• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery at SDCC - Consolidated Thread

Well, I like the colours and the retro style of the poster!

Yeah...

The ship though... still ugly. Somewhat better than in the first teaser but that's not saying much.I kinda like how crude looking it is though, making it feasibly less advanced than Connie. I just hope it is not megahuge. I'm fine if it is a bit larger than Connie, but it should be smaller than Excelsior.

Complaining about the 'sensibility' of the structure is a waste of time though. The design doesn't need to make technical sense to us, the designs of many scifi ship don't. I'm completely fine thinking that these design decisions have reasons that make perfect sense to 23th century starship builders, and we don't need to understand those reasons.
 
Last edited:
Longinus said:
, the designs of many scifi ship doesn't.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is because the guys making science fiction can't be bothered to know the science, and we the consumers of their products let them get away with it. It's all fantasy now.
 
psCargile said:
It seems to me that this is because the guys making science fiction can't be bothered to know the science, and we the consumers of their products let them get away with it. It's all fantasy now.
Click to expand...

Like the folks who designed the Enterprise?

They knew the basic science, but it's not really reflected in the ship's design.
 
Serveaux said:
Like the folks who designed the Enterprise?

They knew the basic science, but it's not really reflected in the ship's design.
Click to expand...

They were able to do what a lot of good science fiction does: base it in actual science, and then go out into the borderline improbable with it.

The Enterprise, aerodynamically, wouldn't work well at all (anyone who built the Estes model rocket can attest to that). But from its basis in actual science, it starts with the basics (rocket-like nacelles, saucer, etc.) and then went from there.
 
psCargile said:
Matt Jefferies knew what he was doing.
Click to expand...

In that he made something look like a "space ship" from the 1960's point of view, yes. Everything else was making it look pretty for the camera. No NASA projection of future spacecraft look remotely like Trek ships, or anything from popular science fiction for the most part.
 
Star Wars used a concept style that mostly ignored principles of science over artistic flare. Many concept artists have been influenced by the style ever since.


Kemaiku said:
No NASA projection of future spacecraft look remotely like Trek ships, or anything from popular science fiction for the most part.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that popular science fiction doesn't do future spacecraft that look remotely like what NASA projects. I always look for the radiators and fuel tanks. They always seem to be missing.

Funny how we demand realism in everything but design.
 
Their isn't much realism to be found, certainly not in the 50's and 60's, the original Enterprise is iconic but nothing more than slightly more thought out than other ships by using different shapes.
 
psCargile said:
Star Wars used a concept style that mostly ignored principles of science over artistic flare. Many concept artists have been influenced by the style ever since.

What I'm saying is that popular science fiction doesn't do future spacecraft that look remotely like what NASA projects. I always look for the radiators and fuel tanks. They always seem to be missing.
Click to expand...
The original Enterprise had plenty of radiators. Certainly along the nacelles, and potentially at the leading periphery of the secondary hull.

Fuel tanks are another matter, but I can assume there's some space available in the various hulls. Heck, the nacelle pylons alone could easily hold around 400,000 unpressurized liters each.
 
Spaceships need to be aerodynamic?

KirkusOveractus said:
They were able to do what a lot of good science fiction does: base it in actual science, and then go out into the borderline improbable with it.

The Enterprise, aerodynamically, wouldn't work well at all (anyone who built the Estes model rocket can attest to that). But from its basis in actual science, it starts with the basics (rocket-like nacelles, saucer, etc.) and then went from there.
Click to expand...
 
psCargile said:
It seems to me that this is because the guys making science fiction can't be bothered to know the science, and we the consumers of their products let them get away with it. It's all fantasy now.
Click to expand...
You mean the people who design scifi ships do not know the real science behind faster than light spacecrafts? I always kinda suspected that this might be the case...
 
No. The parts the would deal with real and known science. It's not like there isn't an internet to learn with. Any artist can do "one stop shopping" at Atomic Rockets and pick up how to do it plausibly. The guys that did Pandora did it better than anyone else.
 
psCargile said:
@Psion, I'm speaking in general.
Click to expand...
Of course you are ... I'm simply pointing out one of the advantages of the ship's design.

Longinus said:
You mean the people who design scifi ships do not know the real science behind faster than light spacecrafts? I always kinda suspected that this might be the case...
Click to expand...

No, but it isn't too much to expect them to take a few cues from real space craft design. Have a look at E.C. Henry's work on Star Trek: Pacific ... he takes Trek designs and retrofits them with more believable tech.
 
Psion said:
No, but it isn't too much to expect them to take a few cues from real space craft design. Have a look at E.C. Henry's work on Star Trek: Pacific ... he takes Trek designs and retrofits them with more believable tech.
Click to expand...
Taking cues from contemporary real spacecraft for FTL ships that are supposed to exist hundreds of years from now makes about as much sense as taking design cues from Egyptian war chariots when designing sports cars.
 
Last edited:
Faster than light travel is still entirely hypothetical and may not be any kind of practical reality.

Claiming you can design a realistic ship that can do that is a serious level of bullshit.
 
Longinus said:
Taking cues from contemporary real space craft for FTL ships that are supposed to exist hundreds of years from now makes about as much sense as taking design cues from Egyptian war chariots when designing sports cars.
Click to expand...
Pure hyperbole.
  • Thermodynamics is a thing that isn't going away by the 23rd century. So we know whatever systems they use will generate heat. Heat on a spaceship is a problem. Expecting radiators isn't unreasonable.
  • The laws of motion aren't going away, either. All objects have inertia and mass. Acceleration will cause components to flex and may exceed shearing forces without bracing.
  • Systems require power and while you might use near-magical antimatter as a fuel source, you need normal-matter for it to react with. Normal matter that will need to be kept in tanks. Backup systems will require their own fuel supply as well.
  • Utilities such as hot and cold water require piping; power requires conduit; HVAC requires ductwork. Access to the exterior will require at least a few hatches. Space walks require, for safety reasons, places to grab hold, braces for leverage, and tie-points for safety lines.
Now you can begin postulating technology to mitigate this, but that itself will introduce characteristic design elements ... such as elongated nacelles for warp drive. We're not speaking about scientific accuracy with a 23rd century perspective, but realism that lends itself to a believable design.

You seem to be advocating design fundamentals that hand a crayon to a child and say, "Draw a kewl spaceship!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top