Now, I just had to respond to "Blip's" comments:
Why, thankyou.
What rationale would you have for making them forward-swept (which would make them weaker)? On the other hand, putting them OUTBOARD of the saucer only makes sense.
This is primarily an aesthetic choice on my part - I'm not a fan of how the design evolution from previous classes which ended with the Ent-D has now been suddenly reversed (in many ways). I also prefer how it makes the vessel more compact-looking - and if you look at some of the concepts shown after we posted, these are more in line with what I'd have imagined. Having the nacelles outboard of the saucer also lends a nod towards the Intrepid-class.
That, combined with the "lateral symmetry" thing I mentioned above, is actually what I did on my Vega, and you can see what it looks like in my avatar.
Unfortunately I can't say I personally like the
Vega, as while it may be technologically sound (bearing in mind this can only be done with today's understanding of physics and engineering), it looks somewhat ungainly - some elements appear out of proportion.
I agree on the plating. But I'd leave the triangle... and just GIVE them a purpose.
Well again, this was partly from my sense of aesthetics. They're glaringly obvious as a homage to the 1701, and I'm sure something better could have been done with the space - maybe extra sensor pallets etc.
Again, on my Vega, you can see a pair of yellow-tan triangles on the underside of the saucer. I made those the primary transporter emitters. It's an homage... but it's an homage which serves a functional purpose.
Exactly: Much better!
BLECH. As much as I respect Andrew Probert's work on the 1701D, I hate... HATE HATE HATE... those ugly "weather balloon" nacelles.
Lol! I guess my PoV regarding the collectors (again, primarily aesthetic) is that they're sucking matter in - akin to a black hole. I'm not suggesting that they're powerful enough to prevent light escaping, but I'd expect them to be pretty dark unless operating at relativistic speeds. Furthermore, I'd have them glow at the natural spectrum of hydrogen - IIRC, this was what the Bussards drew in primarily... Whatever, I'm tired of xmas tree lights.
As for the "blue grills", I think of those as the main heat-rejection system for the main power system... they're the RADIATOR, and you can't just get rid of the radiator on your car and keep it operating, can you? Particularly if they're on the outboard surface (rather than both on the topside surface) they make good sense. But they should alter appearance based upon how "hot" the ship is... if it's stationary, they should be dark (copper tubing over a black ceramic substrate). If it's moving at low impulse, the copper tubing would glow a slight "dark orange" tint. If the ship is in full combat conditions, at high warp, whatever... they'd be a super-hot brilliant blue.
This is applying
current understanding of physics to a concept far in the distant future though - where I think we'd be rather naive to assume that new discoveries that alter our understanding of these disciplines would not be made.
Also, IIRC they're often labelled "Warp Field Grills" which implies they're directly related to the warp field itself, rather than to do with radiating heat.
Having said that, if we were to apply your rationale, I do think they ought to remain dark altogether during Impulse - and then show a brief, almost imperceptible shift through a dull amber up to incandescent blue as the transition to warp is made.
You're obviously a TNG-guy, huh?
I hate the very IDEA that you'd put the shuttle bay in the CORE of the ship. Shuttle facilities should be on the perimeter, not "inset" like it is here. I got why Andrew put it where he did on the TNG E, but I never really liked it... and the insistence that the post-TNG E needed to share that feature really damaged the design, IMHO. The Beebs were so in love with their own show that they were closed to the IDEA of doing things differently... which is what killed latter-day Trek, as far as I'm concerned.
Not at all - I much prefer Movie-era and TOS.
But, the idea that a Primary Hull of that size would also need a large shuttlebay aft is sound thinking - for both ease of cargo and personnel transfer throughout the ship (especially during those large evac movements) but also because it will likely need one when operating independantly of the Engineering Hull. I don't hold to the idea that it stretches towards the core of the saucer section though, if that's what you mean.
Other than "It's what they did on TNG..." WHY? Seriously? Why "oval?" Why "blue?"
Once again: Personal aesthetics. Whilst I don't want a design that is marred by ridiculous treknobabbly explanations for poorly-thought out elements, I also don't want something that looks like a pile of ass.
Not to mention, we have a precedent in previous classes.
Again though, to restrict these designs to what is supported by today's (limited) understanding of the universe is very naive. Who is to say that over the next few centuries there won't be new discoveries that force us to redefine how we approach the technical sciences? Think back to the "flat earth society" or how a century ago nobody believed man would fly. Starships have technologies that can "beam" people from one place to another. Does today's understanding of physics allow for this? Not particularly!
Make it coppery, and let it do as the TMP one did... (start off dimmed, start glowing dim orangeish when it starts operating, and if it's running HOT, let it be blue.
I do agree with you on that - I loved that effect in TMP, and was sorely irritated that it was dropped in later movies out of sheer laziness.
"Blue LED" doesn't mean "deflector" and "Red LED" doesn't mean "Bussard collector."
I think you misunderstand me, probably because I just skipped over the point on the deflector rather than going into detail.
I'd prefer a similar glow for the deflector to that of the nacelles, ie, incandescent blue, simply because they're both similarly high-output sources of energy. In fact, I expect that the dish would glow even brighter at higher warp speeds. If I had my way entirely, the only difference would be the impulse engines, which would be amber as per TMP
et al.
And unless there's a compelling reason (not "graphic arts" based but TECHNICALLY based) for having an oval, rather than a circular parabolic, dish... make it circular
See my above comments on the precedent for it.. etc etc yadda yadda yadda
I don't see a lot on the TOPSIDE that doesn't make sense...
It's not glaringly bad except for those silly "graphic design" elements like the dark panels and the (again) stepping. And the curved windows:
I'd make the exterior (and especially the windows) LINE UP WITH A RATIONAL INTERNAL DECK STRUCTURE. I mean... SHEESH... does the ship really have "curved decks" inside?
WTF was Eaves thinking?
Was he even thinking? Or smoking some of the good stuff??
The problem with what you suggest is that you'd still be burning off paint, plating, etc, with that. You need at LEAST a 5-degree ability to vector thrust from any engine without hitting any part of the rest of the ship...
When I did the mockup of it I'm fairly sure I recall leaving enough for clearance - remember I lowered the nacelles significantly, so that they were well away from the general thrust of the Impulse exhausts.
It doesn't look "anachronistic. You're just biased towards your TNG-era pedigree (no offense intended).
Not at all.
As I described above, I'm much more comfortable with TMP-era.
However, that does not mean I'm simply going to throw away everything that has come since out of the proverbial window! And putting clamshell doors is, visually speaking, an evolutionary backstep. That's not to say I don't like them, but I think in a post-TNG context they don't belong so much anymore.
My problem with it is that it doesn't WORK. The door panels won't "mesh" as they open... there's no way that this mechanism can function unless the individual door panel segments actually "morph" as they open.
There are very few things that "work" when Eaves has had a hand in them, IMO...
I actually LIKE the concept of the "drive through" bay, but... a ship like this one doesn't need that, really. I mean, if this was a "shuttlecarrier" which was flying many many shuttles and fighters at all times, sure, you need that. But how often will you be running a full combat-air-patrol around the 1701E?
Wait, I'm not Hellsgate! Who said anything about fighters!?
As far as it being a shuttlecarrier though, I'm fairly comfortable with the idea of taking the Ent-E in a new direction - just as the Ent-D had new capabilities over the 1701. I should also point out that I'd have increased the Ent-E in mass and dimensions to be at least equivalent to the Ent-C if not the Ent-D herself. Why? Because it just seems weird to put Picard in charge of a dinky little ship.
They've GOT that. Look just forward of the current "launcher/yacht" emplacement... there's a big cut-out with windows. That's what that is... so you've already got what you want.
Well, that's not quite what I had in mind - those windows look fairly standard in height, whereas I was thinking something more along the lines of possibly two decks tall.
Why "visible?" Seriously... I doubt that the vegetation in there needs it (the presence of windows might actually be HARMFUL for the vegetation, which needs a constant light/dark cycle after all!)
Probably for the same reasons that you did - it's a nice homage to the TMP refit!
I agree entirely on your points, but since the arboretum windows were included on both the TMP and TNG (and possibly other) Enterprises, I see no reason not to here.
So... the idea that there are no windows for any hypothetical "arboretum" in the 1701E doesn't bug me in the least. Can you give a reason that they're NEEDED?
I never claimed that they
were needed. I simply included them as a personal preference, and based on precedent.
These would be the main "offensive" phasers... while the strips would be more defensive in nature. That's be MY approach, anyway.
I'm thinking more as point-defence emplacements against torpedoes, etc. Definitely
not as "uber cannons" like the E-D dreadnought had though.
I'd assume that it's already there, but just not MARKED like it is on the saucer and nacelle tips.
That makes little sense - if we look back to TMP and TNG all emplacements were similarly marked (ignoring production rush-jobs like the Ent-C!). Why simply stop using these markings for certain RCS ports now?
Overall, good ideas, except for the silly "forward swept" thing though...
Um thanks, I
think.
I must point out I'd completely forgotten about the Escape Pods though... bloody annoying, "kewl" shaped wastes of space that had to land upside-down and could never hope to interlock with the pods from other vessels (think Wolf 359) - or each other! What a joke...
) and I'm sure this thread has better uses than for us to discuss a situation that Ptrope has kindly halted. 
