I'm not sure its fair to compare apple-store, f14, f16 etc 'sleek' design methods with what you'd use in a vacuum, where air resistance is not a factor. Form presumably derives from function, after all.
Your point is correct, in that there are different design requirements in all cases. But the argument for "exposed details" is actually WORSE in a Trek-type environment than it is in, say, the F-22.
There's no one who would say the Lunar Excursion Module was "streamlined" but it was as advanced as we could build at the time, and to date the only space-only space ship ever built.
Well, that's highly debatable that it's the "most advanced we could build at the time."
A more accurate statement is that it was built the best, overall, that we could at the time given the LIMITATIONS we were working under.
There was no need for streamlining... well, that's obvious. But there's also not only no need for stealthiness, but actually a massive argument AGAINST that (they really wanted to be able to track these things by radar from earthbound dishes, remember!) The thing was designed to operate for only a very brief period of time, and the core, central issue with the design was that it had to be extremely LIGHTWEIGHT... since it, and everything else in those missions, had to be lifted into space through the use of a rocket. A single gram of additional weight would cost the space program a great deal...
So we got delicate, short-lifespan mechanisms that would do the job that they were asked to do, one time, and then never be used again. The only really robust part of the whole Apollo program was the command module, because it had to be tough enough to survive reentry.
Now... if the Apollo program engineering team hadn't been limited by the weight penalties, and had they been designing things intended to be used more than once, I strongly suspect that the approach you saw in those vehicles and systems would have been very much different.
More advanced techniques would probably put all servicing on the interior, not in vacuum.
Exactly... and that was the expressed opinion of M.J, too. He thought it was goofy to have to get into a spacesuit and go outside if you didn't absolutely have to. And I agree with his position, wholeheartedly.
In cases where something needs to be outside, it would need to be in the form of a detachable module, which can then be brought inside for servicing. In the case of the TOS "Galactica," with all those boxes all over the exterior... you might argue, for instance, that they were subsystems which could be detached, brought inside by a service drone, and then worked on in a shirtsleeves environment. In the case of Trek, everything was either behind a "window" or behind a hatch. And I think that's the best possible solution, personally.
But, its clear the ship has to dump something, be it heat, or cherenkov radiation, or another waste product that's made up, since it literally glows. Once you are dumping that "something", you need some form of skin detail and exit hatches/heat sinks or their equivalent.
No argument... and I don't think anyone else has argued against that either. Again, on the TOS 1701, we have a number of items which are clearly and unambiguously intended to be that sort of element... far more so than with many of the later "cooler" designs we've been given.
And to say it the other way: the ship needs ingress points too. Hard points for docking, intakes for deuterium and anti-matter, for some form of food product (even if elemental), air, water, and we know at least on the E-E there is coolant aboard as well.
Well, let's look at the TMP 1701, just for example. The number of exposed hardware items was very low on that ship... not really any more than seen on the TOS ship, really (look at Vektor's reworking in Trek Art for example, to see how this can be done without being contradictory with what we've seen in the past).
The Enterprise had LOTS of hatches (painted on, granted, but still clearly hatches). And I'm sure that there were umbilicals and fill-ports and so forth as well, which were simply small enough that we couldn't make them out on our 1966 TV sets.
I THINK we're in agreement here... but I'm not 100% sure what your point was, so if I'm mistaken, please feel free to expand on your point.
