That's not hard to answer. How can you take the TOS Enterprise seriously after the NX? Typewritten display screens? Computers which reply with unnecessary noise in a robotic voice? Still, evidence from ENT and TNG+ has demonstrated clear unwillingness to tinker with the established TOS Enterprise (aside from tiny, almost imperceptible differences, some of which were introduced because of production limitations). Therefore, I see no problem with keeping the Daedalus (nearly) exactly the same.
NX Class: Can we take the Daedalus class serious now?
- Thread starter Commodore_Rook
- Start date
That's not hard to answer. How can you take the TOS Enterprise seriously after the NX? Typewritten display screens? Computers which reply with unnecessary noise in a robotic voice? Still, evidence from ENT and TNG+ has demonstrated clear unwillingness to tinker with the established TOS Enterprise (aside from tiny, almost imperceptible differences, some of which were introduced because of production limitations). Therefore, I see no problem with keeping the Daedalus (nearly) exactly the same.
That's something we have had to adapt to a couple of times already: real-world technology has "outpaced" both TOS, TNG and ENT in various ways, making the technology there look "implausible".
However, we should remember that it's all about looks. If somebody were to show today's IT gear to a person from the 1980s, he would feel it's implausible because 1980s tech is more advanced already. After all, 1980s computers are neat integrated packages, not a haphazard collection of multiple devices connected by a spaghetti-like mess of wires. 1980s telephone connections rely on nicely hidden wires instead of a network of ugly telegraphing masts that looks like something right out of the 18th century. 1980s devices don't take five minutes to go through startup routines - that's something right out of the 1930s and vacuum tube technology. In the 1980s, you don't have to play kindergarden glue-and-scissors games on the screen to get simple office tasks done. In short, the 2010s would visually make the impression of hopelessly outdated tech, only justifiable if one thinks of the 2010s as a retro era where fashion dictates the revival of old, inferior solutions.
Timo Saloniemi
However, we should remember that it's all about looks. If somebody were to show today's IT gear to a person from the 1980s, he would feel it's implausible because 1980s tech is more advanced already. After all, 1980s computers are neat integrated packages, not a haphazard collection of multiple devices connected by a spaghetti-like mess of wires. 1980s telephone connections rely on nicely hidden wires instead of a network of ugly telegraphing masts that looks like something right out of the 18th century. 1980s devices don't take five minutes to go through startup routines - that's something right out of the 1930s and vacuum tube technology. In the 1980s, you don't have to play kindergarden glue-and-scissors games on the screen to get simple office tasks done. In short, the 2010s would visually make the impression of hopelessly outdated tech, only justifiable if one thinks of the 2010s as a retro era where fashion dictates the revival of old, inferior solutions.
Timo Saloniemi
Yeah, that mission always bugged me, for a couple reasons.
Mainly that the Daedalus class was used so poorly, the design of the level was rather poor, and you couldn't actually play a Daedalus class.
Hopefully when I get some more work done on my variant, I can get someone to model it for me and get it into Legacy.
For anyone fleshing out the Daedalus-class, the best approach would be to model the exterior as close as possible to the established desktop model, deviating only where the modeller could've plausibly deviated from the real thing (and that's likely not much). The interior can be based on the NX class with an eye towards TOS, but it shouldn't be radically different from the NX class given the slight difference in years.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this design yet. It's a pretty good update using the ENT era style. Personally I see no reason why the design wouldn't be updated with more detailing. After all, when you compare some model kits of planes or ships to their real world basis, a lot of models are very simplified. And since the only times we've seen the Daedalus class have been as desk-top models, there's no reason to believe the "real" ships looked exactly like that.
That would be stretching the canon for no reason other than to be 'creative'. Why should the TOS Enterprise be based on blueprints painstakingly reconstructed to a fraction of an inch, while the Daedalus must be modified...just because? Better to design another ship then.
But they weren't - take a look at the silver Constitution-class models in the first few seasons of TNG, complete with sideways and backward nacelles, extra hanger bays in the saucer (err... missing window panels) etc. Also, the inaccurate Enterprise-C on the D's conference room wall.
If models of some ships can be "wrong" than so can Daedalus.
No, I meant the reconstructions of the TOS Enterprise for DS9, ENT and even TOS Remastered, productions in which they could've decided to disregard the existing canon to a much greater extent but didn't. The desktop models were either approximations, with accidentally incorrect lines or details, or they weren't even meant to represent the ships they appear to be on a first glance.
Therefore, I see no problem with modifying the Daedalus to the extent that the modelmaker could've missed a few lines or details, although that clearly wasn't Greg Jein's intent, but otherwise there is no reason to deviate from the canon. If the TOS Enterprise is still canonical in all the other shows, I don't see why the Daedalus can't be.
Therefore, I see no problem with modifying the Daedalus to the extent that the modelmaker could've missed a few lines or details, although that clearly wasn't Greg Jein's intent, but otherwise there is no reason to deviate from the canon. If the TOS Enterprise is still canonical in all the other shows, I don't see why the Daedalus can't be.
I've seen a few fan modifications of the original Enterprise which add more detail but keep the same basic lines and proportions of the original. What's the problem?
I was thinking of the Daedalus-class within the prime reality canon, where we haven't seen such modifications to the TOS Enterprise.
But again I see no reason why the design shouldn't be updated, especially in light of the fact that it isn't actually canon. For all we know, the desktop model was something Jake made when he was younger.
The TOS Enterprise has also appeared on-screen in many television episodes, whereas the Daedalus has zero on-screen appearances. A small, barely-seen model without any real detail doesn't really place any limitations on any official design.
Contradicting or stretching highly-influential official sources is sloppy and invites fan criticism. I can't see that any story would be worth it. In terms of pure analysis which includes such sources, we have no reason to disregard the established design.
I guess I don't find it ugly. Simple and inelegant, but not ugly. Rather like a Liberty ship, or something else that might have been mass-produced.
THANK YOU!
As for "contradicting an official source" goes, Sisko spent some time working at Utopia Planitia (it's how he got his hands on the Defiant, after all), so it's not out of line for him to have some conceptual models in his office, including concepts that never went anywhere, or took very different turns.
So it doesn't really contradict anything for Sisko to have a model, labeled "Daedalus class", with markings for the USS Horizon emblazoned on the hull, and for the actual Daedalus class to look completely different (like, say, a more refined version of Drexler's NX refit
),Sure, and then people complain about the Akiraprise and disregard for continuity.
Did people complain about the E-D, too? That was a bit before my time in the interwebs.
I think there's plenty of room in the Trek universe for an ugly ship or three, and in fact some demand for those. It's not as if anybody would be bolting to write stories where the Daedalus is the hero ship, after all... She'd be more in demand as a sidekick or a damsel-in-distress.
(The Corps of Engineers retro-series doesn't count, because those heroes are so heroic exactly because they dare fly a Daedalus.
)
Timo Saloniemi
I think there's plenty of room in the Trek universe for an ugly ship or three, and in fact some demand for those. It's not as if anybody would be bolting to write stories where the Daedalus is the hero ship, after all... She'd be more in demand as a sidekick or a damsel-in-distress.
(The Corps of Engineers retro-series doesn't count, because those heroes are so heroic exactly because they dare fly a Daedalus.
)Timo Saloniemi
God, yes, they complained about the Enterprise-D big time when she first debuted. I remember going to a con and hearing someone say "that's no Enterprise, it's not even a Federation design..."
But then people also complained about the refitted Enterprise in TMP, the Reliant, the Excelsior, the Enterprise-A--and ev'ry new ship that ever appeared in Trek!
I disagree that ignoring a bit of conjecture from a reference book (all of which feature disclaimers and say "to be taken with a pinch of salt") is in any way "sloppy". It's simply the people behind the TV show in 2001 having different ideas about the 22nd century than Mike Okuda and friends did in 1994.
The Daedalus model in Sisko's office pays homage to Matt Jefferies old Enterprise concept sketch. On that level it works perfectly.
Heck, forget the reference books - ignoring/retconning a bit of canon here or there to suit a story, like Scotty being on the Enterprise-B and seeing Kirk lost in space, is fine too. It's fiction, and 99% of viewers are happy to suspend their disbelief and enjoy themselves.
