Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard

[fireproof78]

I figured it was added armor.

 

[Tomalak]

Not quite. As @HotRod mentioned, you still have to take into account other productions, if TPTB insist that it's all one universe. Therefore (in roughly chronological order):

1. ST:FC: First warp ship Phoenix - round nacelles
2. Early warp ship, SS Valiant - round nacelles
3. ST: Voyager: "Friendship One" probe - round nacelles
4. ENT: NX prototype, NX class, Intrepid type, Warp Delta type, Conestoga type, J-class, Y-class, Emmette type, Archer's model ship - round nacelles
5. DS9: Daedalus class desktop model - round nacelles
6. Kelvin timeline pre-Nero: USS Kelvin and sister ships - round nacelles

Yes, all these are consistent with the Phoenix through to Constitution as I mentioned above.

7. TAS: SS Bonaventure, cargo drones, Huron type, aquashuttle, Copernicus shuttle, heavy shuttle, Carter Winston's ship, Cyrano Jones's ship - round nacelles

Good points, I didn't consider TAS. Happily, all these are Constitution contemporaries or predecessors or are not Starfleet ships and are consistent with the above.

8. PIC: Pioneer class USS Pioneer NCC-1500, Radiant class USS Stargazer NCC-1578 - round nacelles

Good inclusions. I was only really considering ships designed prior to Disco S1. But again, these all fit in as Constitution contemporaries or predecessors.

9. SNW: Archer type, SNW Constitution class, Sombra class, Farragut type, Kelcie Mae type, ore freighter type, SNW shuttlecraft type - round nacelles
10. TOS: Constitution class, shuttlecraft, SS Aurora (original and remastered), Medusan ship, SS Antares - round nacelles

More Constitution contemporaries or predecessors, or not Starfleet ships.

So in fact the Constitution class is not the outlier, but rather just one example in a long line of round-nacelled ships.

Now I need to take this opportunity to state that there's more going on here than just a general debate about 'round' nacelles versus 'square' nacelles. The nacelle types shown in DSC season one do not remotely resemble the TMP-era ship nacelles, despite people wanting to lump them together in a vague category of 'square' nacelles. There's no clear design lineage bridge between the round nacelles of the above ten examples, and the timeframe of TMP. So we will agree to disagree about the DSC season 1 ships being that link.

I'm not suggesting a direct link or evolution, but they can easily slot in as a different type of nacelle design used on some ships at some point in the 2250s. The coexistence of the Constitution on screen in Discovery is evidence enough of this.

I'm still not seeing any reason why the Disco ships can't coexist with the ones you mentioned. Nothing is breaking canon here. But YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm still not seeing any reason why the Disco ships can't coexist with the ones you mentioned. Nothing is breaking canon here. But YMMV.

I wish I could like this more than once. At this point it seems like there is no agreement.

 

[Dukhat]

I'm not suggesting a direct link or evolution, but they can easily slot in as a different type of nacelle design used on some ships at some point in the 2250s. The coexistence of the Constitution on screen in Discovery is evidence enough of this.

I'm still not seeing any reason why the Disco ships can't coexist with the ones you mentioned. Nothing is breaking canon here. But YMMV.

Here's an example. There's a 4-nacelled starship class in DSC season 1, the Cardenas:

https://blackcampbell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/dis-cardenas-views2.jpg

Then there's a 4-nacelled class from PIC, the Radiant, which is contemporary to the Cardenas, and based on its registry, may even be a newer design:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNl2bUCXsAwvxZk?format=jpg&name=large

See the problem? The Cardenas looks far, far more advanced than the Radiant, and shares absolutely nothing in common other than having a saucer and four nacelles, despite both being Starfleet vessels and presumably constructed around the same time. Why? Because one design was made by a guy whose designs tend to be influenced very little by the chronological time period the design supposedly came from, while the other design was made by a guy who was heavily influenced by the chronological time period his design was meant to represent.

 

[fireproof78]

Advanced must be a filter on the screen I don't see.

 

[David cgc]

The Cardenas looks far, far more advanced than the Radiant, and shares absolutely nothing in common other than having a saucer and four nacelles, despite both being Starfleet vessels and presumably constructed around the same time.

Yes, nothing says "primitive" to me like complex overlapping curves, thin support structures, and lack of obvious instrumentation.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well you also have to remember, the Enterprise was launched ten years before Discovery starts.

So the DSC ships looking different isn’t odd in-universe.

Look how ship designs change between the start of TNG and Nemesis, and then between nemesis and Picard

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It's funny how both ships have roughly the same proportions, circular saucers, simple straight pylons, but they don't look like they're from the same era. One's kind of chaotic, over-designed and 80s, the other is very clean, simple and 60s looking. Which of them looks more advanced probably depends on your point of view though.

 

[Tuskin38]

The Cardenas looks far, far more advanced than the Radiant

No more than the Connie and Connie refit

 

[Dukhat]

No more than the Connie and Connie refit

And the latter came after the former, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. They built the latter from the former precisely because they had newer tech to upgrade the ship with. In the case of my example, they had an older ship looking more advanced than the newer ship.

 

[Tuskin38]

they had an older ship looking more advanced than the newer ship

You can’t trust ship registries as a source of continuity

The Cardenas could easily come after it just as easily it could come before

 

[Dukhat]

No they didn’t?

Yeah they did

 

[Dukhat]

You can’t trust ship registries as a source of continuity

The Cardenas could easily come after it.

The Radiant class has design attributes from TOS. TOS comes ten years after DSC.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Not quite. As @HotRod mentioned, you still have to take into account other productions, if TPTB insist that it's all one universe. Therefore (in roughly chronological order):

1. ST:FC: First warp ship Phoenix - round nacelles
2. Early warp ship, SS Valiant - round nacelles
3. ST: Voyager: "Friendship One" probe - round nacelles
4. ENT: NX prototype, NX class, Intrepid type, Warp Delta type, Conestoga type, J-class, Y-class, Emmette type, Archer's model ship - round nacelles
5. DS9: Daedalus class desktop model - round nacelles
6. Kelvin timeline pre-Nero: USS Kelvin and sister ships - round nacelles
7. TAS: SS Bonaventure, cargo drones, Huron type, aquashuttle, Copernicus shuttle, heavy shuttle, Carter Winston's ship, Cyrano Jones's ship - round nacelles
8. PIC: Pioneer class USS Pioneer NCC-1500, Radiant class USS Stargazer NCC-1578 - round nacelles
9. SNW: Archer type, SNW Constitution class, Sombra class, Farragut type, Kelcie Mae type, ore freighter type, SNW shuttlecraft type - round nacelles
10. TOS: Constitution class, shuttlecraft, SS Aurora (original and remastered), Medusan ship, SS Antares - round nacelles

So in fact the Constitution class is not the outlier, but rather just one example in a long line of round-nacelled ships.

Now I need to take this opportunity to state that there's more going on here than just a general debate about 'round' nacelles versus 'square' nacelles. The nacelle types shown in DSC season one do not remotely resemble the TMP-era ship nacelles, despite people wanting to lump them together in a vague category of 'square' nacelles. There's no clear design lineage bridge between the round nacelles of the above ten examples, and the timeframe of TMP. So we will agree to disagree about the DSC season 1 ships being that link.

I'll take it a step further (I love muddying the issue with facts!) - TMP nacelles were squared-off in the front but get wider and perfectly round in the back (from the original TMP blueprints):


Interestingly, the Cerritos is the same way, but in reverse - round in the front and squared-off in the back.

 

[HotRod]

The Radiant class has design attributes from TOS. TOS comes ten years after DSC.

I'd say the Radiant class has more in common with the SNW Enterprise than it does with the TOS Enterprise.

 

[Daedalus]

I'd say the Radiant class has more in common with the SNW Enterprise than it does with the TOS Enterprise.

I feel like it nicely straddles both, but saying that, I'd happily see it turn up in SNW.

 

[Tuskin38]

The Radiant class has design attributes from TOS. TOS comes ten years after DSC.

But the Enterprise launched 20 years before Kirk took command.

Meaning those design attributes predate both TOS and DSC.

20 years for possible design differences to come up.

 

[Dukhat]

I'd say the Radiant class has more in common with the SNW Enterprise than it does with the TOS Enterprise.

I think the SNW Enterprise has more in common with the NX-01 than it does with the TOS Enterprise, or the Radiant class. I'm seeing zero resemblance between the Radiant and the Discoprise. Would you care to elaborate on what you see that's similar? Genuinely curious.

But the Enterprise launched 20 years before Kirk took command.

Meaning those design attributes predate both TOS and DSC.

20 years for possible design differences to come up.

Design differences that drastic seems implausible. It's like Ford producing a model T and a 2024 Mustang in the same year.

 

[Tomalak]

Yes exactly, the TOS design aesthetic predates the original series, some elements all the way back to the 21st century. The Radiant can be a older design, the Cardenas newer, but both are contemporaries.

 

[Tomalak]

Starfleet was still pumping out Miranda class ships at the same time the Ambassador class was developed. They apparently don’t bin old designs that can still do the job.