What is the ugliest ship in starfleet?

[Mage]

Not an ugly ship, as such, but a weird *name*: the Steamrunner class. What the hell does that word even mean, anyway?

The ship itself looks really cool. Coulda picked a better name though.

Dunno where I read this, but the ship was supposed to be the Streamrunner class, but during production, someone somewhere dropped the R on a newer sketch and they thought it sounded kinda steampunk-like, so stuck with it.

Personally, I didn't like the Olympic class, looked a bit out of proportion.

 

[Probert]

Galaxy Class (Enterprise D) yuck!

This is the worst hero ship IMO. Really small nacelles, completely distorted saucer. This one has never done anything for me.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Enterprise-D looks like a piece of alien furniture. If it didn’t have tiny windows all over it, how would you even know it was supposed to be a spaceship?

Just out of curiosity, what would make it recognizable as a spaceship?

The nacelles may seem small in relation to the Galaxy's primary hull, but they're almost as long as the classic TOS Enterprise itself. The saucer is perfectly symmetrical and no more distorted than Voyager's.

Galaxy does have a lot of windows.... at the Producer's request. The windows in angled hull sections are longer than vertical sections allowing crew & passengers of all heights to see through them... running nearly floor to ceiling. The Production Designer chose not to recreate that in the sets, I think, because of not being able to fill the longer spaces with a reflective material (simulating transparent aluminum).

The ship exterior was given a more elegant look to be less threatening when meeting new civilizations and the organic shape is also inherently stronger than sharper geometric forms. The interior was created with a warmer palette, including wood and softer materials, to make the crew more comfortable during longer deployments.

As for proportions,... the saucer is the primary hull and is, therefore, the primary component. The engineering hull is secondary, supporting the saucer's mission & operations, and is tasked with defending it when separated.

And if 'Space Therapist' could expand on "yuck",... I would be happy to discuss all the other shortcomings of this ship.

I don't mind criticism if there is a 'because...' attached. How else am I gonna learn to do it right?

Andrew-

 

[sojourner]

Somehow I had a feeling this thread would not turn out well.

 

[Probert]

And the Stargazer-I know Picard was fond of it, but whoever designed that one needed to put away the pipe for a few weeks.

The Stargazer was a Deep Space Science Vessel. It had a thick main hull to house large expeditionary ships of all kinds tasked with exploring new planets and investigating unusual space phenomena. It also contained large storage compartments in which to bring back artifacts and samples for Starfleet Scientists to study. The duel warp systems were designed to get these DSSVs into distant regions & back as quickly and efficiently as possible, for ships of that era.

And,... sorry, no pipe-usage here,
Andrew-

 

[judge alba]

the olympic class has to be my second horribleist ship but topping that would be the runabouts, never liked them they just look like flying bricks and when they stuck that roll bar thing on top once it just made them look worse.

 

[Captain Verata]

This is the worst hero ship IMO. Really small nacelles, completely distorted saucer. This one has never done anything for me.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Enterprise-D looks like a piece of alien furniture. If it didn’t have tiny windows all over it, how would you even know it was supposed to be a spaceship?

Just out of curiosity, what would make it recognizable as a spaceship?

The nacelles may seem small in relation to the Galaxy's primary hull, but they're almost as long as the classic TOS Enterprise itself. The saucer is perfectly symmetrical and no more distorted than Voyager's.

Galaxy does have a lot of windows.... at the Producer's request. The windows in angled hull sections are longer than vertical sections allowing crew & passengers of all heights to see through them... running nearly floor to ceiling. The Production Designer chose not to recreate that in the sets, I think, because of not being able to fill the longer spaces with a reflective material (simulating transparent aluminum).

The ship exterior was given a more elegant look to be less threatening when meeting new civilizations and the organic shape is also inherently stronger than sharper geometric forms. The interior was created with a warmer palette, including wood and softer materials, to make the crew more comfortable during longer deployments.

As for proportions,... the saucer is the primary hull and is, therefore, the primary component. The engineering hull is secondary, supporting the saucer's mission & operations, and is tasked with defending it when separated.

And if 'Space Therapist' could expand on "yuck",... I would be happy to discuss all the other shortcomings of this ship.

I don't mind criticism if there is a 'because...' attached. How else am I gonna learn to do it right?

Andrew-

Don't worry. I love the Galaxy class and so do many other people. It set the standard for all other 24th century Starfleet ships. Galaxy and Sovereign are the top two in my opinion.

 

[Search4]

Let's be clear: Andrew Probert wins, hands down.

My major issue with the Galaxy class is the difficulty of manufacturing a ship with so many differently sized parts / curves. I'm reminded of the Space Shuttle, which requires 30,000 ceramic tiles, for re-entry heat protection, ALL of which are individually shaped. Of course, that's probably not a constraint in the 24th century, but that's what i think when i look at her.

 

[PopBoy]

Oberth class.

What the hell? I always wondered how they got to the engineering section. Those two prods looked immensely ridiculous. Why have a gap in the middle. Why not fill that gap. Moreover engineering section looked rather like a melted sex toy.

 

[scotpens]

The ship exterior was given a more elegant look to be less threatening when meeting new civilizations . . .

Well, that’s just silly. If a civilization is advanced enough to pick up images of the Enterprise in space, they aren’t going to assume a vessel is any more or less “threatening” because of its shape. Why not build the Enterprise-D to look like a giant teddy bear? Or a Tickle Me Elmo doll?

Besides, there’s nothing particulary aggressive-looking about the original TOS-E or the TMP Refit.

As for proportions,... the saucer is the primary hull and is, therefore, the primary component. The engineering hull is secondary, supporting the saucer's mission & operations, and is tasked with defending it when separated.

. . . I don't mind criticism if there is a 'because...' attached. How else am I gonna learn to do it right?

Well, to begin with, you might read up on classic visual proportions.

 

[sojourner]

Scotpens,

You do know who you're talking to?

 

[BlobVanDam]

Well, to begin with, you might read up on classic visual proportions.

Of all the TOS fanboyism I've seen, that page would have to be about the lamest attempt I've ever seen

So that squiggle and circles apparently line up perfectly with the original Enterprise, but the Enterprise D is a cm off fitting that mythical box, and it's therefore ugly? It seems to fit these magical shapes better than the original. What a load of garbage.

Good design comes from artistic visual judgement, not a math equation of no true aesthetic value. Personally, I'll take a Probert design over a starship designed by mathematicians any day, thank you very much.

 

[Arpy]

scotpens, I happen to love both the original and Enterprise-D. Should my mind not be able to compute the beauty of both because the latter does not conform to the "classical visual proportions" of the former?

Andrew, what was with all the greebles on the Stargazer? I like the ship, but I thought it could have been more elegant without them.

 

[bullethead]

Andrew, what was with all the greebles on the Stargazer? I like the ship, but I thought it could have been more elegant without them.

From what I've heard, they built the model out of bunch of other model kits, including a Macross Valkyrie.

 

[scotpens]

Scotpens,

You do know who you're talking to?

Oops, my bad. Wasn’t paying too much attention to usernames.

Still, I stand by my opinion of the Galaxy-class. The thing looks malproportioned, like a macrocephalic dwarf. (No offense intended to any macrocephalic dwarfs who may be reading this.)

. . . So that squiggle and circles apparently line up perfectly with the original Enterprise, but the Enterprise D is a cm off fitting that mythical box, and it's therefore ugly? It seems to fit these magical shapes better than the original. What a load of garbage.

Good design comes from artistic visual judgement, not a math equation of no true aesthetic value. Personally, I'll take a Probert design over a starship designed by mathematicians any day, thank you very much.

If the Golden Ratio and the Fibonacci spiral didn’t have inherent aesthetic value, artists and architects wouldn’t have been using those proportions, whether deliberately or unconsciously, since antiquity.

 

[BlobVanDam]

. . . So that squiggle and circles apparently line up perfectly with the original Enterprise, but the Enterprise D is a cm off fitting that mythical box, and it's therefore ugly? It seems to fit these magical shapes better than the original. What a load of garbage.

Good design comes from artistic visual judgement, not a math equation of no true aesthetic value. Personally, I'll take a Probert design over a starship designed by mathematicians any day, thank you very much.

If the Golden Ratio and the Fibonacci spiral didn’t have inherent aesthetic value, artists and architects wouldn’t have been using those proportions, whether deliberately or unconsciously, since antiquity.

Even taking that into account, the article was completely biased in claiming that the 1701 fitted perfectly with some circles, while claiming the D didn't. It was picking and choosing to try and form some objective reasoning that the 1701 is perfection and that the D is ugly, when it's so clearly skewed it's not even funny. The D fitted those boxes a lot better than the 1701 was apparently fitting two random circles. It was just TOS purist wankery.

 

[Scrambo]

I'd have to say the Excelsior class.

I have to agree i dont like the excelsior class

 

[Probert]

The ship exterior was given a more elegant look to be less threatening when meeting new civilizations . . .

Well, that’s just silly. If a civilization is advanced enough to pick up images of the Enterprise in space, they aren’t going to assume a vessel is any more or less “threatening” because of its shape.

It's a psychological FACT that smooth forms are less threatening than jagged, pointy ones... compare Micky Mouse to Roger Rabbit and their relative popularity. In recent films, look at the Romulan spaceship in JJ-Trek... ALL points compared to Spock's ship. Looking at robots, compare the Marvin robot, in 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', to any version of Galactica's Cylons. As for planetary cultures,... compare the cities of Alderaan to the planet-city of Coruscant in Star Wars... the list goes on.

Why not build the Enterprise-D to look like a giant teddy bear? Or a Tickle Me Elmo doll?

Now those spaceships would be way too scarey to even think about,... meaning you have just come up with the ultimate oxymoron.

. . . I don't mind criticism if there is a 'because...' attached. How else am I gonna learn to do it right?

Well, to begin with, you might read up on classic visual proportions.

Thanks,... I needed a good laugh.

Interesting how the TOS ship, being way too narrow to fit within the rectangles, is perfect while the Galaxy, which extends beyond it,... is all crap.

Seriously, you are not alone, as one being unable to embrace the Galaxy,... my attempt at showing a logical design progression through the many ships named Enterprise. Most people still think of it as being made with steel when it is actually constructed of plastics & ceramics. Many people feel that ships which look like Army tanks are more believable than my organic visions,... and that's okay (understandable even), given the look of NASA's Moon Lander & all. Frankly, I prefer thinking that Mankind will rise above the tin-can look in Spacecraft the way we've risen from the Model-T car to the Koenigsegg-Trevita or the Bugatti Veyron.

As for 'ARPY's' question regarding the Stargazer greebles, that detailing was added to enhance the feeling that the ship had multiple sensors added to it for a verity of purposes... being a Science Research Vessel.

Andrew-

 

[Chaos Descending]

Mr. Probert, I have the utmost respect for your work. You're an exceptionally talented artist, and your work on the Phase II/Motion Picture NCC-1701 refit resulted in the best starship design I've ever seen in my life. Despite that, I still could never really get into the NCC-1701-D design. It's a good work of art, but it doesn't work for me visually. That's all I wanted to say.

 

[Galileo7]

... Phase II/Motion Picture NCC-1701 refit resulted in the best starship design I've ever seen in my life. ...

Agreed.

 

[scotpens]

Many people feel that ships which look like Army tanks are more believable than my organic visions,... and that's okay (understandable even), given the look of NASA's Moon Lander & all.

And, even more so, the hyperdetailed greeblied look of movie spaceships starting with 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Frankly, I prefer thinking that Mankind will rise above the tin-can look in Spacecraft the way we've risen from the Model-T car to the Koenigsegg-Trevita or the Bugatti Veyron.

I’d also like to believe — like to believe, mind you — that future technology wil alllow us to design spaceships for esthetics as well as pure functionality. That’s why the classic TOS-E has always appealed to me — it suggests the look of a graceful, majestic, tall-masted sailing vessel.

Oh, and I certainly don’t intend to denigrate your creative talent or your concepts regarding spacecraft evolution. It’s just that, IMHO, you can’t improve on perfection.