Old school starship design vs....

[Captain Robert April]

Just to make sure all the bases are covered, "raumschiff" is German for "spaceship".

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

What is (T)Raumschif

(T)Raumschiff is a German parody of Star Trek where the three principle Kirk, Spock, and McCoy characters are all gay. I've only ever seen clips on Youtube from it, but it has insanely high production values for just being a parody.

The first clip is when we first see their ship, the Surprize. The establishing shot shows the ship from the side, where it looks extremely similar to Voyager, but when it turns to the bird's-eye view, you see that the saucer and secondary hull form what looks like the head and shaft of a penis, while the nacelles looks like testicles. I have pics of the model somewhere I can post if I don't get in too much trouble...

I think you're referring to this beauty

 

[JarodRussell]

German humor, lol.

 

[Anwar]

The old-school ships were designed by people who actually BUILT things. They looked REAL because the WERE real objects reflecting REAL light onto REAL film.

The new ships are designed by people who sit at computers who generally have no interest or experience in how objects are actually put together. I think that explains why they look absurd.

Typical TOSer response.

We have little to no idea how space travel will actually be in the future, so there's little to no point to try and apply 20th century aesthetics and engineering ideas as though they are the only way to do thing when it comes to sci-fi and futuristic ideas when it comes to things like designs.

So saying arrogant stuff like "Your generation doesn't know anything about sci-fi because you don't do stuff the way we did" is just buffoonery. Thank you very much.

 

[BillJ]

The old-school ships were designed by people who actually BUILT things. They looked REAL because the WERE real objects reflecting REAL light onto REAL film.

Typical TOSer response.


So saying arrogant stuff like "Your generation doesn't know anything about sci-fi because you don't do stuff the way we did" is just buffoonery. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry... CGI still isn't to a point where it should be replacing real models. It is pretty and does allow you to do some things that weren't possible with physical models, but they're still not real objects. No amount of 'rolleyes' emoticons changes that.

 

[zar]

The old-school ships were designed by people who actually BUILT things. They looked REAL because the WERE real objects reflecting REAL light onto REAL film.

The new ships are designed by people who sit at computers who generally have no interest or experience in how objects are actually put together. I think that explains why they look absurd.

The Enterprise-E is also a real model: http://startrekauction.blogspot.com/2008/07/original-enterprise-e-model-on-ebay.html
And it was designed by some of the same people who worked on Star Trek: The Motion Picture. People sit at computers and adapt it to CGI after blueprints are already designed.

The original Enterprise was actually less suited to be a real-world model existing in a gravity atmosphere because of its flimsy design. The fact that it didn't represent "how objects are actually put together" is what made it a believable spacecraft. Look at the design of the International Space Station that actually exists in the real world now. If that were built on Earth, it would fall apart.

 

[Nardpuncher]

The old-school ships were designed by people who actually BUILT things. They looked REAL because the WERE real objects reflecting REAL light onto REAL film.

Typical TOSer response.


So saying arrogant stuff like "Your generation doesn't know anything about sci-fi because you don't do stuff the way we did" is just buffoonery. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry... CGI still isn't to a point where it should be replacing real models. It is pretty and does allow you to do some things that weren't possible with physical models, but they're still not real objects. No amount of 'rolleyes' emoticons changes that.

Good call on the rolleyes.
When I see that in a post I can't really take it seriously. It's like arguing with a 14 year-old girl.

 

[Anwar]

It's like arguing with a 14 year-old girl.

That's hardcore TOSers, alright.

 

[Focus Abbey]

The original Enterprise was actually less suited to be a real-world model existing in a gravity atmosphere because of its flimsy design. The fact that it didn't represent "how objects are actually put together" is what made it a believable spacecraft. Look at the design of the International Space Station that actually exists in the real world now. If that were built on Earth, it would fall apart.

I have to agree with this. The NCC-1701 is actually sort of a ridiculous design...but it carries a weight of history and reputation that lends it elegance. If anything, it was utilitarian in a way that made it believable as an extra-atmospheric vessel.

I'm also going to step out and defend the Intrepid Class. Whether it lends itself to parodies or not, I really think it was streamlined, elegant, and a believable descendant of the Galaxy class.

 

[Nardpuncher]

It's like arguing with a 14 year-old girl.

That's hardcore TOSers, alright.

I'm not really aiming my post at you...I just brought it up because I've always disdained the rolleyes.

 

[BillJ]

I'm also going to step out and defend the Intrepid Class. Whether it lends itself to parodies or not, I really think it was streamlined, elegant, and a believable descendant of the Galaxy class.

Agreed. It seems to be much more part of the Galaxy design lineage than the Sovereign class (though I really hate the bridge).

 

[Anwar]

My favorite bridge was the one from "Yesterday's Enterprise", except for the bad lighting. Even WWII submarines were better lit than that.

 

[zar]

It's like arguing with a 14 year-old girl.

That's hardcore TOSers, alright.

 

[jayrath]

I don't want any hatches or any of that. I want clean NASA-like lines. There are more doors on the outside of the later ships than on the inside. Yeah, it looks "kewl," but it violate's Jeffries' design principle that space is dangerous; equipment will be serviced from the inside, not the outside.

 

[Focus Abbey]

I don't want any hatches or any of that. I want clean NASA-like lines. There are more doors on the outside of the later ships than on the inside. Yeah, it looks "kewl," but it violate's Jeffries' design principle that space is dangerous; equipment will be serviced from the inside, not the outside.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Phantassm]

nope

 

[SchwEnt]

The old-school ships were designed by people who actually BUILT things. They looked REAL because the WERE real objects reflecting REAL light onto REAL film.

The new ships are designed by people who sit at computers who generally have no interest or experience in how objects are actually put together. I think that explains why they look absurd.

The Enterprise-E is also a real model: http://startrekauction.blogspot.com/2008/07/original-enterprise-e-model-on-ebay.html
And it was designed by some of the same people who worked on Star Trek: The Motion Picture. People sit at computers and adapt it to CGI after blueprints are already designed.

The original Enterprise was actually less suited to be a real-world model existing in a gravity atmosphere because of its flimsy design. The fact that it didn't represent "how objects are actually put together" is what made it a believable spacecraft. Look at the design of the International Space Station that actually exists in the real world now. If that were built on Earth, it would fall apart.

Tell me some things here...
Enterprise-E was designed by some of the people who worked on TMP? I thought Eaves designed the Ent-E.
He also worked on TMP? What people?

And I *think* the Ent-E was only a CGI in the movies (except for some practical sections).
The photos of that Ent-E model don't look like a filming model. The interior/exterior lighting (as shown in the photos) is wrong for film model illumination.
Maybe this was a model seen at the Experience in Vegas or some other venue?

I may be wrong, as I said... tell me more.

 

[Captain Robert April]

If Andrew Probert and/or Rick Sternbach were in on the design process, then that covers TMP, but my understanding, as well, was that the E-E was Eaves' baby.

In fact, upon further recollection, Rick Sternbach was busy designing Voyager and really didn't have any real input on the Enterprise-E.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

My favorite bridge was the one from "Yesterday's Enterprise", except for the bad lighting. Even WWII submarines were better lit than that.

I think that was the point.

And I *think* the Ent-E was only a CGI in the movies (except for some practical sections).

Yep. If there was an actual model of the ship, it wasn't used for filming, bar the occasional closeup.

 

[Doug Otte]

I thought First Contact used a model of the Ent-E, but other ships in the beginning battle were CGI; Insurrection and Nemesis used only CGI.

Doug