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

[cooleddie74]

Wow. Arne Darvin really fucked up the timeline, didn't he?

 

[DeafPoet]

Given the rather... ascerbic response to the design over there (it makes this thread look like scholarly debate), I think it's pretty classy he bothered to pop in and defend his design.

I got the impression that this isn't the best angle to view this thing at and it's good to know it probably looks better from different angles. Not that I hated it in the first place anyway.

 

[Tom Servo]

Ryan Church, the designer of the ship, has posted at Trekmovie.com and says (in part):

To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/11/first-full-image-of-new-star-trek-enterprise/#1213656

Thats what I figured. I really think there is some sort of lens distortion happening here.

At this point, seeing how people are bitching over this design, I hope this movie changes everything just to piss them off. This is getting to the point of insanity. It really is, and I almost makes me embarrased to be part of the fan base. I mean really, Church goes on to Trek movie, and has a nice post to explain some things to Rick Sternbach, a fellow designer, and we have people attacking the guy.

Trust me, I am excited for the new film, and I while I do have so criticisms of the design, I won't go to attacking the guy like some people around the net have. Its time to put things in a little perspective.

 

[xan82]

Okay, this is my last shot at editing now, and in my oppinion it how it should have looked!

We have:
Saucer and neck further forward,
Slimmer nacells
Red bussards,
no shuttles
change in hull colour

[img=http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3728/newenterprise4lh5.jpg]
[img=http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/newenterprise4lh5.jpg/1/w579.png]


or

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3728/newenterprise4lh5.jpg

Again if someone cold post the image I would appreciate it :-)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Thats what I figured. I really think there is some sort of lens distortion happening here.

As someone who has fiddled around with rendering several versions of the Enterprise I know that there are fore angles and "lenses" if you will that cause the saucer to look not only quite large relative to the rest of the ship but also much thicker or higher around the rim than in side or rear angles.

 

[scotthm]

Ryan Church, the designer of the ship, has posted at Trekmovie.com and says (in part):

We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.

Inviolates being, must have saucer, must have two nacelles. That leaves a whole lot of room to mess things up.

I have to say that the rear end of this Enterprise reminds me very much of the Enterprise-E from Nemesis, from the taper of the nacelles, to the shape and position of the pylons. It looks to my like they relied on it heavily for their design inspiration. I don't like it very much.

---------------

 

[xan82]

Or even better, this one if someone would be kind enough to post it for me.

I'm new and it wont let me post images :-(

Thankies

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1338/newenterprise6uj3.jpg

 

[Jon1701]

Or even better, this one if someone would be kind enough to post it for me.

I'm new and it wont let me post images :-(

Thankies

 

[EJD1984]

Honestly, the more I look at this comparison picture, the more it looks like the new ship isn't as out of proportion as it appears.

If you look at the base of the support pylon at the top of the secondary hull, the distance to the saucer appears to be about the same. And the overall diameter of the two secondary hulls look to be about the same as well.


Where I think the new picture is throwing us off is a combination of three things:

1. The underside curve of the secondary hull is a lot further forward forcing the look that the deflector dish has been moved in relation to the saucer.

2. The oversize support pylon (and structurally more realistic) swooping further back is making adding to the illusion of a smaller secondary hull. If you look at and compare the TOS secondary hull to the Refit, you'll notice that the TOS has a smaller overall O.D. (by about two decks).

3. The picture seems to also be a forced perspective picture, making the parts of the ship that are further away form the point of view appear distorted and smaller than what they really are.

 

[xan82]

Thanks Jon :-)

 

[cooleddie74]

I'm no fan of this new retconned design but at least based on early spoilers the timeline canon seems---to a certain extent---to be preserved since Archer and his beagle Porthos appear to be mentioned by Simon Pegg's Scotty in the script.

 

[Corran Horn]

It's funny...for some reason I think the neck for the saucer is set too far back from the deflector. But seeing that pre-refit NCC-1701 above, it's very similar.

 

[cooleddie74]

Is there any "NCC-1701" lettering emblazoned underneath the saucer like the original TOS Enterprise and on Archer's prequel NX-01?

 

[Gepard]

Ha HA! Eat it, JKTim.

Paramount paid for a professional designer to come in

Well, to be totally fair -- and I say this as a general fan of the new design -- it's John Eaves.

I was under the impression that the bulk of the design work for the new film was handled by Ryan Church. And being somewhat familiar with Church's work from the Star Wars prequels and War of the Worlds, this new Enterprise smacks far more of his aesthetic than it does of Eaves'.

Ryan Church, the designer of the ship, has posted at Trekmovie.com...
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/11/first-full-image-of-new-star-trek-enterprise/#1213656

 

[Neumann]

The ship looks alright, I only miss the Starfleet Markings

 

[MIB]

hmmm. Overall, I approve. The odd stardrive configuration took a moment to get used to, but I like it. To me it seems more robust than the Original E.

 

[cooleddie74]

Reminds me of the Ambassador-class ships from the 24th century, like the Enterprise-C from NEXT GEN.

 

[cultcross]

Reminds me of the Ambassador-class ships from the 24th century, like the Enterprise-C from NEXT GEN.

Yes, me too, but without those ugly 90º angle nacelle struts.

 

[3D Master]

Scientificly the new engines work via the same physics as a jet engine. The large bussard scoops pull in particles and as they are forced out the back the tapering helps speed up the particle stream.. You know how a jet works with water and air. Particles are matter and when you compact them in a stream they move faster.. This is called thrust.

You're fucking kidding me right? Please tell me those idiots didn't just destroy EVERYTHING that is Trek by turning the ffing warp engines in a jet engine. You know, I SAID over and over again, how Abrams ridiculous bullshit talking seems he has NO idea about physics and reality whatsoever, and now it's true.

Do these complete morons not understand a little thing called relativity? That little problem with NOT BEING ABLE to go FASTER THAN THE SPEED of LIGHT, by simply pushing on something.

And to think, the warp drive theory is a fully functional scientific theory for the past 13 FFING years.

Congratulations, Star Trek is reduced to Star Wars; a meaningless pile of shit with nothing that comes even close to any attempt at scientific reality.



I haven't seen a single fan design with pipes sticking out of the nacelles.

Those pylons don't need to be super strong. There are no stresses placed upon them.

Finally once again there are particles in space. You still have to move through those efficently with the least use of power.

No, you don't. For that you have a deflector dish, which bends particles and small pieces of debris around the ship. Which incidentally also has nothing to do with any pylon or warp nacelle.

I'm not even responding to you anymore you have no idea how physics works.

Uh, sorry, but actually I do, and I think a lot better than you do.

Even is space there are particles and friction and Inertia. There are gravity stresses from celestial bodies..

Ever heard of "inertial dampers"? If inertia was still a problem, Star Trek ships wouldn't be possible, because the crew would be bloody smears on the back walls every time the engines are engaged.

Gravity stresses (not even bothering that they are no doubt being damped in warp fields and inertial dampers) of celestial bodies are small unless they enter a star, a neutron star or a black hole, and do not require especially strong pylons.

Particles and friction, similarly, are but tiny effects, that require no especially thick or powerful pylons to keep nacelles attached to. If they did, they'd need super thick hull to keep from dying of radiation exposure. If the hull can protect them from that, those pylons are more than enough to keep nacelles firmly attached to the rest of the ship.

I have no time to deal with a person who is remaining willfully ingnorant of how the REAL universe works so he can stay cocooned in Dampening structural integrity fields. Yes the deflector moves crap out of the way but it's not a perfect system and with the production of that field the Enterprise BLEEDS energy into space.

Except for the annoying problems that:

a. I DO know how the real universe works.

b. Discussing a Trek ship without using Trek technology is idiocy.

c. If the deflector field of a ship would hurt the ship, they didn't build deflector right, and it has nothing to do with the ship itself.

The warp field still needs Micro particles to work you can propell a ship with nothing energy has no mass and mass is what causes thrust, unless you are creating two similar magnetic fields and then they repell each other.

The warp field doesn't need micro particles at all. A warp field is a bending of space-time. Everything inside the warp field or warp bubble is isolated from the rest of the universe as it zips by you.

You have to stop thinking Trek science and start thinking real science.

Oh, yeah! Brilliant. Second time around. Let's discuss Trek ships, but forget about Trek science! Such consistency, I'm in awe!

I'm no fan of this new retconned design but at least based on early spoilers the timeline canon seems---to a certain extent---to be preserved since Archer and his beagle Porthos appear to be mentioned by Simon Pegg's Scotty in the script.

Actually, that makes the timeline completely destroyed.

 

[Corran Horn]

God help this film if they spend more than 2 seconds talking about how the nacelles work.

Who the hell cares how they work? They work.