greebles

[Atomic_Monkey]

One of the things I've always appreciated about the starships in Star Trek is that they don't have a lot of greebles. I agree with the common objection that it makes no sense to expose mechanical bits on the outside of your hull, but for me it's more than that. Going light on the greebles distinguishes the aesthetic of Star Trek from that of other sci-fi universes (Star Wars, BSG, Aliens, etc.). I also believe that super advanced tech would likely be more solid state and less mechanical. To me, a smooth, organic hull just looks more futuristic. Heck, when people claim to see UFOs they always describe their hulls as being featureless, which adds to the impression of them being incredibly advanced and unearthly.

As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), one of the rationales for model makers adding greebles to space ships is that a smooth hull would look fake when filmed. The more detail a model has, the more real it looks. Greebles can also provide a sense of scale. Is that correct?

If so, that makes sense to me, and I think Star Trek usually finds a good balance between adding detail to ships' exteriors without making the ships look like they're turned inside out. In fact, the aztecing is perfect for this: it gives a hull detail and texture without resorting to greebles.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Makes sense to me, the choice made by Matt Jefferies back in the 60s to keep the hull clean and add windows for scale helped define the Starfleet aesthetic, with the Motion Picture pearlescent aztec hull pattern being the final touch needed to sell the look.

They do put greebles on Starfleet ships sometimes, like on the Reliant and on Voyager's sensor pallets, but I reckon they work because it's a contrast to the normal look. The Reliant looks a bit more scruffy than the elegant Enterprise, hinting that it's more of a workhorse, and Voyager's visible sensor equipment shows that it's a smaller vessel, possibly more geared up for scientific missions.

 

[NCC-73515]

They spent all their greebles on the Borg ships

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Borg ships look like they bought a bunch of model kits to use the parts as greebles on their filming minatures, and when they were used up they took all the empty sprues and made a cube out of them.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Borg ships look like they bought a bunch of model kits to use the parts as greebles on their filming minatures, and when they were used up they took all the empty sprues and made a cube out of them.

That is literally what they did. I just watched a making-of documentary on this.

 

[Unicron]

I occasionally enjoy watching Roger Corman's Battle Beyond The Stars, and I do like the ship designs. Someone built a really nice replica of Space Cowboy's ship, which I think does a good job with surface detail and greeblies. It's a cargo transport not unlike modern big rigs, with a detachable forward section that can land "backwards" on a planet surface.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I occasionally enjoy watching Roger Corman's Battle Beyond The Stars, and I do like the ship designs. Someone built a really nice replica of Space Cowboy's ship, which I think does a good job with surface detail and greeblies.

I’ve had a look, but sorry, it’s not quite to my taste. It feels too industrial. It looks like a collection of bolted-on parts and suggests the society that built it is still reliant on wrenches, rivets and grease. My taste go toward the Enterprise D with its cohesive, sculpted, unibody hull. It suggests a culture defined by advanced material science and superior manufacturing capabilities.

As a general rule of thumb, the more advanced a machine is, the less mechanical is looks. I used the example of a telephone in another thread:

 

[Dukhat]

I’ve had a look, but sorry, it’s not quite to my taste. It feels too industrial. It looks like a collection of bolted-on parts and suggests the society that built it is still reliant on wrenches, rivets and grease. My taste go toward the Enterprise D with its cohesive, sculpted, unibody hull. It suggests a culture defined by advanced material science and superior manufacturing capabilities.

As a general rule of thumb, the more advanced a machine is, the less mechanical is looks. I used the example of a telephone in another thread:

View attachment 53596

So then wouldn't each successive Enterprise after the NCC-1701 look even less detailed?

And to answer your OP: Yes, greebles are used to get a sense of scale.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yeah the TOS Enterprise being smooth was to to represent how advanced it was.
Jefferies imagined that almost everything could be accessed and repaired from inside the ship.

But then future movies and shows added more detailing to the ships, kinda ignoring Jefferies design philosophy

 

[Ithekro]

Mostly smooth. The inner sides of the warp nacelles have some detailing, plus you have the big dish on the secondary hull and the windows (for scaling). Though the scaling with the windows gets a little iffy since they are never interior shots of those windows in TOS.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Actually, the candlestick phone in the picture above is a modern tone-dialing candlestick. Probably very cheaply made, roughly the same quality as the gag-gift-grade phone handsets that were made for use with cell phones and computers, a decade or two ago. And probably just about as durable (I speak from experience).

But to get back on-topic, I'd offer the counterargument that often a clean aesthetic comes from stuff being designed for appearance, rather than for practicality. Compare the space suits worn aboard crew dragons with, say, an Apollo suit. Sure, they'll both keep you alive if the pressure vessel springs a leak during launch, reentry, or docking, but I'd trust the Apollo suit over the SpaceX suit in a heartbeat.

And consider the Apollo Lunar Module: the pressure vessel walls were the minimum that would hold 5PSI pure oxygen against hard vacuum, everything that didn't have to be accessed from inside the pressure vessel was on the outside, and everything that didn't have to be on (or inside) the ascent stage was mounted on the descent stage.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

So then wouldn't each successive Enterprise after the NCC-1701 look even less detailed?

If they were following how tech evolves in the real world, then yes, each one should have a smoother, more organic hull where sections flow into each other with no visible joins. But as I acknowledged in my original post, I realize fictional spaceships need detail to look real on film, so I appreciate that's not entirely feasible.

To me, this is why the design of the Enterprise D was genius. It found the perfect balance between an organic design and the need for detail. Its hull was smooth and integrated, giving it a futuristic look (like an iPhone). Andy Probert was able to add the necessarily detail without resorting to greebles or protuberances. Instead, he used windows, the outlines of escape pods and aztecing to fill out the ship and give it a sense of realism and scale.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I'd offer the counterargument that often a clean aesthetic comes from stuff being designed for appearance, rather than for practicality.

Sure, but that's the point. The more a product evolves, the more its designers take style into consideration. When the tech is sufficiently advanced, its practicality is already maximized. Now the designers can focus on making it pretty.

From listening to Andy Probert, that was the thought behind the Enterprise-D. That starship tech had advanced so far by the 24th century that style was a bigger factor.

 

[Dukhat]

If they were following how tech evolves in the real world, then yes, each one should have a smoother, more organic hull where sections flow into each other with no visible joins. But as I acknowledged in my original post, I realize fictional spaceships need detail to look real on film, so I appreciate that's not entirely feasible.

Then why do you keep bringing up that example in multiple posts?

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Then why do you keep bringing up that example in multiple posts?

I'm genuinely not sure what you mean. Are you asking why I would point to the evolution of a candlestick phone to an iPhone if I recognize a fictional spaceship can never go that plain?

Because I'm suggesting that's the ideal. Although a fictional spaceship might never be as organic and smooth as an iphone, I would hope designers would move more in that direction and away from the aesthetics you find in franchises Alien and BSG.

For another thing, the candlestick-iPhone example explains my love for the Enterprise D. As I explained above, Andy Probert found a way to have a smooth, organic, integrated exterior and yet still supply the detail to give it a sense of realism and scale (through the use of windows, escape pods and aztexing). The Enterprise D is evidence that it's possible to move closer to the iPhone aesthetic, even if we can never fully achieve it.

Finally, I'm simply trying to illustrate the point that the more advance a machine is, the less mechanical it looks. This is true of any tech, which is why I can reused the example if we're talking about the Enterprise's engine room, a control panel, a phaser, a starship or even a toaster.

 

[HotRod]

As a general rule of thumb, the more advanced a machine is, the less mechanical is looks. I used the example of a telephone in another thread:

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[David cgc]

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true.

An iPhone is somewhat like a Jefferies starship (brand new sentence candidate?) in that most of the functional components are inside of it and far smaller than the overall device, which allows for a simplified casing. Form does still follow function, though. Just like the classic crescent-shaped phone handset, it needs to fit in an average hand, with a microphone and speaker about as far apart as the distance between an average person’s mouth and ear. Portability and the large screen dictate that it be flatter and thinner than a standalone 20th century handset.

But I can’t agree that advanced technology will be obligated to become seamless and organic. The standard smartphone design is heavily constrained by its function; the screen is what sets the shape. If you want to see “technology unchained” in the consumer electronics space, you want to look at the “feature phones” from 2000 to 2010, before iPhone-style smartphones devoured the market. A Nokia candy bar or Motorola Razr is a much better example of what starts to happen when function has advanced to the point where it can be subsumed by form.

Even the iPhone disproves the assertion. The cross-section has gone back and forth from curved to straight to curved to straight (and, rumor has it, is headed back to “curved”). Starting with the iPhone 6, the camera began protruding from the case, first just the lens, then a larger bump, then a two-level mesa with a bump and then the lenses sticking out even further. If you’re going by the smoothest, most organic iPhone being the most advanced, you’re looking at the 3GS from 17 years ago. If you're particular about materials (that plastic back case did not wear well), you’re going to go back to the original iPhone from 2007.

 

[Dukhat]

I'm genuinely not sure what you mean.

What I mean is that you don't have to keep using a specific example to prove your point when it doesn't actually prove your point.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

What I mean is that you don't have to keep using a specific example to prove your point when it doesn't actually prove your point.

Which point are you referring to?

The general point that the more advanced a machine is, the less mechanical it looks? The candlestick-iPhone example absolutely illustrates that point. (And for the record, that's not my original idea. It's an accepted idea among most industrial engineers and designers.)

Or are you referring to my specific preference to see fictional spaceships follow this principle and be more streamlined? If so, the candlestick-iPhone example illustrates that point as well.

I'm not sure what you're saying (because you don't explain yourself and expect your comments to be self-evident). Based on your earlier post, it sounded like you were suggesting the fact that a fictional spaceship can never be total smooth like an iPhone means model designers shouldn't bother trying. Is that right? If so, that's illogical. The fact that something can't reach an ideal doesn't mean it's pointless to move in that general direction.

I'm happy to discuss this with you, but you'll need to fully express your thoughts. I don't like having to assume a person's intent because I'll be likely to get it wrong.

 

[Dukhat]

Never mind.