Miscast Starships - Discussion

[Richard Baker]

I actually liked the blank ships in the DS-9 fleets. I read somewhere the idea was that Starfleet was frantically trying to field as many ships as possible and a lot of those ships were not complete. Some of the Galaxy classes were largely an empty spaceframe with just engines and weapon systems installed, run by a minimal crew instead of complete starships with a crew over a thousand. This makes sense to me- why even bother naming the ships, just have the friend or foe transponders identify them.

 

[Christopher]

I actually liked the blank ships in the DS-9 fleets. I read somewhere the idea was that Starfleet was frantically trying to filed as many ships as possible and a lot of those ships were not complete. Some of the Galaxy classes were largely an empty spaceframe with just engines and weapon systems installed, run by a minimal crew instead of complete starships with a crew over a thousand. This makes sense to me- why even bother naming the ships, just have the friend or foe transponders identify them.

I'll always feel that the complete Galaxy class was "miscast" in the Dominion War combat fleets, because it abandoned the original intent that the combat configuration left the saucer behind. And yes, yes, I know all the real-world reasons they didn't do it, and I've heard all the excuses for why the saucer could be beneficial in combat, but that's still the exact opposite of what the designers originally intended. And the Galaxy design, with its huge bloated saucer full of windows, is more a cruise ship than a battleship.

What might've been interesting to see, once they switched to digital models, was variant Galaxy ships that substituted a lighter, more combat-oriented saucer in place of the standard one. Though that still seems redundant given that the stardrive section was specifically designed to be a self-contained battleship when needed,

 

[publiusr]

Perhaps the saucers were laden with power generation equipment.... perhaps emitting a much larger shields so the older vessels have cover and can put more power into weapons.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps the saucers were laden with power generation equipment.... perhaps emitting a much larger shields so the older vessels have cover and can put more power into weapons.

As I said, I've heard all the handwaves before, but no matter how one tries to rationalize it, it's still a change from what was originally intended. Andrew Probert and TNG's creators wanted a ship that could routinely separate, a slow, heavy university village of a ship being towed around by a sleeker, more powerful craft that was more formidable when it was set free of the burden of the saucer. That was an interesting new idea, and I regret that it ended up being abandoned due to the flaws in the construction of the original miniature. I would have preferred it if the idea of separation in battle had remained a standard practice, and if the battle fleets in DS9 had used Galaxy stardrive sections only.

Although I question the whole idea of a ship that can split into two ships (or three, like the Prometheus). I think something trying to be two things at once will never be as good at either as something fully dedicated to the role. I've often thought it would be interesting if TNG had had two ships, a large, possibly civilian research vessel captained by Picard and a smaller defensive Starfleet escort vessel captained by Riker.

 

[Richard Baker]

Perhaps the saucers were laden with power generation equipment.... perhaps emitting a much larger shields so the older vessels have cover and can put more power into weapons.

Only problem with that is during the Dominion War battles we saw on screen, most of the ships seemed to be operating without any shields at all. Each weapon strike did not splash against the TNG shield bubbles but tore directly into the hulls...

 

[josette_leonard]

The phased cloak angle is interesting - skunkworks testbeds would probably look pretty generic anyway, and the Oberth's already got that utilitarian vibe. Makes it feel less like budget cuts and more like the ship was just... not meant to impress.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There is something to be said for putting your ultra-secret illegal device on the most inconspicuous ship possible

 

[Dukhat]

The phased cloak angle is interesting - skunkworks testbeds would probably look pretty generic anyway, and the Oberth's already got that utilitarian vibe. Makes it feel less like budget cuts and more like the ship was just... not meant to impress.

There is something to be said for putting your ultra-secret illegal device on the most inconspicuous ship possible

The problem wasn’t that they put a cloaking device in an Oberth. The problem was that the ship was stated in dialogue to have been built only five years before the Enterprise-D, that it was an experimental ship, and that its systems were later used in the Galaxy class. That does not really describe an Oberth. That’s like saying that they put a 2020’s engine in a 1950’s car.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Yep. The Mirandized-Ambassador would have been a better choice, but any one of the Wolf 359 ships would have been perfect. Those actually looked like Galaxy class test beds, more appropriate to the dialogue.

 

[Dukhat]

Again, I think that if the producers of DS9 had built a new smaller starship model for the Saratoga in "Emissary," one that was contemporary to the TNG era like those BoBW kitbashes, then they could also have used it for the Raman and the Pegasus in TNG, and again for any guest starships in DS9 like the Prometheus.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Ship: USS Peregrine
Episode: SNW "All Those Who Wander"
Ship Model: Consitution-class

This is a curious case of the dialogue of the episode trying to justify the use of the same ship model for the USS Peregrine (with only minor modifications) while giving it a different ship class - in a production era where it's relatively easy to come up with a new ship model altogether of even a brief appearance (USS Kelcie Mae, USS Thorn). The USS Peregrine is established as a Sombra-class starship, which emphatically uses the same parts as a Constitution-class ship which having a fraction of the crew size. Thing is, by this point in the show there are a dozen or more existing starship designs they could use, while still leveraging the existing sets. The following year they re-dressed the Discovery sets as the "fake" Crossfield-class ship, and the SNW sets have since been seen as the USS Miyazaki in SFA.

I suspect the dialogue was meant to cover up the re-use of the existing SNW sets, while perhaps trying to quietly establish a canon in which there's a bunch of similar-looking designs with vastly differing crew count and mission profiles. Now we see that in at least this era of Starfleet, there's an example of a ship that exists as a stripped-down, "fast" Constitution. As such, it's entirely possible that the various appearances of Constitution-looking starships in later works can be just different variations of the same. IMO though, they should have simply used a different model of ship.

In-context fix: The simplest thing would be to use any of the other existing ship models at the time. Most of them don't have class names mentioned in dialogue, but honestly they didn't need to really say that the Sombra-class is "fast" as the episode itself doesn't show the ship moving on its own.

2026 fix: re-render the appropriate VFX shots with a new model (if they wanted to make a break from the DSC era ships), swap out the ship's graphics in editing, and there you go. Heck, you could even leave in M'Benga's dialogue and simply show the Peregrine with round nacelles or something.

 

[korblborp]

they didn't even scale it or change the window sizes, just used the disco enterprise

 

[David cgc]

I suspect the dialogue was meant to cover up the re-use of the existing SNW sets, while perhaps trying to quietly establish a canon in which there's a bunch of similar-looking designs with vastly differing crew count and mission profiles. Now we see that in at least this era of Starfleet, there's an example of a ship that exists as a stripped-down, "fast" Constitution. As such, it's entirely possible that the various appearances of Constitution-looking starships in later works can be just different variations of the same. IMO though, they should have simply used a different model of ship.

I think the physical sets were less of an issue (it wasn't a problem with the Farragut, for instance, and they're already distressing the sets to make it look different from the Enterprise), but instead of virtual sets used on the VR wall, especially the cargo bay for the climactic sequence. Since the VR wall means that kind of VFX has to be completed before production, they might not have had the time to develop a new virtual set near the end of a busy shooting season. On the other hand, there could've been ways around that, too, like kitbashing a new design that had a Constitution-style engineering hull. Maybe an SNW-ized version of the Newton.

 

[Christopher]

I think the physical sets were less of an issue (it wasn't a problem with the Farragut, for instance, and they're already distressing the sets to make it look different from the Enterprise), but instead of virtual sets used on the VR wall, especially the cargo bay for the climactic sequence. Since the VR wall means that kind of VFX has to be completed before production, they might not have had the time to develop a new virtual set near the end of a busy shooting season. On the other hand, there could've been ways around that, too, like kitbashing a new design that had a Constitution-style engineering hull. Maybe an SNW-ized version of the Newton.

Ahh, but the exterior shots of the crew approaching the crashed ship were also shot with the VR wall, presumably, so they may have had the same time-crunch problem requiring the reuse of existing assets.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Wherein lies one of the things in Trek that tends to break the immersion for me these days - just how robust the ships are. Here, the Peregrine is basically intact after an emergency landing, with only a bent nacelle strut and otherwise cosmetic damage to show for it. Thing is, they're not cars that had a fender bender, they're starships made of millions of components, collectvely weighing hundreds of thousands of tons.

I can acknowledge that sci-fi alloys and engineering will allow a starship to hold together under all sorts of stresses, but this should be with the assistance of tech like structural integrity or inertial dampening fields to strengthen things beyond what we'd consider physical limits. but IMO when you see a ship THIS BIG remain in one big piece and somehow not collapse under its own weight, it seems really far fetched to me. We always assumed that starships were not really designed to land under any circumstance, with Voyager's design being a novelty that made everyone turn their heads the first time they tried. Also in VOY, the ship did in fact crash (in an alternate timeline), and was categorically unsalvageable.

These days, starships in atmo are almost routine under normal circumstances, from the NX-01 fighting Stukas, to the Athena landing routinely, to Discovery crashing, taking off, and then crashing AGAIN (on purpose this time) without a second thought. In its episode, the Peregrine looks like a toy and seems to have been plucked off the surface without issue. Even the Enterprise in the SNW opening is seen cruising close to the surfaces of planets.

It's like taking the ISS to the beach, planting one end with all the solar arrays in the sand at an angle, and expecting the rest of it to hold its shape. IRL it could never, and even if Trek ships were made of a duranium alloy a thousand times stronger than the steel in today's warships, it still looks weird to see ships able to crash like the Peregrine and still be retrievable. YMMV of course.

Mark

 

[Christopher]

Wherein lies one of the things in Trek that tends to break the immersion for me these days - just how robust the ships are. Here, the Peregrine is basically intact after an emergency landing, with only a bent nacelle strut and otherwise cosmetic damage to show for it. Thing is, they're not cars that had a fender bender, they're starships made of millions of components, collectvely weighing hundreds of thousands of tons.

I can acknowledge that sci-fi alloys and engineering will allow a starship to hold together under all sorts of stresses, but this should be with the assistance of tech like structural integrity or inertial dampening fields to strengthen things beyond what we'd consider physical limits. but IMO when you see a ship THIS BIG remain in one big piece and somehow not collapse under its own weight, it seems really far fetched to me. We always assumed that starships were not really designed to land under any circumstance, with Voyager's design being a novelty that made everyone turn their heads the first time they tried. Also in VOY, the ship did in fact crash (in an alternate timeline), and was categorically unsalvageable.

These days, starships in atmo are almost routine under normal circumstances, from the NX-01 fighting Stukas, to the Athena landing routinely, to Discovery crashing, taking off, and then crashing AGAIN (on purpose this time) without a second thought. In its episode, the Peregrine looks like a toy and seems to have been plucked off the surface without issue. Even the Enterprise in the SNW opening is seen cruising close to the surfaces of planets.

It's like taking the ISS to the beach, planting one end with all the solar arrays in the sand at an angle, and expecting the rest of it to hold its shape. IRL it could never, and even if Trek ships were made of a duranium alloy a thousand times stronger than the steel in today's warships, it still looks weird to see ships able to crash like the Peregrine and still be retrievable. YMMV of course.

Mark

I used to feel the same way, but then I realized that the stresses experienced by a ship accelerating as rapidly as we tend to see fictional starships undergo would be in the area of thousands of gees, if not much more, so it stands to reason that they could survive the one gee or thereabouts of planetary gravity. Yes, they would need inertial damping fields to avoid smooshing the crew, but in engineering, you want as much redundancy as possible, so I can buy that they use sufficiently advanced materials that they can maintain their shape without energy fields.

 

[UssGlenn]

I realized that the stresses experienced by a ship accelerating as rapidly as we tend to see fictional starships undergo would be in the area of thousands of gees, if not much more, so it stands to reason that they could survive the one gee or thereabouts of planetary gravity.

Not the same thing but you reminded me of this bit from Futurama

Farnsworth:"Dear Lord! That's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
Fry:"How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?"
Farnsworth:"Well, it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."

 

[Christopher]

Not the same thing but you reminded me of this bit from Futurama

Farnsworth:"Dear Lord! That's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
Fry:"How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?"
Farnsworth:"Well, it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."

One of my favorite bits.