Imagine the Enterprise, over again!

[MadMan1701A]

Hey everybody. Sorry I haven't had anything new over in the 3D printing thread, but everything has been really busy around here.

In the meantime, I've been thinking about something. Warped9's TOS in the 29th century thread got me started: What if TOS had never existed in the 60s, but was a new show starting out in 2014? With no past history, what would the Enterprise look like?

I've been sketching some things, and looking at lots of concept art, real vehicles, and other things but can't quite get going. All my sketches keep looking to much like what we've seen before.

So what do you guys think? I thought it would be cool if we all had some input!

I'm thinking anything goes... but it probably needs at least some kind of saucer part, and some nacelles of some kind.

Can't wait to see what you guys think up.

-Ricky

 

[sojourner]

Hmmm, I'll have to think abit. I would be more inclined to go "clean sheet" and not tie myself to saucers, nacelles, or any of that stuff. My first inclination would be to go for something based a little more on current thinking regarding possible future tech. The tough part would be to make something iconic like the TOS design that separates it from the crowd of current day sci/fi ships.

 

[Patrickivan]

I think it's hard to get those Trek iconic images out of my head when thinking about it. But we could also use the design principles when the ship model design was commissioned. There should be guidelines.

Since it was your idea, how about pretending you're Gene, and give some things you don't want to see (other than what we have already)? I'm going to sketch some ideas at work. Lots of little sketches LOL. Wait, did I say at work? I mean at work.

Damn.

 

[MadMan1701A]

Thanks guys.

Hmmm, I'll have to think abit. I would be more inclined to go "clean sheet" and not tie myself to saucers, nacelles, or any of that stuff. My first inclination would be to go for something based a little more on current thinking regarding possible future tech. The tough part would be to make something iconic like the TOS design that separates it from the crowd of current day sci/fi ships.

True, clean sheet is what would actually happen if this was really happening. I was hoping we could come up with something almost totally different, but when someone were to see it, they'd be like "is that Star Trek?"

I think it's hard to get those Trek iconic images out of my head when thinking about it. But we could also use the design principles when the ship model design was commissioned. There should be guidelines.

Since it was your idea, how about pretending you're Gene, and give some things you don't want to see (other than what we have already)? I'm going to sketch some ideas at work. Lots of little sketches LOL. Wait, did I say at work? I mean at work.

Damn.

Ha, I'd never do anything like that at work either. What else am I going to do while I wait for the servers to do what I told them?

Good idea... his original thing was no rockets, and no flying saucers, right? I'd say I don't want anything that looks too NASA, or anything biological. Lots of surface detail, but not junked up like Star Wars.

I'll be back with some more stuff later.

-Ricky

 

[BK613]

It is damn difficult, because Trek cast a shadow over what came after it, albeit perhaps not as much as Star Wars. So I think you throw up the NASA stuff on the "don't wall," but perhaps you also throw up the saucer/nacelles as well. OTOH, since the OP posits no ST in the 1960s, maybe you end up with them anyway.

And you look at things like the newest tech and science know-how to determine what your ship could look like and how it could work (i.e., perhaps it is constructed of metamaterials and uses a form of Alcubierre drive.)

And do you keep the aviation nods that MJ included?

 

[JES]

My first thought was to simply take a saucer, fuse a fuselage, and then attach nacelles using wings for pylons.

I know that it can't be that simple.

A major consideration is just how advanced the engineering is.

Are they advanced enough to the point that aesthetics can come before function, and thus the ships are as much a form of art as they serve a purpose?

Or is the technology still primitive enough to a point where form follows function, and thus aesthetics is the last thing thought of during the design process?

I think that the differences in shape between, say the vessels depicted in Star Trek and Babylon 5, I cannot help but think illustrates this in a microcosm form, and not just because they are from completely different television series, but also because of technology. Earth Alliance in Babylon 5 namely lacks shield and artificial gravity technology, which the Federation has, even though the two series exists in the relatively same time period.
The differences between the Constitution class, and the more sculpt-like Galaxy class further illustrates the part that technology plays in determining how a ship will look.

Seeing as how the prevalent current theory seems to indicate that warp propulsion would use ring shaped unit(s), my current idea is using that, attached to a fuselage via a pair of wings, or even by an additional dorsal and ventral set of tail fins. The command hull would still be saucer shaped, fused directly to the fuselage, due to how great a shape it seems aesthetically, aerodynamically, and space-wise.

A triangular or an oval shape, or deviations thereof, could also work aesthetically as a command hull.

A more primitive technology might use a sphere shaped command hull instead, due to having even more room in it's influence, and being an efficient shape pressure-wise.

The sublight forms of propulsion could be placed on/in the command hull, or in the wings and fins (or both).

Another consideration to take into account is how volatile the power source is, and whether or not the forms of propulsion are hazardous, and if so, how much.

Will the power source and/or warp drive need to be easy separate from the inhabited parts of the ship?
This might determine how much the sections of the ship are all fused and integrated with one another.
This might also determine where most of the living quarters on the ship are.

Our understanding of how a warp drive might work could shape the look of the inside of the propulsion unit. For example, the Casimir Effect might be an essential part of the mechanism, which theorizes enough negative energy needed to warp space could be done by using two parallel plates.
If I understand the theory, the idea would be to place a pair of plates nano-meters apart, and then rotate the two in opposite directions, really fast like. This gives me the idea of these plates being rings instead: one outer, larger ring, and one smaller, inner ring, rotating in opposite directions at very high speeds. This would create the warp field.

 

[MadMan1701A]

It is damn difficult, because Trek cast a shadow over what came after it, albeit perhaps not as much as Star Wars. So I think you throw up the NASA stuff on the "don't wall," but perhaps you also throw up the saucer/nacelles as well. OTOH, since the OP posits no ST in the 1960s, maybe you end up with them anyway.

And you look at things like the newest tech and science know-how to determine what your ship could look like and how it could work (i.e., perhaps it is constructed of metamaterials and uses a form of Alcubierre drive.)

And do you keep the aviation nods that MJ included?

Very good points... I think the hardest part is that the Enterprise is so iconic. If we ditch the saucer and nacelles, I worry we won't have something recognizable, at all.

yep, Aviation nods definitely.

My first thought was to simply take a saucer, fuse a fuselage, and then attach nacelles using wings for pylons.

I know that it can't be that simple.

A major consideration is just how advanced the engineering is.

Are they advanced enough to the point that aesthetics can come before function, and thus the ships are as much a form of art as they serve a purpose?

Or is the technology still primitive enough to a point where form follows function, and thus aesthetics is the last thing thought of during the design process?

I think that the differences in shape between, say the vessels depicted in Star Trek and Babylon 5, I cannot help but think illustrates this in a microcosm form, and not just because they are from completely different television series, but also because of technology. Earth Alliance in Babylon 5 namely lacks shield and artificial gravity technology, which the Federation has, even though the two series exists in the relatively same time period.
The differences between the Constitution class, and the more sculpt-like Galaxy class further illustrates the part that technology plays in determining how a ship will look.

Seeing as how the prevalent current theory seems to indicate that warp propulsion would use ring shaped unit(s), my current idea is using that, attached to a fuselage via a pair of wings, or even by an additional dorsal and ventral set of tail fins. The command hull would still be saucer shaped, fused directly to the fuselage, due to how great a shape it seems aesthetically, aerodynamically, and space-wise.

A triangular or an oval shape, or deviations thereof, could also work aesthetically as a command hull.

A more primitive technology might use a sphere shaped command hull instead, due to having even more room in it's influence, and being an efficient shape pressure-wise.

The sublight forms of propulsion could be placed on/in the command hull, or in the wings and fins (or both).

Another consideration to take into account is how volatile the power source is, and whether or not the forms of propulsion are hazardous, and if so, how much.

Will the power source and/or warp drive need to be easy separate from the inhabited parts of the ship?
This might determine how much the sections of the ship are all fused and integrated with one another.
This might also determine where most of the living quarters on the ship are.

Our understanding of how a warp drive might work could shape the look of the inside of the propulsion unit. For example, the Casimir Effect might be an essential part of the mechanism, which theorizes enough negative energy needed to warp space could be done by using two parallel plates.
If I understand the theory, the idea would be to place a pair of plates nano-meters apart, and then rotate the two in opposite directions, really fast like. This gives me the idea of these plates being rings instead: one outer, larger ring, and one smaller, inner ring, rotating in opposite directions at very high speeds. This would create the warp field.

Very good points. I'm thinking level of tech would be closer to TOS than Bab5... form should still follow function, but with some aesthetic thought put into it. I definitely don't want the thing to be a flying sculpture.

I like your ideas for the Casimir Effect Engines... we could have something like that for nacelles. two or more rings rotating, in a structure that looks vaguely similar to a warp engine, but hollow all the way through.

Those things would need to be away from the habitation areas, in case of failure and/or radiation. Definitely no red glowing domes on the things, either... maybe some stuff going on inside, though.

Keep going, guys.

-Ricky

 

[1701TPA]

I AM SURE YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BUT ITS KINDA COOL AND ITS THE ENTERPRISE ; )

Mark Rademaker NASA DESIGN WARP SHIP
http://crowlspace.com/


IMAGE:
http://crowlspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IXS-Enterprise-2.jpg

IMAGE http://crowlspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IXS-Enterprise-3.jpg

 

[MadMan1701A]

Yeah, those are cool, for sure.

JES, you said a word earlier that I liked. You mentioned Triangular when you were talking about the command hull, and I like that! I'm thinking of making that a theme along the whole ship.

I'm also thinking Matter / Antimatter will be the main power source... I don't think much else would be enough. I'm also thinking that the reactors should power both the FTL and sublight engines. Speaking of, should they be ion engines?

-Ricky

 

[USS Triumphant]

IMG]http://mail.4newrenart.com/s.gif[/IMG]
IMAGE http://crowlspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IXS-Enterprise-3.jpg

I can't really draw or use graphics programs very well, but thankfully, someone else was on my wavelength (or I guess I was on theirs, since they did this before I read this thread), because this is very very close to what I was thinking of.

Speaking of, should they be ion engines?

If we're trying to come as close to current tech understanding as possible while still building something that functions more or less as the Enterprise, I would think Alcubierre drive for long distance (warp), and ion engines for "impulse". Our ship isn't going to be pulling any fighter plane maneuvers on ion drive, though - she'll be more like a large naval vessel, for sure.

 

[sojourner]

Ion drives are a terrible choice. They have a tiny TWR and would take months just to leave orbit.

If you want something realistic I would look at Internal Confinement Fusion.

 

[Soran77]

Don't Everyone start screaming at me at once. I know this is a total rip off of Warped9's ship, but I wanted to see if I could achieve the same overall shapes and look of the ship. I'm also using Sketchup. Warped9's inspired me to try my hand at this. So this ship is a total compliment to him!

 

[Warped9]

In designing something from scratch I think you first have to have some kind of concept in mind. Is it near future, far future, hard science based or speculative in nature? What do you want to reflect in your design?

If I were doing an FTL design non Trek one idea I've had was fitted with what I called jump sails or warp sails. Essentially it was two stylish wing like structures above and below the vessel (or on each side) that functioned somewhat similar to warp nacelles. I got the idea from the notion of a Casimir battery or engine where the sails are the plates creating an area of space allowing the ship to go FTL.

I've got a pic somewhere. I'll try to find it.

My 29th century Enterprise is a speculation on rebooting TOS for 2014 while maintaining certain TOS attributes. While in doing so I also went outside of Trek for added inspiration.

 

[Warped9]

Actually someday I plan to model this design.

 

[sojourner]

OK, here's a really rough sketch using some primitive forms of the direction I've been thinking. Probably over influenced from watching Hunt for Red October yesterday.

 

[Soran77]

This is almost done, I had a lot of fun putting my own take on this design!

 

[Warped9]

^^ All you're really doing is trying to take my concept into a more conventional (already familiar) direction. It's also not truly in the the spirit of MadMan's OP about exploring something different.

The basic idea of this thread's initial premise isn't easy, though. It's asking to consider possible design ideas as if TOS and the rest of Trek had never existed. IF that had been the case someone could still conceivably have come up with something similar to MJ's work, but now that's tainted because you can't ignore that TOS already exists. What it comes down to is considering any idea other than something resembling MJ's concept.

All sorts of cool designs can be conceived, but a bigger question is if any of them could be considered a hero ship and become widely recognizable and perhaps even iconic. MJ's design was breakout for its time and it also benefited from TOS catching on with generations of viewers. To some extent it has achieved a sort of cache because of Star Trek's success it might otherwise not have if TOS had truly failed and faded into barely remembered history.

There is a design for a spaceship in an early '60's era film called First Spaceship On Venus. The ship is called the Cosmostrator. There are a lot of interesting ideas in this film and the design is a beautiful variation on the classic rocketship concept. I'm sure it has influenced later SF artists notably Bob Eggleton and Vincent Di Fate and likely others for numerous illustrations on SF book covers over the years. But otherwise it is a largely forgotten design because the film never achieved wide success and recognition. It's just one of many films lost to history outside the memory of a few.

Would any of the designs in Star Wars be really remembered (outside of a few) if SW had bombed and been forgotten? Outside of designers and artists good design is rarely recognized without broader success to achieve wide recognition.

 

[MadMan1701A]

Hey guys.

Some good thoughts and ideas. I've been brainstorming all night too, thinking of things.

I think I want to keep a vaguely similar layout to the TOS Enterprise; Engines separated from the ship, engine hull below, and some kind of dome / disc structure.

Now, having said that, I think all the details will be different. The engineering hull is going to be just 2 M/AM engines, and a fuel storage area. All habitable space is going to be in the primary hull.

No bridge on the top... but I would like it visible somewhere, with windows.

I'm thinking 23rd century, but with slightly more realistic detailing. I'm really looking close at the Prometheus, and the Venture Star from Avatar for details.

Artificial gravity is present, so no spinning modules to simulate gravity is necessary.

I've been drawing my engines, and I think I have a layout that is going to work pretty well. Maybe, anyway.

-Ricky

 

[Albertese]

OK, here's a really rough sketch using some primitive forms of the direction I've been thinking. Probably over influenced from watching Hunt for Red October yesterday.

I'd actually love to see more of this one...

--Alex

 

[Warped9]

Good, MadMan. Now you're laying out parameters and general ideas as a starting point. From that you can start to experiment and build.

Question: do you try out out different ideas or have a pretty finalized idea and proceed from there? I know I can have basic ideas and then I do lots of freehand sketching to try out variations and different details as I work toward something more concrete.