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

[Darth_Yoda]

The "new look" has grown on me, at first I was a bit (especially the naccels), but now I want to see it in action.

 

[Ghostface1701]

The "new look" has grown on me, at first I was a bit (especially the naccels), but now I want to see it in action.

There must be people in the US watching the trailer by now. At least one cinema in London is showing the trailer from today too.

 

[Jim Steele]

The "new look" has grown on me, at first I was a bit (especially the naccels), but now I want to see it in action.

I still don't like it, or at least I don't like that picture, but I'm with you on seeing it in action. I'm willing to bet it looks a lot cooler in motion.

 

[Captain Robert April]

A turd in motion is still a turd.

 

[Jim Steele]

A turd in motion is still a turd.

It might end up looking less like a turd when we actually see it properly, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Psion]

It does look better in the trailer, and it's gorgeous from head-on. I'm not sold on the need for some of the changes, but it works better on screen than that one static photo would have us believe.

 

[ancient]

Ignoring the neck and pylons for a moment, if the mass of the warp nacelles (above the impulse nozzles) equals that of the secondary hull (below the impulse nozzles) then the impulse engines would be generating a thrust vector through the ship's center of mass as it must for optimum stability.

Just one quick comment... I know you get this, but it needs clarification for the non-techy-types. You're oversimplifying.

You're not really talking about the masses being equal, you're talking about the moments of inertia being equal. This has to do with the total mass, and the distribution of that mass relative to the line-of-action of the thrust system.

I strongly resisted pointing this out on the grounds that no one probably cares. Damn you!

Though come to think of it, I'm sure there is probably some way of justifying the ship's proportions through the use of moment arms. Like, why the neck is so long. Also, as nacelles get smaller, the neck (or arm, if you will...) also must get shorter - assuming you don't move the impulse engine.

It does look better in the trailer, and it's gorgeous from head-on. I'm not sold on the need for some of the changes, but it works better on screen than that one static photo would have us believe.

It figures.

 

[Enterprise101]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

 

[Enterprise101]

... Please God, don't let this be the real thing, for the proportions of the thing are asthetically retarded and extremely offensive! Just for starters, the neck is as long as the ship's body! What the hell were they thinking?!! Talk about topping arse over head! I could go into justifying the terrible proportions and connecting points of the ship's main features, but really I cannot be bothered waisting my breath on the very rude and poor dynamics of the design!

...Please assure me that this is not the final thing!... If it is, I'm devastated - completely gutted!

Let's hope and pray that it at least looks better on the big screen!

If anyone is interested, my Enterprise designs are available at...
www.freeman33.com/art23.html
www.freeman33.com/art23b.html
www.freeman33.com/art24.html
www.freeman33.com/art25.html

 

[SalvorHardin]

... Please God, don't let this be the real thing,

...Please assure me that this is not the final thing!... If it is, I'm devastated - completely gutted!

Sorry man....You are screwed

It's real

 

[trevanian]

This was already established long ago: the new nacelles lift up and spin like helicopter blades. The deflector dish spins to provide forward thrust. That's why it's shaped more like a turbine this time. This is how the ship takes off from San Francisco. Of course, the engine hull has to slide back a bit to make room before they do it.

Gee, and I was beginning to think they built it in Iowa, then hired David Copperfield XXII to magic it into space.

That's not feasible.

Well then maybe they should just built it in space, the way you'd build a real interplanetary vessel that doesn't need to enter atmospheres.

 

[Trekker4747]

Don't like it. It's a mess.

The undercut is too severe, the secondary hull too short, the neck goes back too far, the engine pylons connect with the hull to far back and the nacelles' line of sight is blocked by the primary hull. The primary hull itself is fine, but overall?

Blech.

 

[Enterprise101]

... Please God, don't let this be the real thing,

...Please assure me that this is not the final thing!... If it is, I'm devastated - completely gutted!

Sorry man....You are screwed

It's real

Cheers for that. I like J.J's quote though...
''I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now... It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''
Very much to what I also feel was Gene's main ideal - "optimism and understanding."

 

[Enterprise101]

Don't like it. It's a mess.

The undercut is too severe, the secondary hull too short, the neck goes back too far, the engine pylons connect with the hull to far back and the nacelles' line of sight is blocked by the primary hull. The primary hull itself is fine, but overall?

Blech.

Agree totally Nice to know that there are others out there who appreciate and know the lines of Enterprise asthetics.

 

[ancient]

Gee, and I was beginning to think they built it in Iowa, then hired David Copperfield XXII to magic it into space.

That's not feasible.

Well then maybe they should just built it in space, the way you'd build a real interplanetary vessel that doesn't need to enter atmospheres.

Man, you're being dead serious aren't you? Y'know, the only reason the ship never landed in TOS was because it was too expenive to show. It ain't a big deal.

 

[Jim Steele]

Don't like it. It's a mess.

The undercut is too severe, the secondary hull too short, the neck goes back too far, the engine pylons connect with the hull to far back and the nacelles' line of sight is blocked by the primary hull. The primary hull itself is fine, but overall?

Blech.

Agree totally Nice to know that there are others out there who appreciate and know the lines of Enterprise asthetics.

So anyone who disagrees with you is tasteless and ignorant, right?

 

[Kpnuts]

I love it. And if it looks even nicer in the trailer as has been reported, even better!

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Man, you're being dead serious aren't you? Y'know, the only reason the ship never landed in TOS was because it was too expenive to show. It ain't a big deal.

So does that mean transporter technology isn't going to be depicted in ST:XI? It was, after all, just a cost-cutting measure that GR pulled out of his ass when writing The Cage.

TGT

 

[ancient]

Man, you're being dead serious aren't you? Y'know, the only reason the ship never landed in TOS was because it was too expenive to show. It ain't a big deal.

So does that mean transporter technology isn't going to be depicted in ST:XI? It was, after all, just a cost-cutting measure that GR pulled out of his ass when writing The Cage.

TGT

Nope, just pointing out that there was nothing objectionable about the idea to Gene et al, other than cost.

 

[Neumann]

I certainly doubt that such starship would have vectoring nacelles, even voyagers moving nacelles made no sense... We can change the shape of space but we must move physically our nacelles to get it to work... :-S

Actually they were minimizing the damage the ship caused as it punched a whole through subspace, which they found out was happening when ships went to warp in a TNG episode.

Yes I know that... Why not have them "up" all along in the first place?

It's there just for the "Awe" effect.