Redesigned DY-100

[Myasishchev]

There's no ship nor station in TMP that is as greeblied out as this, though the office complex and epsilon station have more than the Trek aesthetic previously established.

So, now we're eliminating great spacecraft designs for Trek because it has too many details?

Keep in mind, it's possible to maintain the TOS Starfleet asthetic as smooth and largely detail-light, and still allow for vessels from other polities and other times being more detailed, or having different propulsion types.

Nothing that ever stopped John Eaves. Forget the Scimitar or even the Breen cruiser, a regular Starfleet Sovereign is covered from bow to stern with these so-called "greeblies" (that's the green guy from Star Trek 11, right? ).

For my money, detail isn't a bad thing. Especially when the details are functional.

 

[Vance]

So, now we're eliminating great spacecraft designs for Trek because it has too many details?

YES!

Seriously, Trek has (or rather had) a specific look and feel to it that set it apart from other Science Fiction. It was sleek, smooth, yet still functional and utilitarian.

This ship looks right out of Babylon 5, which isn't a bad thing, as I like that show and its designs too, but it's not Star Trek. It doesn't fit the overall aesthetic that Star Trek ships usually follow.

Just because it's 'cool' doesn't mean it SHOULD be thrown into Star Trek. What's next? The Galactica with warp engines? The Falcon? Colonial Vipers as shuttlecraft? Sure, they're cool ships, but they're not right for the franchise.

How hard is that a point to get across?

 

[Bell'Orso]

Vance, you wish things to be, if not static, then at the very least EXTREMELY constricted, design-wise. Sure, ST started out as very smooth, but, as mentioned by others, it eventually progressed towards a more detailed, rugged, greebled look.

Now, I for one don't like ST XI because it so doesn't fit in with any ST that came before it. BUT it _IS_ ST now. Just another step in that evolutionary process that seems to be incorporating both smoothness and ruggedness at the moment.

Now, since we're remastering TOS right now, very carefully to stay true to the original for the sake of those who grew up loving it, why not remaster it into something that appeals to those who are drawn more to the design aesthetics of the late TNG period? Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. That means that SOME fans will love the above design. And THAT means the above design IS right for the franchise, even though not ALL fans may like it.

 

[Myasishchev]

I still say it needs some big honkin' propellant tanks. Or at least a deployable solar parachute.

 

[Vance]

Vance, you wish things to be, if not static, then at the very least EXTREMELY constricted, design-wise. Sure, ST started out as very smooth, but, as mentioned by others, it eventually progressed towards a more detailed, rugged, greebled look.

Yes. Notably in the years that Trek was no longer popular nor all that discernable from anything else being put out under the banner 'Science-Fiction'.

Besides, you're claiming that I'm 'static'? HAve you seen my site? There's tons of designs that all fit the Star Trek overall feel, and they're not all copy-pastes of the Constitution class.

Now, since we're remastering TOS right now, very carefully to stay true to the original for the sake of those who grew up loving it, why not remaster it into something that appeals to those who are drawn more to the design aesthetics of the late TNG period?

They did. It failed, repeatedly.

Your argument, and that of others, is that 'Star Trek needs to be something else other than Star Trek'. I don't buy that for a minute and I never will.

 

[Disillusioned]

You guys are arguing that a ship from the 1990s should be as smooth as one from the 23rd century? Why?

 

[Vance]

You guys are arguing that a ship from the 1990s should be as smooth as one from the 23rd century? Why?

Actually, a ship in the 1990s should be almost featureless... those greeblies are going to sheer off constantly when you think about it, and the materials are going to be inferior to the smooth ships of the 2260s, so they'll take the stress even LESS.

By your argument, we should have spires, and pods, and blocks, and things all over the space shuttles and Titans and everything else we have now. Have you considered reasons why we don't. The more greeblies you have on a ship, the more fantasy the ship is, and the less science-fiction it is. VFX guys really love them (scale! We need to see scale!) but it's moronic science.

 

[Bell'Orso]

Vance: I have seen your site and I like very much what I see there. However, all I see there are Federation and Starfleet ships from the early to late 23rd century and most of them incorporating Constitution / Enterprise class components. Granted, that shows that you have a focus for your work, setting it in that area, but why constrict others?

I'm not saying ST needs to be ANYTHING! I'm saying ST is MANY things! Your ST differs from mine and mine differs from that of the next person. You, apparently, prefer TOS and maybe the original movie era, the 23rd century overall. Me, I like the TNG era most of all (I do like the TMP era as well, but it WOULD be nice to see those Galaxy class derivatives I saw on Pixelsagas a while back done up in colour. ), and I'm rather opposed to the JJ style, but all of that IS Trek!

So ST is now a product for the masses, has been for a while. So what? So remastering TOS in the TNG feel won't be very profitable for Paramount. So what? SOMEONE likes the above ship NOT just for itself, but for fitting their vision of it in a Trek context more closely than the original. And THAT makes it good Trek! Star Trek IS a product for the masses!

Everyone's opinion of what Trek SHOULD be is different. Therefore it only makes sense to have it all in Trek, and that onludes both a Botany Bay that is smooth AND one that is not! And TO HELL with canon!

 

[Vance]

Then at what point you go from "Anything can be Star Trek" goes to "Why is anything Star Trek"? What makes Star Trek more than a branding... I still care about such things, admittedly as much as I care about getting Mexican Coca Cola because it actually uses sugar cane...

 

[Albertese]

I'm with you on the Mexican cola. It just tastes better. And high fructose corn syrup is a dirty bastard. I read all the labels on my food and don't buy it if I can possibly avoid it.

VIVA LA MEXICAN COLA!!!!!

--Alex

 

[largo]

sure... if it doesn't have tailfins, its not a cadillac.

 

[BK613]

sure... if it doesn't have tailfins, its not a ' 50s cadillac.

There, fixed it for you.

/ducks

 

[Irishman]

So, now we're eliminating great spacecraft designs for Trek because it has too many details?

YES!

Seriously, Trek has (or rather had) a specific look and feel to it that set it apart from other Science Fiction. It was sleek, smooth, yet still functional and utilitarian.

This ship looks right out of Babylon 5, which isn't a bad thing, as I like that show and its designs too, but it's not Star Trek. It doesn't fit the overall aesthetic that Star Trek ships usually follow.

Just because it's 'cool' doesn't mean it SHOULD be thrown into Star Trek. What's next? The Galactica with warp engines? The Falcon? Colonial Vipers as shuttlecraft? Sure, they're cool ships, but they're not right for the franchise.

How hard is that a point to get across?

I understand your point, Vance. I just don't share it.

It's cool though. I was hoping, however, that you'd reply to my points about the TOS era look being more of a Starfleet look, which gives room for other, more detailed, or even less detailed, designs (that could be for non-SF shipbuilders).

 

[Irishman]

You guys are arguing that a ship from the 1990s should be as smooth as one from the 23rd century? Why?

Actually, a ship in the 1990s should be almost featureless... those greeblies are going to sheer off constantly when you think about it, and the materials are going to be inferior to the smooth ships of the 2260s, so they'll take the stress even LESS.

By your argument, we should have spires, and pods, and blocks, and things all over the space shuttles and Titans and everything else we have now. Have you considered reasons why we don't. The more greeblies you have on a ship, the more fantasy the ship is, and the less science-fiction it is. VFX guys really love them (scale! We need to see scale!) but it's moronic science.

Moronic? Really, man? We ARE talking about franchise that routinely warps space, travels through time, builds androids that are indistinguishable from people, and beams people from point A to point B. Their designs from a Newtonian standpoint don't hold up. So, why the hate for exterior details?

 

[Disillusioned]

By your argument, we should have spires, and pods, and blocks, and things all over the space shuttles and Titans and everything else we have now. Have you considered reasons why we don't. The more greeblies you have on a ship, the more fantasy the ship is, and the less science-fiction it is. VFX guys really love them (scale! We need to see scale!) but it's moronic science.

Actually there are all manner of things sticking out on the space shuttle and other launch vehicles. Even more sticks out on satellites and the space station. If you want to suggest that the DY-100 launched from the ground, then you have all the things that do stick out from it sticking out in such a way as to create significant drag. If it was assembled in space, well, there you go then. There's nothing moronic about that.

 

[Vance]

Moronic? Really, man? We ARE talking about franchise that routinely warps space, travels through time, builds androids that are indistinguishable from people, and beams people from point A to point B. Their designs from a Newtonian standpoint don't hold up. So, why the hate for exterior details?

If you're going to argue realism then I'll counter based on that. In the case given, though, it doesn't logically follow that older ships have more greeblies, since we've seen numerous older ships in the Trek franchise, and they don't have them.

 

[Vance]

Actually there are all manner of things sticking out on the space shuttle and other launch vehicles.

Not like that, they don't.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

Haven't been able to get on lately, so no updates on cleaning it up. Just wanted to mention that most of the greebles are from the original material that I kitbashed.

As for keeping to the original design ascetic, I ditched the modular cargo bay because I thought that having the ability to detach one of the cargo bays would vastly change the weight distribution and therefore potentially cause problems in flight.

Update within a couple days.

 

[Disillusioned]

Actually there are all manner of things sticking out on the space shuttle and other launch vehicles.

Not like that, they don't.

I can't help but notice you failed to respond to the rest of my post.

 

[Vance]

I can't help but notice you failed to respond to the rest of my post.

IF the basis of your argument is flawed, why take the rest of it apart? :P