aesthetically it's... challenging... but I like the more primitive starship designs. Maybe it's because it looks like the Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of my favourite fictional starships of all time. It has a certain charm.

Big fan of the EC Henry version from the Pacific 201 fan film.

I love the Daedalus. At the same time, I wouldn't want to be in that sphere if it separated from the ship and crash landed on a planet. You'd never stop rolling!

 

[Macintosh]

I love the Daedalus. At the same time, I wouldn't want to be in that sphere if it separated from the ship and crash landed on a planet. You'd never stop rolling!

It's why the Daedalus-class wasn't popular with exo-botonists... they could never gather any moss.

Actually I once saw a fan design of the Daedalus where the sphere was intended as a detachable planetary landing craft. It had little legs that popped out of the bottom and everything.

 

[BillJ]

Actually I once saw a fan design of the Daedalus once where the sphere was intended as a detachable planetary landing craft. It had little legs that popped out of the bottom and everything.

Doesn't help if you're going down Enterprise-D style.

 

[Macintosh]

Doesn't help if you're going down Enterprise-D style.

True, but when I think of most starships crashing to a planet I'm put in mind of a quote from Red Dwarf: "sooner or later we are going to have to face the fact that we are not all going to get out of this in one piece... or if we are, it's going to one big flat piece." Even Voyager, which was designed to land, didn't always manage it successfully!

I know we saw the NX-01 fly low enough to buzz a city once, but I always thought the more primitive starship designs should have been one extreme or the other – either design them so they were expected to land, so they had no transporters and limited shuttles and that was generally how they got down to planets; or design them so they could never land, with no atmospheric capabilities whatsoever, and in the one-in-a-million chance they ever survived getting down to a planet's surface they'd certainly never be able to take off again. Given the Daedalus's decidedly unaerodynamic design I'd probably put it in the latter camp.

 

[BillJ]

True, but when I think of most starships crashing to a planet I'm put in mind of a quote from Red Dwarf: "sooner or later we are going to have to face the fact that we are not all going to get out of this in one piece... or if we are, it's going to one big flat piece." Even Voyager, which was designed to land, didn't always manage it successfully!

The two triangles on the underside of the TOS version were supposed to be landing gears for the saucer.

 

[fireproof78]

I always liked the Daedalus-class as a concept. Okay, so aesthetically it's... challenging... but I like the more primitive starship designs. Maybe it's because it looks like the Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of my favourite fictional starships of all time. It has a certain charm.

Big fan of the EC Henry version from the Pacific 201 fan film.

I think fan takes on this design have been among my favorite.

 

[Macintosh]

The two triangles on the underside of the TOS version were supposed to be landing gears for the saucer.

I believe so too, but could it ever take off again under its own power? That's the 64,000-latinum-strip question.

 

[Lord Hierarch]

I believe so too, but could it ever take off again under its own power? That's the 64,000-latinum-strip question.

If it can't lift on its own power, then we lift in our power!

*Cue The spirit of communism intensifies*

 

[evilchumlee]

I believe so too, but could it ever take off again under its own power? That's the 64,000-latinum-strip question.

I would wager yes. The Federation has some pretty serious anti-gravity / repulsor tech.

 

[HotRod]

I would wager yes. The Federation has some pretty serious anti-gravity / repulsor tech.

And yet so many people seem to lose their shit at the idea of Starships being built on the ground.