Playing with the refit Enterprise...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
There are things I could play with, like perhaps the overall finish of the hull. I'm not that crazy about the aztec-ing. I might have gone for a finnish that made the ship look more believable as an actual refit of the original design.
I'm also not crazy about the spotlight arrangement on the lower saucer. The rectangular parts look awkward and out of place to me. That said I've never nee crazy about the Christmas Tree lighting highlighting the name and registry.
But the main thing I'd consider changing are the warp nacelles. In plan view I think they're two narrow and lack visual balance with the rest of the design. In profile they're fine, but in cross section I'd like them to be meatier, perhaps more cylindrical.
Inside I'd have liked the corridors to be a little wider and taller, something that somewhat echoed what we saw on TOS.
I'm also not crazy about the spotlight arrangement on the lower saucer. The rectangular parts look awkward and out of place to me. That said I've never nee crazy about the Christmas Tree lighting highlighting the name and registry.
But the main thing I'd consider changing are the warp nacelles. In plan view I think they're two narrow and lack visual balance with the rest of the design. In profile they're fine, but in cross section I'd like them to be meatier, perhaps more cylindrical.
Inside I'd have liked the corridors to be a little wider and taller, something that somewhat echoed what we saw on TOS.
The pearlescent outer hull finish on the TMP refit is still one of the best things about it, and the aztec part of it wasn't that visible or distracting. I think if you messed with that to paint it flat grey you'd be putting your foot through a Picasso.
As for wider, taller corridors, that's a humungous waste of space. The corridors are for getting to and from rooms, much larger than a couple of people side to side and you're wasting valuable interior space. Not many warships or subs come with miles of wide corridors, this shouldn't either.
As for the nacelles, if you beef them up you'll need to seriously beef up the pylons, and it's going to get rather chunky looking and unbalanced. I think going cylindrical just makes it look less refined, harking back to the older tech rather than looking like a more modern design.
The only changes I might make would be to lose the saucer undercut (never did see why that was there) and add a rearward firing photon in the secondary hull undercut area. It's all undercuts with me.
As for wider, taller corridors, that's a humungous waste of space. The corridors are for getting to and from rooms, much larger than a couple of people side to side and you're wasting valuable interior space. Not many warships or subs come with miles of wide corridors, this shouldn't either.
As for the nacelles, if you beef them up you'll need to seriously beef up the pylons, and it's going to get rather chunky looking and unbalanced. I think going cylindrical just makes it look less refined, harking back to the older tech rather than looking like a more modern design.
The only changes I might make would be to lose the saucer undercut (never did see why that was there) and add a rearward firing photon in the secondary hull undercut area. It's all undercuts with me.
Interesting topic...
1) I would have the aztec panel patterns more subdued, as if the model had a final overspray of gray. (From some angles, it would almost look like the TOS flat gray paint, but as lighting played over the surface, you would clearly see the paneling). Of course, with the panel lines and tiny "decals", it still would have been interesting and detailed enough.
2) I would lose the torpedo launcher housing, (I always thought that looked odd and stuck on) perhaps use those tube greebles (modified) in those ventral saucer "window" things.
3) Like you mentioned, the nacelles. Personally I missed that very iconic spinning/glowing dome effect when the movie
came out. I think the model makers could have come up with a detailed, credible-looking way to update that.
Lets see...the art deco rear fin shape could be used in forming newer style intercoolers, while the rear might echo the TOS model (interestingly updated).
4) Finally, the pylons could be thicker, more substantial looking?
1) I would have the aztec panel patterns more subdued, as if the model had a final overspray of gray. (From some angles, it would almost look like the TOS flat gray paint, but as lighting played over the surface, you would clearly see the paneling). Of course, with the panel lines and tiny "decals", it still would have been interesting and detailed enough.
2) I would lose the torpedo launcher housing, (I always thought that looked odd and stuck on) perhaps use those tube greebles (modified) in those ventral saucer "window" things.
3) Like you mentioned, the nacelles. Personally I missed that very iconic spinning/glowing dome effect when the movie
came out. I think the model makers could have come up with a detailed, credible-looking way to update that.
Lets see...the art deco rear fin shape could be used in forming newer style intercoolers, while the rear might echo the TOS model (interestingly updated).
4) Finally, the pylons could be thicker, more substantial looking?
Ooops, double post...
Well, here's the internal changes I guess:
I love the corridors, but perhaps sometimes have a middle ground that harkons back to the TOS corridors? Side access ladders?
Put the reactor/crystal "access" room (from ST II?) near the bottom of the intermix shaft.
Some smaller conduits coming off the intermix shaft to power converters, not just a big long shaft.
No flying buttress metal mesh in main engineering (too 70's).
Well, here's the internal changes I guess:
I love the corridors, but perhaps sometimes have a middle ground that harkons back to the TOS corridors? Side access ladders?
Put the reactor/crystal "access" room (from ST II?) near the bottom of the intermix shaft.
Some smaller conduits coming off the intermix shaft to power converters, not just a big long shaft.
No flying buttress metal mesh in main engineering (too 70's).
Last edited:
Change the forward cap of the engines, I have always loved the swirling colors of the TOS Enterprise's engines and think the design lost something important when this was deleted.
Plus I'd made the length at least ten percent longer, not the size of the nuEnterprise (God no), but more than a thousand feet.
Plus I'd made the length at least ten percent longer, not the size of the nuEnterprise (God no), but more than a thousand feet.
I would bring back some minor touches from TOS to the TMP refit model, for greater continuity:
BRING BACK THE STARFLEET PENNANT - I much preferred the boomerang shape used on the side of the secondary hull and nacelles on the TOS Enterprise.
USE TOS-STYLE BLOCK-LETTERING ON THE HULL - Charles Casimiro's web-site can show you samples of the "Airborne" font used for hull-lettering on the TOS Enterprise. I much prefer it to the "more modern" look of TMP and the latest movie. The newer font looks a little too much like "aren't you impressed with my snazzy new computer-age font?" for my taste. The "Airborne" font looks more naval to me. And I would use the exact same nomenclature arrangement on the top of the TMP saucer-fore as was used in TOS.
SAUCER PREFERENCES - I prefer the TOS-style glowing domes on the very top and bottom of the saucer. And the lower vortex of the saucer could be smoother, with a less-busy arrangement. These are purely aesthetic sentiments, and thus purely subjective.
TORPEDO BAY - Somehow, I liked it better when the torpedoes fired from the saucer in TOS, but that's just what I was accustomed to. I would think that in practical terms, there would have to be redundant weapons banks in both the saucer and the secondary hull. And yes, both main hulls should have weapons oriented for both fore and aft.
IMPULSE DRIVE - Borrowing from the Vulcan Courier in TMP, I would like to see redundant impulse engines built-into the bottoms of the nacelles, so that the secondary hull would still have impulse power available even in the event of saucer separation. That just makes sense to me for some reason.
GIVE SAUCER SOMEWHAT GREATER DIAMETER AT THE RIM - I would want to see the refit saucer's outer rim extend outward further for greater interior volume. I would also want to see the saucer employ two mini-hangar decks so shuttlecraft and travel-pods could land on the topside in a couple of places and be lowered into the saucer, even if the saucer were separated and landed on a planet surface.
INTERIOR CONSIDERATIONS - As cheesey and card-board-looking as the TOS interior sets looked, they still looked more credible to me than the TMP sets. The TMP corridors I could live with, but the refit Bridge and Engineering were awful. Again, it seemed Hollywood wanted to impress the viewers by spending lavish budgets on the sets. I would want to instead take the same basic design used in TOS and give them a more metallic, ENT-style finish.
UNIFORMS - Surprise, surprise! I liked the TOS Uniforms more, with modifications. Maybe it would've been best if the TMP-era costumes were more like the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" unisex turtleneck-and-trousers for standard officers' duty uniforms. And maybe a cross between the TOS colored jumpsuits and the ENT jumpsuits for enlisted and "mission" dress. For rank insignia, I'm torn between braids on the sleeves and the TNG-style pips on the collar. Maybe the "Wrath of Khan" wraparound tunics could be used as "Class A" dress jackets over the turtlenecks, but I'd want to see them toned down and without the obnoxious-looking belt-and-buckle arrangement. Maybe they could be a different color; I'm thinking dark blue.
HAND PROPS - The TNG-era tricorders were always the most credible-looking to me, though they were flawed. The TMP3-TMP5-era sidearms and hand-talkies were the best update on the TOS props.
BRING BACK THE STARFLEET PENNANT - I much preferred the boomerang shape used on the side of the secondary hull and nacelles on the TOS Enterprise.
USE TOS-STYLE BLOCK-LETTERING ON THE HULL - Charles Casimiro's web-site can show you samples of the "Airborne" font used for hull-lettering on the TOS Enterprise. I much prefer it to the "more modern" look of TMP and the latest movie. The newer font looks a little too much like "aren't you impressed with my snazzy new computer-age font?" for my taste. The "Airborne" font looks more naval to me. And I would use the exact same nomenclature arrangement on the top of the TMP saucer-fore as was used in TOS.
SAUCER PREFERENCES - I prefer the TOS-style glowing domes on the very top and bottom of the saucer. And the lower vortex of the saucer could be smoother, with a less-busy arrangement. These are purely aesthetic sentiments, and thus purely subjective.
TORPEDO BAY - Somehow, I liked it better when the torpedoes fired from the saucer in TOS, but that's just what I was accustomed to. I would think that in practical terms, there would have to be redundant weapons banks in both the saucer and the secondary hull. And yes, both main hulls should have weapons oriented for both fore and aft.
IMPULSE DRIVE - Borrowing from the Vulcan Courier in TMP, I would like to see redundant impulse engines built-into the bottoms of the nacelles, so that the secondary hull would still have impulse power available even in the event of saucer separation. That just makes sense to me for some reason.
GIVE SAUCER SOMEWHAT GREATER DIAMETER AT THE RIM - I would want to see the refit saucer's outer rim extend outward further for greater interior volume. I would also want to see the saucer employ two mini-hangar decks so shuttlecraft and travel-pods could land on the topside in a couple of places and be lowered into the saucer, even if the saucer were separated and landed on a planet surface.
INTERIOR CONSIDERATIONS - As cheesey and card-board-looking as the TOS interior sets looked, they still looked more credible to me than the TMP sets. The TMP corridors I could live with, but the refit Bridge and Engineering were awful. Again, it seemed Hollywood wanted to impress the viewers by spending lavish budgets on the sets. I would want to instead take the same basic design used in TOS and give them a more metallic, ENT-style finish.
UNIFORMS - Surprise, surprise! I liked the TOS Uniforms more, with modifications. Maybe it would've been best if the TMP-era costumes were more like the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" unisex turtleneck-and-trousers for standard officers' duty uniforms. And maybe a cross between the TOS colored jumpsuits and the ENT jumpsuits for enlisted and "mission" dress. For rank insignia, I'm torn between braids on the sleeves and the TNG-style pips on the collar. Maybe the "Wrath of Khan" wraparound tunics could be used as "Class A" dress jackets over the turtlenecks, but I'd want to see them toned down and without the obnoxious-looking belt-and-buckle arrangement. Maybe they could be a different color; I'm thinking dark blue.
HAND PROPS - The TNG-era tricorders were always the most credible-looking to me, though they were flawed. The TMP3-TMP5-era sidearms and hand-talkies were the best update on the TOS props.
Last edited:
I think, if I had to change something, it would be the pylons. I'd make them a little sturdier in cross section, and with less (maybe no) flaring out between the hull and nacelle ends.
Absolutely not. That kiddie cartoon glowie crap is to lighting what red velvet wallpaper is to interior decorating.
Marian
The thing I miss most in later designs is that big red pennant-and-number on the nacelles. I'd have kept the outer nacelles halves as solid with no grill, and kept that pennant (or at least the newer version of it). I have no actual complaints about the rest of the ship.
Wow! I'd never thought about it before. So simple yet that makes a huge difference.The thing I miss most in later designs is that big red pennant-and-number on the nacelles. I'd have kept the outer nacelles halves as solid with no grill, and kept that pennant (or at least the newer version of it). I have no actual complaints about the rest of the ship.
It occurs to me, as I'm sure it has occurred to others, how much of the original E could have been carried over to the refit. Of course I'm speaking primarily of structural members since it pretty self evident that nothing of the exterior survived the transition.
You know it would have been a nice touch if the original commissioning plaque could have been seen on the refit bridge.
An idea that long been lurking in the back of my mind is drawing what I think could have been a more credible refit of the TOS E that could still have been used on the big screen. I've toyed with it before and one day I'm going to get serious about. I just wish I could 3D model.
Last edited:
The thing I miss most in later designs is that big red pennant-and-number on the nacelles. I'd have kept the outer nacelles halves as solid with no grill, and kept that pennant (or at least the newer version of it). I have no actual complaints about the rest of the ship.
That looks awesome
I'd probably make the lower sensor dome area more like the upper one (IE, omit the boxes) and make the torpedo tubes more like the Probert sketches with the doors that open up before launch. And I do rather like Forbin's idea of putting the pendant and registry back on the nacelle. Basically, making it cleaner without forcing bits of the TOS ship onto it.
I'd probably have the rec-room be more garden-like, like in some of Probert's concepts, I'd make the overall interior lighting less soft and more defined, and a bit more dramatic. Red doors and railings on the bridge. More TOS-y uniforms.
I'd probably have the rec-room be more garden-like, like in some of Probert's concepts, I'd make the overall interior lighting less soft and more defined, and a bit more dramatic. Red doors and railings on the bridge. More TOS-y uniforms.
I would NOT make the ramscoop and warp lights glow on the 1701-A or refit... it looked absolutely garish (and ridiculous) on DS9, and the same would apply here.
To me, I think that having the engines and pylons radically different from the TOS one is perfectly fine. The idea being that (as stated in TMP dialogue) the ship's propulsion system was totally different from what came before. If I were to change anything, it would be to make the contours of the other hulls more match those of the TOS E. To me it just seems that the technology base of the Federation was radically different from what was on the show. On the show, we get the idea that the Enterprise was the high end of what's possible. I wonder what happened to make everything so different in less than two years. On the other hand, I suppose that the Enterprise, being already over twenty years old by the end of it's 5 year mission, might be the result of the esthetic sense of the 2240's....? But then, we see other bases around in TOS and they have the same look. Maybe Earth and the central planets were already moving towards the TMP look for some time but it hadn't made it to the outlying areas yet. It's interesting to me that TAS has a number of gadgets in the ship that look like their almost at the TMP sensibility...
--Alex
--Alex
When a design is only a few years old and it doesn't have the quality or beauty to become iconic, architects are free to make adjustments to just about anything and call them "improvements." Case in point, the 2010 Honda Accord versus that 1978 Honda Accord. Besides the brand, there's nothing terribly "Accord-ish" that necessarily needed to be kept alive for three decades.
But the Starship Enterprise is an iconic design. Over four decades, it has become so engrained upon the public's conscience that it's recognizable just by silhouette. So in that instance, it's less like a car and more like a face. You change some element of the face, and you change its expression. Imagine performing plastic surgery to Jay Leno, then showing off his silhouette in profile, with a rounder face and a rounded-down chin. People would wince and say, "Who's that supposed to be?"
Granted, everybody in the last Star Trek movie has new faces. If you can accept Simon Pegg as Scotty, you can accept the new design of the starship as the Enterprise. Certain things have to be changed about the look and feel of the entire show...but certain things should have been left absolutely untouched. And one is the general profile of the Enterprise.
The reason the refit design from the 1979 movie worked was because the iconic proportions from the original design were left intact. The engines were replaced, but kept at the same angle. Otherwise, the new changes were applied to the original frame, as though a new shell were added to the classic chassis. So the deflector dish rested at the same angle with respect to the lower "nipple" of the primary hull, and the engine line rested just above the dish but not higher than the peak of the bridge.
I know what the producers of the 2009 movie wanted was a "hot-rod" Enterprise. But first and foremost, the unseen geometric rules that govern this ship should have remained intact; from there, an entirely new ship could have been built along those lines and still been as iconic as the original Enterprise. I would not have tucked the secondary fuselage closer to the hull and further forward; it makes the ship look like it has an overbite. I would not have replaced the engines with elongated dead locust shells and hoisted them higher like someone surrendering to the Klingons.
Actually, I would venture that judexavier is closer to the vision I would have preferred for a rethought ship with a '50s "hot rod" style, than any other concept I've seen:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/DSCN0894ExteriorMJupload02.jpg
The essential proportions are all still there; and as you can see, he was studying Matt Jeffries' drawings when he made it. In one of those drawings (at lower left), you can see the very proportion lines I'm talking about -- the distances, the spaces, the angles -- that make this ship, and any other ship based on it, flow elegantly and appear balanced and buoyant. The 2009 Enterprise isn't ugly, but it's imbalanced, like it's had plastic surgery and the bandages haven't all come off.
So what would I do? I'd take Jeffries' proportions, open up some Syd Mead inspirations, get out a model of a Studebaker Avanti, a '63 Corvette Stingray, and a Jaguar E-type, and build a polished shell around the face and body that everyone already knows. You don't have to reinvent the wheel to polish up the Enterprise.
DF "Imagines Replacing the Starfleet Pennant with the Crossed Flags" Scott
But the Starship Enterprise is an iconic design. Over four decades, it has become so engrained upon the public's conscience that it's recognizable just by silhouette. So in that instance, it's less like a car and more like a face. You change some element of the face, and you change its expression. Imagine performing plastic surgery to Jay Leno, then showing off his silhouette in profile, with a rounder face and a rounded-down chin. People would wince and say, "Who's that supposed to be?"
Granted, everybody in the last Star Trek movie has new faces. If you can accept Simon Pegg as Scotty, you can accept the new design of the starship as the Enterprise. Certain things have to be changed about the look and feel of the entire show...but certain things should have been left absolutely untouched. And one is the general profile of the Enterprise.
The reason the refit design from the 1979 movie worked was because the iconic proportions from the original design were left intact. The engines were replaced, but kept at the same angle. Otherwise, the new changes were applied to the original frame, as though a new shell were added to the classic chassis. So the deflector dish rested at the same angle with respect to the lower "nipple" of the primary hull, and the engine line rested just above the dish but not higher than the peak of the bridge.
I know what the producers of the 2009 movie wanted was a "hot-rod" Enterprise. But first and foremost, the unseen geometric rules that govern this ship should have remained intact; from there, an entirely new ship could have been built along those lines and still been as iconic as the original Enterprise. I would not have tucked the secondary fuselage closer to the hull and further forward; it makes the ship look like it has an overbite. I would not have replaced the engines with elongated dead locust shells and hoisted them higher like someone surrendering to the Klingons.
Actually, I would venture that judexavier is closer to the vision I would have preferred for a rethought ship with a '50s "hot rod" style, than any other concept I've seen:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/DSCN0894ExteriorMJupload02.jpg
The essential proportions are all still there; and as you can see, he was studying Matt Jeffries' drawings when he made it. In one of those drawings (at lower left), you can see the very proportion lines I'm talking about -- the distances, the spaces, the angles -- that make this ship, and any other ship based on it, flow elegantly and appear balanced and buoyant. The 2009 Enterprise isn't ugly, but it's imbalanced, like it's had plastic surgery and the bandages haven't all come off.
So what would I do? I'd take Jeffries' proportions, open up some Syd Mead inspirations, get out a model of a Studebaker Avanti, a '63 Corvette Stingray, and a Jaguar E-type, and build a polished shell around the face and body that everyone already knows. You don't have to reinvent the wheel to polish up the Enterprise.
DF "Imagines Replacing the Starfleet Pennant with the Crossed Flags" Scott
Similar threads
