Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

I think aircraft carrier refits show it much better. To that end, giving the following link again:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm

It shows how the 1701 was refitted, and down below it gives a schematic of an aircraft carrier refitted through the years.

This again. No!

I much rather have nothing, than crap.

 

I would've sworn I'd read you say that... that you preferred TMP over TOS. So if I'm dead wrong, that means you prefer TOS over TMP? Or that you don't like either and prefer TNG? C'mon, don't just give a negative, make the appropriate POSITIVE statement... otherwise, nobody knows what's NOT "dead wrong."

Hey, I was trying to show respect here... play along willya?

 

Well, "Hangar 18" is the number of one of the hangars out at Groom Lake. But there's also a "Hangar 18" at an AF base in Ohio, and I think that most of the "18" comments from the 1960s were referring to that one, weren't they?

The Groom Lake base (aka "Area 51") is just where they test-fly stuff like the Nighthawk... trust me, if there were flying saucers there at any point, they'd have long since been moved. Groom lake is really, at best, a distraction these days. But hey, it's very effective for that purpose, isn't it?

 

I bet he's giving you the finger.

 

Thanks for the kind words Psion. Glad you liked them. I've never actually had the skill to draw it in perspective, which I would really love to see one day, cause I think if you get the elevations looking sweet, it will definitely work in perspective too. I also sent these designs to John Eaves (Enterprise-E designer) just before the announcement of the film prequel a couple of years ago. I eventually spoke to John and he liked what I caame up with. We spoke on the phone for about 10 minutes and he was very friendly indeed - it was like we were old mates catching up. That was a bit of a buzz. Thanks again.

 

The Big E from the front.

[image removed]

And the white corridors!

[image removed]

Kirk looks up at the huge Enterprise fromthe ground:

[image removed]

 

Looks great, easily distinguishable as the Enterprise. The space station looks massive! We need more shots like this from the Trailer.

 

They are the best screen captures I can get...the video is distorted. Just remember that.

 

Okay, fears alleviated. Carry on.

 

New warp effect:

[image removed]

The Big E warps directly into WOLF 359!

[image removed]

 

Hey, look. The globes on the warp drive glow and you can see the two impulse engines.

 

What a great link, thanks! I love this sort of thing. Even here though, I have to point out that part of the author's conclusion is that "... it would be easier to explain the considerable differences in that the Enterprise 'refit' is actually a new ship of a new class," and "... the countless differences are striking and can't be simply explained by inaccurate presentation on screen, as it might be possible with alien ships. Therefore it seems necessary to accept that Starfleet built something very close to a new ship, but retained several parts of the old ship - maybe to save costs."

 

So where's the trailer? I wait for months and no trailer??

 

BUT THAT GOES AGAINST TEH CANN-ONN!!!11111!!1!!!!!!!!!!11

COCKFUCKERY!!!!

 

After THIS trailer no one cares anymoreeee!

RAMA

 

I'm actually very tempted to go to another showing of Bond this weekend to actually see this thing on the big screen (hopefully). As amazing as it was on shaky cam footage, it must be absolutely epic in the theater.

 

RAMA! You scoundrel!!!

You know, I think it's around here guys like you and guys like me ... split.

The split is between those who want to see a more military progression of ships as opposed to those of us who see it as simply a part of the design of a production.

Your view might be (don't mean to put words in) - that starships would follow a rather similar design path as one would see in actual navy or air force machines. This comes from a terrific sense of history and knowledge of functionality. My view (and certainly the design of the new enterprise) is definately in the world of contemporary design. The new enterprise shares a lot of design elements with cars we see today, which have a 'new' retro feel, as well as other design elements familiar today.

Now, I think it's great to go and create something contemporary... but as a bit of a military geek (damn History channel!) I certainly appreciate a more engineering and historical view of what a starship is. And I think TOS lent itelf to this feeling. If only because all the lads making that show were happy to survive WWII in the Pacific!

 

Cost of new Star Trek movie: $150 million.
Average cost of movie ticket: $9.00
Watching the fanboy-canonistas' heads explode: PRICELESS
The new MasterGeekCred Card... get it today!

 

One of the things that delighted me about Star Trek as I grew up was how many times things from the show matched reality. The connection between the real U.S. Navy and Starfleet fascinated me as I learned more and saw the parallels. It adds an element of verisimilitude to the production that makes it a more comfortable place to visit and relax in. When the ground rules keep changing in a show, or the production design changes for no reason other than to make it look cool, it sort of weakens the whole experience for me.

I actually loved the refit Enterprise when it came along. The only thing I hated was the lack of a spire at the focal point of the navigational deflector ... I couldn't figure out why you'd build a parabola and not have something at the focal point to gather (or emit) radiation (I eventually came to terms with this by reasoning that the glowing front we see on the refit and similar vessels is really just a radome, and the actual dish is still there, but behind it). But why were the Klingons different? And why was the transporter effect so different ... and ugly? Those really bugged me, because the rules changed and that kind of inconsistency bugged me.

I'm willing to accept a fresh look at the franchise, but please, please, please put function behind the forms. Make the effort to establish an internally consistent, even plausible reality. Those who don't care one way or another won't notice that there's thought behind the designs and writing. But those of us who do will appreciate the production even more.

A good tool ... a guideline for this kind of consistency is to look at how things are done in the modern world and extrapolate from there. I'm convinced that's part of why the original show was as successful as it was. Because it was crewed by former military men who knew how a military organization looked and felt and they used that to guide their designs.

I'd love to get a team of aircraft designers to sit down and draw up their own Starship Enterprise. And rocket designers, too. And shipwrights or submarine designers. I think the work of graduates from art school looks very nice. But people who design real machines built from real materials to do work in extreme environments isn't just good looking ... it's fascinating.