This makes sense in light of what ships we see in TNG. While in reality it was only because the Refit Enterprise model was never used, it makes sense in universe.
Constitution Class 24th Century Question
- Thread starter Jeffmw078
- Start date
remaining Ambassador Class ships all imploded from uncontained Ugly Ship syndrome. you can either have an un ugly ship or go faster than light. The universe won't let you get away with both forever.
Was it retired? McCoy suggests that the ship and (commissioned) crew should be rotated out of training duty and back to front-line service, and Kirk's reply indicates that he's the one unsuited to space-adventuring, not the Enterprise itself. Later, when they're sent to check out Regula, Kirk tells Spock that his only objection to Starfleet Command was that the crew was largely trainees, not that there was anything wrong with the ship. People only talk about decommissioning the ship in TSFS, after it was in heavy combat without shields, so it's entirely possible that Starfleet read Scotty's report, determined there was frame damage and the ship was a total loss, and that was that, and if Khan hadn't caught them flat-footed, the Enterprise could've stayed in service indefinitely.
I think you confused the Ambassador with the Galaxy.
Here here! The Ambassador is a far better looking ship than the Galaxy, it's just a shame we never saw more of her.
Actually, they’re both great looking ships. If you want a fugly ship, just look at the Abramsprise.
I object!
Because the top ship has much better proportions than the bottom ship. That makes all the difference.
EC Henry explains it best:
Summary of points he makes?
More familiar, perhaps from decades of seeing it. But better is in the eye of the beholder. Since the 2009 movie those struts on the classic ship looks sooooooo thin.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. When I look at the Abramsprise, I see paper-thin struts for ridiculously oversized nacelles.
I support this objection. Personally, I like the TOS original better by only a thin margin but that is probably nostalgia talking. For actual enjoyment of the ship the Kelvin Enterprise is my personal pick.I object!
Except the video gives a nod to the Golden Ratio, which is bunk.
Whereas I think a broader saucer and 3 "tubes" of the same size works really well, visually. After the Kelvin movies, going back to TOS I thought the nacelles and pylons looked spindly.
...I think we had a thread on that, too. No harm in seeing golden ratios left and right; in fact, you probably can't help that, once made aware of the "concept". But claiming that it's fer real is like claiming that replicated wine doesn't taste as good as the real stuff.
Timo Saloniemi
Which is how I felt about the Enterprise D. Just a weirdly shaped mash up.
Now, that said, when it comes to liking a starship design I have a huge love for the original style of the Enterprise and all its iterations. So, my saying I like the Abrams Enterprise over the Refit is a game of inches when my favorite starship list for Star Trek goes like this:
- Enterprise (TOS)
- Enterprise (Kelvin)
- Enterprise (TMP)
- Enterprise (DSC/SNW)
- Enterprise (The Cage)
That's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He also mentions the "rule of thirds" which is a common design rule.
Plus, just because someone disagrees with the "golden ratio" design rule doesn't automatically make it bunk. It makes it open to discussion. This is the Internet Age and you can find arguments for and against any and every idea or concept. It's not like the golden ration = junk science or fake news or flat Earth thinking.
