Look, comparisons to the ISS (for example) or the Apollo-era spacecraft are inherently flawed... they weren't designed that way because it made the best engineering sense, they were designed that way because of the extraordinary difficulty (right now) of lifting any objects from the surface into orbit.
There is virtually NOTHING that "sticks out" on the space shuttle... it needs to be as aerodynamic as possible. It's not as sleek as the version proposed in "2001" (which is actually probably a better design overall!) but it's reasonably low-drag and not subject to the localized drag issues that you'd see if, say, you tried to boost a "Space 1999 Eagle" into orbit, or really fly the Millennium Falcon, or so forth.
Of course, the Enterprise, and most "Trekkian" ships, are designed primarily as spacecraft, and most aren't designed to enter atmosphere at all, so "drag" is largely a moot point. I mention the above just to point out that we're really discussing apples and Studebakers. There's very little "common ground" between Trekkian ships and anything we've yet to built or launch here on good old REAL Earth.
If the DY-100 is intended to be launched from the ground... the TOS ship is actually a somewhat reasonable design. Yes, there would need to be a few other components present (most likely ejected after liftoff, much as the shuttle ejects the boosters and tank), and I think you'd probably have a shroud over pods (or else you'd "pick up" those pods in orbit, possible constructed at a lunar facility?)
Part of the issue there is "what is in the pods?" There's no indication that they're fuel (but if they are, that would likely not be carried up in the same launch as the main vessel, I think). Maybe they're "colony supplies?" Maybe they're fuel, sure. Maybe that's where the sleeper compartments are? We really don't know. We DO know that there is room for more pods on the DY-100 than we saw in TOS (Three more "above" pods in the existing row, and another entire row behind there).
The point I'm making? The DY-100 is really subject to the same rules as the Space Shuttle, according to the version we see in TOS. It looks far more "period appropriate" than what's been proposed, above, which looks more like a "1997 Sci-fi movie" design than a "1997 real space" design.
It fits better as a "Star Wars" ship... which I think is sort of the point being made by several folks above... than a Trek ship, or a REAL ship.
Why not a "trek ship?" Because, at least in the Federation, the ethos has always been "we work on the hardware from inside the hull," not "we have to get in spacesuits and go outside to repair vital equipment." THAT is central to all "Federation starship design," regardless of whether it's civilian or military in nature.
It's a conscious design choice, and it's cultural. It makes good practical sense, too.
Putting "Greeblies" all over the outside of the ship isn't a good idea, for many, many reasons. Yes, it compromises the overall mechanical integrity of the design. Yes, it dramatically increases the difficulty involved in making repairs. Yes, it provides information to any potential enemy who can then easily tell where the fuel tanks are, for instance.
It was a good idea for 2001, with the moonbus and so forth... and this good idea was carried forward for the pilot of "Space 1999" (but they later lost all credibility by having their ships flying in atmospheres, hitting relativistic speeds, doing frequent take-off/landing operations in high gravity, etc). But those were both "very near future" concepts, and intended FULLY for "in a vacuum, not going very fast, and being very close to base" operations. And it was a good idea for 2001 with the Discovery "spine" but, again, that's "very near future" and still the equivalent of "a log raft in space" more than a well-developed design.
Trek ships aren't "log rafts." They're well-developed designs, in an era where the infrastructure is well-developed enough that they're more like modern naval vessels than like those "log raft" designs. The DY-100 was the sole exception, because it was supposed to be "NASA's near future."
This design isn't any of the above, really... so I have to agree with the critiques from above. It's a cool ship, but it simply doesn't "fit."
) it's a perfectly legitimate, and constructive, critique.
