ST XI ships

[Christopher]

I actually think the Kelvin is an over/under nacelle ship as per the flip side of this reasoning. Over/under designs, like the Akula class, tend to be more combat oriented ships (at least in fandom). The Kelvin seems to be packing a fair number of gun turrets ahead of the bridge for a surveyor type.

I don't think you can expect the designers for a movie to be aware of any of the conventions established by fan designers. And the only canonical starship class I'm aware of with an "over/under nacelle" design is the Constellation class, such as the Stargazer, which was an explorer.

I'm pretty sure the size of the ships has to be significantly bigger than the originals. The trailer and large bridge size seem to suggest that, anyway. I sure as heck don't think the new bridge could fit in the old ship, it's too wide.

The apparent size of sets in photos can be misleading due to vagaries of design, focal length of the camera lens, etc. For instance, the TNG bridge looked larger and more spacious than the TOS bridge, but the set was actually a little smaller.

The bridge in the released photo looks about the same size as the original bridge to me. I think it looks wider because Kirk's chair is farther back, closer to the aft wall, so the perspective is different, making it look like there's more width between the chair and the turbolift.

 

[Timo]

I don't think you can expect the designers for a movie to be aware of any of the conventions established by fan designers.

Quite - but I wouldn't really wonder if somebody in the production team knew and cared about the single-nacelled fandom destroyers...

And the only canonical starship class I'm aware of with an "over/under nacelle" design is the Constellation class, such as the Stargazer, which was an explorer.

Although for all we know, she became an explorer only after no longer qualifying for her originally intended military duty. Many a famed exploration vessel in the era of sail had been a bomb before - that is, a shore bombardment artillery platform, nicely reinforced so that she would also be capable of arctic or stormy assignments. Perhaps the Constellation had been a superfast interceptor or penetration strike ship in her heyday, and this built-in capacity for speed made her a (barely) credible explorer in the 24th century.

I'm sort of leaning toward the two-nacelle interpretation of the photos, as the upper assembly does seem to be stretching a long, long way back in the bow photo...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[EJD1984]

I've just noticed a possible new design astetic with the Kelvin (and possibility the Enterprise as well).

There doesn't appear to be any windows along the saucer's edge.

This shot is in motion (look at the stars) so some details are blurred, but there are some windows on the rim, and probably more of them hidden behind that green ship. From their position it almost looks like the rim might be more like 3 or 4 decks thick!

Also, it almost looks like there might be 3 forward ports like on the TOS ENT, but they are not lit.

And call me crazy, but that really looks like a row of windows on the front of the bridge. Though, if the ship is big enough there might be a ready room or lounge in front of the bridge. This is supported by the bridge cieling dome being so tiny in comparison to the bridge structure itself.

If this ship is supposed to be older/smaller than the Enterprise, the ENT herself could end up being...kinda way way bigger than 947 feet.

I somewhat agree (and disagree) on a few points.

1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.

2. Central Saucer: Though could very well be windows, I think they could also be a set of forward sensors, since they're right along the saucer's central axis, and reminiscent of the TOS saucer sensors.

3. Saucer Offset Lights: These appear to be a set of reaction control thrusters, for a few reasons. 1. They're at the standard 45 degree angle from the central axis. 2. Even if the the saucer is two decks, the just appear to be too close to the top hull (though I still think it's one deck). 3. The level of brightness needed in order to project out that amount of light would be blinding inside the ship.

 

[ancient]

I'm pretty sure the size of the ships has to be significantly bigger than the originals. The trailer and large bridge size seem to suggest that, anyway. I sure as heck don't think the new bridge could fit in the old ship, it's too wide.

The apparent size of sets in photos can be misleading due to vagaries of design, focal length of the camera lens, etc. For instance, the TNG bridge looked larger and more spacious than the TOS bridge, but the set was actually a little smaller.

The bridge in the released photo looks about the same size as the original bridge to me. I think it looks wider because Kirk's chair is farther back, closer to the aft wall, so the perspective is different, making it look like there's more width between the chair and the turbolift.

I think the TNG bridge looked bigger because it was mostly empty. This new bridge is pretty cluttered and it still looks big (or at least wide) to me. Them turbolift doors are pretty far away.

If that group shot is on the bridge, and I'm pretty sure it is, then it looks like the bridge extends forward of the main viewer. This also seems to suggestsomething bigger than the old version to me.

 

[Capt_Jason]

Do these twits know the reason for having a timeline?

Very little of the timeline or design aesthetic outside of on-screen canon has been established.

Precisely. Im not so sure I understand why you fellas are so up in arms over visual aesthetics and temporal issues when you KNOW what we are going to get with this outing..

This production team is NOT beholden to much of anything that we have already seen from 1966 to the present. Denial is always the first stage..

 

[Christopher]

1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.

Like this? http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage011.jpg

(And I just noticed that the perspective of interior and exterior don't line up at all, but I'm sure it's just the best approximation they could manage.)

I think the TNG bridge looked bigger because it was mostly empty. This new bridge is pretty cluttered and it still looks big (or at least wide) to me. Them turbolift doors are pretty far away.

Allowing for the captain's chair being further back and the likely camera position, I still think it looks about the same distance. Also, the apparent size of a set can be altered depending on the lens used to take the picture, because the focal length of the lens doesn't necessarily match that of the human eye. Often, filmmakers take advantage of that to make a very small set look much bigger than it is, or vice versa.

If that group shot is on the bridge, and I'm pretty sure it is, then it looks like the bridge extends forward of the main viewer. This also seems to suggestsomething bigger than the old version to me.

That thought occurred to me too, but we don't have enough visual information to draw any firm conclusions. The impression could be misleading.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This production team is NOT beholden to much of anything that we have already seen from 1966 to the present. Denial is always the first stage..

Exactly so.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?

 

[EJD1984]

I think the TNG bridge looked bigger because it was mostly empty. This new bridge is pretty cluttered and it still looks big (or at least wide) to me. Them turbolift doors are pretty far away.

In the TOS bridge, there was an utility access corridor around the perimeter of the bridge. It appears to me that the designers got rid of that "dead space", and pushed the internal diameter outwards to gain the extra floor space we're seeing.

Also take into consideration, the TMP bridge was approximately the same ID as the original. What made it look somewhat larger was that the continuous console was chopped down to individual stations, freeing up extra square footage, and giving the illusion of a larger bridge.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And the only canonical starship class I'm aware of with an "over/under nacelle" design

"Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in Starfleet?"
"No, not directly. Technically Dunn was under Oveur, and I was under Dunn."
"So Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger?"
"Yep."
"That's right, Dunn was over Unger, and I was over...Dunn."
"So you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn."

is the Constellation class, such as the Stargazer, which was an explorer.

Don't the BOBW II ships count? Wrecked though they may have been...

 

[trevanian]

So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?

Almost nothing gets greenlit unless it is a re-_____ of something else that is in some public awareness.

As a reviewer kinda said about TMP, call this STELLAR VOYAGES instead of ST and would there be ANY uproar?

 

[JuanBolio]

So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?

Because with Star Trek you already have so much to work with - great characters, ships, aliens, exciting universe, name recognition, and a devoted fanbase. They updated the look of a pre-TOS bridge, and you're claiming that the design aesthetic sets this movie totally apart from all previous Trek continuity. That, sir, is illogical.

I'd be more worried about the fact that all the old crew characters seem to be about the same age and on the same ship at the same time at least a decade before TOS, in which they were all different ranks and ages. Fret about that, not the bridge update, if you're worried about canon.

1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.

Like this? http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage011.jpg

That's not a window. Its just a see-through special effect intended to illustrate where on the ship the bridge is. Later shots of the Pike-era ship show a simple white dome there, and interior shots of the bridge show no transparency whatsoever in the ceiling. A window - and especially a skylight - would be a terrible thing to put in your control center with all the x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, and general high-energy badness of space, not to mention blinding starlight and the potential for laser weapons being directed against you.

 

[Timo]

...Then again, variable transparency would be rather nice, especially if the ship is supposed to perform intricate docking maneuvers so that she approaches the pier from below (as the saucer rim latches might suggest, should we choose to believe that this is what they are, here as well as on NX-01).

In TNG, it was explicit that one could see stars through the bridge skylight. In TOS, the only time people try to see through the ceiling dome is when Kirk peers in from the outside while trying to contact his crew in the ship miniaturized by Flint, in "Requiem for Metusaleah". From the inside vantage point, his face appears on the viewscreen of the ship, and nobody on the bridge turns his or her neck to see the Big Giant Head floating above.

So no, I don't much like the idea that the dome would be transparent all the way down to the bridge on Kirk's ship. But it could still be that on Pike's ship. And having a few (darkened) windows on a (usually uncrewed) corridor circling the bridge would still be perfectly possible on the Kelvin. That corridor and those windows might even serve the original purpose of a "bridge" on a ship, as first introduced in the late 19th century: to allow the commander and the helmsman some direct visibility of the surroundings for the purposes of navigating in tight spots, such as harbors. That is, the helmsguy or -gal would get up from the usual pulpit and move to a special console next to these windows in order to perform a demanding docking.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JuanBolio]

In TNG, it was explicit that one could see stars through the bridge skylight

Yep... I suspect such is the reason Picard was bald and Worf had a huge tumor on his head.

 

[Timo]

But why should a transparent ceiling be any less protection against gamma, beta, or cosmic rays than a non-transparent one? Transparency is a bandpass thing, in which only a certain range of EM behaves differently in a transparent dielectric vs. an opaque metal. Many of the best hard radiation blockers are in fact polymers that could be rather trivially be configured as transparent to visible light.

Similarly, one shouldn't necessarily expect a window to be more brittle than a wall. The same sort of structural properties should be engineerable to both types of structure; indeed, the whole ship might be built of a strong transparent material, and a bit of paint then sprayed on those parts that were intended to provide privacy, chastity or a good night's sleep.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JuanBolio]

I'm not worried about a window breaking, and I admit that its possible to rig a piece of transparent material so that it will admit visible light but block out the hard stuff, though it would be easier to just not have a window in the first place.

However - light at ANY wavelength can be deadly if its intense enough. Lasers, nearby stars or photon torpedo blasts - any of these things can be real bad news for anyone standing by a window. Transparency has risks. Might be acceptable for a corridor or a rec room, but the bridge? Wouldn't be my first design choice.

 

[Timo]

Fair enough. Although I guess the windows do have an adaptive filter function, allowing prominent sets like Ten Forward to bask in intense starlight to mood-building rather than health-jeopardizing effect...

Regarding the Kelvin's looks, I'm wondering what folks around here think of the idea that this was the "real" looks of the entire Baton Rouge generation of ships?

That is, these flat saucers with flat bridges would have been what came before the TOS saucers, but after the ENT saucers, in a sort of standardized tradition that is evident in the later years (in how the Excelsior kitbashes and the Galaxy kitbashes share a saucer aesthetic). The first batches of Saladin and Hermes ships, dating back to the 2220s in fanfic, would have had this look - and the look given in Star Fleet Technical Manual would be only for the most modern standard, just like it is in the case of the Constitution class.

The dimensions don't seem all that out of place, at any rate. The Kelvin could either be a close stablemate, or indeed even a Saladin that was modified with a second nacelle at some point, considering the suggestive registry. Nicely enough, not only the Baton Rouge but also the Detroyat destroyer that also dates back to that era has the flat saucer and flat bridge look to begin with.

All the ships back then might have had these early, primitive nacelles that had huge ramscoop bulges and streamlined intercooler fins. Nacelle swapping would be a natural and logical way to upgrade the designs later on. Saucers in turn might be equally naturally bulged in the refits because more internal volume was needed, all this eventually resulting in the TOS/FJ style.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[EJD1984]

So why even call it Star Trek? Why not just create a new show out of whole cloth?

Because with Star Trek you already have so much to work with - great characters, ships, aliens, exciting universe, name recognition, and a devoted fanbase. They updated the look of a pre-TOS bridge, and you're claiming that the design aesthetic sets this movie totally apart from all previous Trek continuity. That, sir, is illogical.

I'd be more worried about the fact that all the old crew characters seem to be about the same age and on the same ship at the same time at least a decade before TOS, in which they were all different ranks and ages. Fret about that, not the bridge update, if you're worried about canon.

1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.

Like this? http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage011.jpg

That's not a window. Its just a see-through special effect intended to illustrate where on the ship the bridge is. Later shots of the Pike-era ship show a simple white dome there, and interior shots of the bridge show no transparency whatsoever in the ceiling. A window - and especially a skylight - would be a terrible thing to put in your control center with all the x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, and general high-energy badness of space, not to mention blinding starlight and the potential for laser weapons being directed against you.

I think Christopher (and myself) were mainly referring to the surface detailing on the forward section of the bridge of both the Ent. and Kelvin. Though at one point, the bridge dome was referred to as "Translucent", I believe that was quietly dropped, and honestly just wouldn't really serve and practical purpose.

There has been some substantial progress in recent years the field of transparent metals, in a couple hundred years I can see that being fully realized, along with opaque/dimming properties.

 

[MarianLH]

Any radiation problem with a bridge window would also apply to any other windows on the ship. Since the ship unambiguously has other windows, logically there must not be a radiation problem.

That said, I've never interpreted that scene in "The Cage" to mean there's actually a window there. Having the camera pass through a solid wall is an established film-making device.


Marian

 

[Christopher]

1. Bridge: I seriously doubt that there would be a large window on the bridge, instead of a much safer and practical view screen. Most likely just some surface detailing.

Like this? http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/0x00/thecage011.jpg

That's not a window. Its just a see-through special effect intended to illustrate where on the ship the bridge is.

Oh. Thank you for explaining that, since I'm only three and a half years old and need to be lectured on the screamingly obvious.

Of course I wasn't talking about the dome. As EJD1984 said, I was referring to the detail on the front of the bridge module, analogous to the detail in the equivalent position on the Kelvin.