I love the Ralph McQuarrie concept art but am not a fan of the Discovery. I think it's the nacelles, both their boxy shape and the way they lay flat against the wings. Fuller's comment about legalities makes me wonder if the differences were necessary to avoid issues with the McQuarrie estate or something. I like the Kelvin influences, particularly the saucer rim. I'd ditch the navigational deflector, or swap it out for something like an antenna array. I almost want to learn 3D modelling so I can make my own version.
The good thing about a triangular secondary hull is that it allws great forward port forward starboard firing arcs--and it allows very wide shuttlebays. That would make such designs great for any sci-fi cross-overs. I can easily see the Millennium Falcon, Space 1999 Eagles, vipers and all kinds of smaller ships in a super-wide secondary hull.
Unless they have shields. That makes the shape of the ship irrelevant. Federation ships have their bridges in a very obvious and vulnerable spot after all. Not to mention their propulsion systems (/nacelles).
But the shields are always down to [insert stupidly low percentage here] or "failing" in every episode. They really need a new contractor.
Because in the middle is the docking port for freighter ships. The cockpit is sideways so you can look at the freighter ship while docking it. It's design is clear: The Falcon is a tool, so it basically looks like one. It's purpose is not to look good, it's purpose is functionality.
The things that protect a ship are also the things that decrease the action or drama, so the writers hobble them as necessary. No matter what there is, it will fail.
Actually: Ships in the future dont need bridges. You can connect a terminal to the ship functions everywhere and control the ship there. Already today many connect from home to their workplace, and while they sit in their living room, on their display they see the computer inside the network of their office, maybe even half around the planet. So in "reality" a ship like the Enterprise doesnt need a physical bridge with physical consoles anymore. They wouldnt even need captain within the ship, because the 1701-D could be 100% controlled remote (like drones already do today). So only for dramatic and story telling purposes the 23rd and 24th century ships still need physical bridges. Even today you could do that with a network connection, a couple guys each with a tablet or laptop and a videoprojector for the viewscreen. The Star Trek ships in this case are pretty 20th century.
Unless you have one of the many YT-1300 variants with a central cockpit. https://echostation57.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/yt-1300-variants-from-galaxy-guide-6.jpg http://orig02.deviantart.net/40a5/f..._freighter_variants_by_reiko_foxx-d4mnxxg.png http://pre08.deviantart.net/723a/th...rangmouth_d69qkob_by_baronneutron-d6hgivd.png http://pre05.deviantart.net/3426/th...t_1300_seventh_moon_by_reiko_foxx-d7dpdjb.png (Which are as canon as your pic.) Agreed. It's also supposed to look like junk.
I want the command centre of the new series to be a beach on the holodeck, where the crew lay in the sun and fly the ship from their PADDs.
This is a great concept, theoretically. On a military ship, for example, distributed command - like the internet - would be less prone to failure in battle than if the conventional bridge were hit and destroyed. However, this is probably an idealistic or beginner's concept brought on by academia that an experienced command, or a savvy engineer, would never approve. Basically, you are introducing complexity and more modes of failure which can translate to severe support and reliability issues when under duress. Keeping it simple is paramount. All a conventional bridge crew needs to communicate is an atmosphere to carry the sound waves of local voice commands to the ear. Distributed technology in this profile could introduce critical delay or command failure.
Having a large surface area can be a help on re-entry On big saucer designs http://www.astronautix.com/l/lenticularvehicles.html Kehlet argued that a lenticular vehicle, as a manned spacecraft launched into orbit by a conventional booster, had clear advantages over ballistic, lifting body, and winged designs. At hypersonic re-entry speeds it would undergo lower heating and require less shielding. At the same time it was more maneuverable at subsonic speeds than a winged design, and could land at sea or on land without undercarriage. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed. from the wiki about wing-loading I can imagine Flat and wide--means you can put a hole in something--and still have a lot of margin left--than on a smaller cigar. I love those
These pictures are interesting as they show that this radical ship design is already established in canon as it has already appeared on screen. I was trying to guess if the Discovery is the predecessor or successor to these ships. Could they actually be pictures of the Discovery, perhaps a refit design? Source: http://losttrek.weebly.com/ralph-mcquarries-concept-art.html
We need another poll with more options: Beautiful Not beautiful but interesting Not great but acceptable Ugly and/or inappropriate, but not a total deal-breaker GAAAH! My eyes! My eyes!