Cool. So my BS makes as much sense then. I love this ship and I don't care if it makes no sense. Star Trek has ship designs that make zero sense at all. I don't see the problem.
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
I didn't say it was a problem. I even said that it is entirely justifiable.
I didn't say you said it was a problem. Simply observing the comments around the new ship. And I do recall being told that Starfleet should not care about nostalgia too, yet that ends up being the justification made by the show runners. Excuse me, they are going for a retro look, and then opted to have a physics justification as well.
And I said that Starfleet doesn't care about nostalgia, because Starfleet is a made-up organization that is entirely at the whims of the writers' and producers' determination as to what it believes. The next showrunner could go right back to making ships with pointy saucers.
So why are people annoyed by it looking round? Star Trek ships can look like whatever, by your own admission. Yet, somewhere along the lines there was a "logical procession" of how ships were designed in Trek, except it's not logical because it's all made up, yet people still get strong emotions* about the ship design...WTF?
I think people are annoyed by it looking like it was built in 2280 instead of 2410 (or whenever this takes place).
I mean...I guess that's the only thing. I guess to my mind when Starfleet has essentially unlimited resources then ship shape can be whatever. But, maybe my simple brain cannot grasp the complexities of Starfleet Starship Ship Shapes.
Last edited:
That's a tongue twister...
To be fair, shape matters for certain propulsion systems.
There has never been a canon on-screen reason why Starfleet designs their ships the way they do. The closest rationale was Voyager’s variable geometry warp nacelles for the environment, and even that was never once mentioned in the show. There has never been a reason why some ships have two nacelles, or one, or four. No reason why some ships have circular saucers and some have pointy ones. No reason why some ships have secondary hulls and some don’t. No reason why some saucers have huge illogical gaping holes in them, and some don’t. Etc., etc.
Now with that said, there has at least been a logical progression of design attributes from TOS to VOY that one could use to determine by sight when a particular class of ship was constructed, and that’s what we’re talking about here.
1st generation: TOS-style ships such as the Constitution, Saladin/Hermes, Ptolemy, and Federation.
2nd generation: TMP-style ships such as the TMP refit, Miranda, Constellation, Sydney, and Soyuz.
3rd generation: post-TMP-style ships such as the Excelsior, Curry, Raging Queen, Centaur, and Hutzel.
4th generation: pre-TNG-style ships such as the Ambassador, New Orleans, Challenger, Springfield, Cheyenne, Nebula, Freedom, Niagara and Olympic.
5th generation: post-TNG-style ships such as the Intrepid, Nova, Sovereign, Prometheus, Akira, Steamrunner, Saber and Norway.
(All of this was fine until ENT and DSC started muddying the waters, but that’s another topic.)
My point to all this: Nobody is going to look at a New Orleans class starship and think it was built during the TMP era. Conversely, no one is going to look at the Constellation class and think it was built during the TNG era. But now we have ships that don’t look like the era they’re supposedly from. And that’s a bit annoying to starship nerds like me who like logical consistency in my designs.
Does it matter in the large scheme of things? No, because any justification can be made as to why ships look the way they do, because this is all fiction. In the case of the Titan, I would have preferred that they’d made it look a bit less than the TMP-era ship it was derived from, and that’s coming from someone who loves the TMP era ship designs.
Ok, well thank you for nailing that down because initially it was said there is no logic but now there is logic and my head just hurts at this point.
I'm not looking at justifications so much as just human behaviors. And humans like retro. I don't think ship design is immune to this, nor do I think that the hull shape of the newest class of ship tells me that it was built in anything but the post Picard Era. That's me and I clearly am not the starship king over here.
I'll yield and just say...I don't get it. Sorry it bothers you so much.
As an experienced engineer and lifetime aerospace buff, I'd go farther than describing the design direction of Titan-A as "head cannon". From reading the interview it's very clear that a lot of consideration was given to how things work in universe and how an organization like Starfleet would function. I would even to venture that this design direction change is far more thought out.
The idea of the Inquiry class was grounded in mass production and made sense - but in a world like Star Trek, opens too many vulnerabilities from a tactical sense (not to mention aesthetics). So they went the other way - much like manufacturers in today's world do.
Gene Roddenberry wanted families on the 1701-D. He justified it with mission length, time away from family, etc. Nonsense - it was then, and it still is now. You don't put families in harm's way. Gene also wanted "more organic" ship designs. So the Galaxy class looks like a stealth bomber - very late 80's. But when Probert had a sleeker design for 1701-C that couldn't be produced in time, we got a design on screen that was more clunky. Hardly consistency in action, especially over a three year span (ironic that). But the "TNG Era" designs get a lot of love. Fine.
Here, they're looking at designs saying "The primary hull needs too many computers to fly on an emergency landing". This is pretty spot on (I mean without doing actual atmospheric modeling). Simplest example: Frisbee versus paper airplane. Frisbee is more stable all day long. Add a lot of uncertainty and turbulence - no contest, Frisbee is a very natural shape for gliding or flying. Take an oblong saucer like 1701-E.......ummmm.....yeah.....big problems given that there's no actual wingspan to provide lift and/or control.
Then the idea that "A Jeep is still a Jeep". Elegant and perfect from a design standpoint - this also applies to 1701-E being designed to combat the Borg. Purpose matters, form follows function. This then means that retro is not really retro if it serves a purpose. Is a Jeep retro? Not if it's the best design for the job. 1701-J was impossible to imagine as a functional ship with all the thin sections. Hard to imagine that ship taking a pounding.
Speaking of taking a pounding - The Defiant NX-74205. Gene unofficially decided (with Probert) that nacelles need space between them. Defiant broke that rule big time. Did anyone really care? No. Did anyone need an in-universe explanation? Nah.
Doug Drexler made the Jeep comment and designed the 1701-J. The fact that he didn't push the design of Titan-A in that direction, and actually got on board with a change in design philosophy (to the point of justifying it with in universe scenarios) tells me this was a collaborative process to the fullest, and one where the participants were willing to challenge some assumptions. That leads to good design, regardless of what consensus says. Consensus can be biased by expectations (and I think that's happening here), but from what they describe, I'd say the whole team deserves a hand because they probably gave more thought to the design than many others before them. In fact, most of what I've read on Trek designs is that it centers on what a production team wants. Here that was obviously the case, but rather than just push it on the fans, they wanted to make it all fit and work and followed sound (and I would say best) design practice at the same time.....I think we should all applaud them for it.
The idea of the Inquiry class was grounded in mass production and made sense - but in a world like Star Trek, opens too many vulnerabilities from a tactical sense (not to mention aesthetics). So they went the other way - much like manufacturers in today's world do.
Gene Roddenberry wanted families on the 1701-D. He justified it with mission length, time away from family, etc. Nonsense - it was then, and it still is now. You don't put families in harm's way. Gene also wanted "more organic" ship designs. So the Galaxy class looks like a stealth bomber - very late 80's. But when Probert had a sleeker design for 1701-C that couldn't be produced in time, we got a design on screen that was more clunky. Hardly consistency in action, especially over a three year span (ironic that). But the "TNG Era" designs get a lot of love. Fine.
Here, they're looking at designs saying "The primary hull needs too many computers to fly on an emergency landing". This is pretty spot on (I mean without doing actual atmospheric modeling). Simplest example: Frisbee versus paper airplane. Frisbee is more stable all day long. Add a lot of uncertainty and turbulence - no contest, Frisbee is a very natural shape for gliding or flying. Take an oblong saucer like 1701-E.......ummmm.....yeah.....big problems given that there's no actual wingspan to provide lift and/or control.
Then the idea that "A Jeep is still a Jeep". Elegant and perfect from a design standpoint - this also applies to 1701-E being designed to combat the Borg. Purpose matters, form follows function. This then means that retro is not really retro if it serves a purpose. Is a Jeep retro? Not if it's the best design for the job. 1701-J was impossible to imagine as a functional ship with all the thin sections. Hard to imagine that ship taking a pounding.
Speaking of taking a pounding - The Defiant NX-74205. Gene unofficially decided (with Probert) that nacelles need space between them. Defiant broke that rule big time. Did anyone really care? No. Did anyone need an in-universe explanation? Nah.
Doug Drexler made the Jeep comment and designed the 1701-J. The fact that he didn't push the design of Titan-A in that direction, and actually got on board with a change in design philosophy (to the point of justifying it with in universe scenarios) tells me this was a collaborative process to the fullest, and one where the participants were willing to challenge some assumptions. That leads to good design, regardless of what consensus says. Consensus can be biased by expectations (and I think that's happening here), but from what they describe, I'd say the whole team deserves a hand because they probably gave more thought to the design than many others before them. In fact, most of what I've read on Trek designs is that it centers on what a production team wants. Here that was obviously the case, but rather than just push it on the fans, they wanted to make it all fit and work and followed sound (and I would say best) design practice at the same time.....I think we should all applaud them for it.
Why does ‘going back to exploration mode’ mean that ships now have to look like they did 150 years ago? What does ‘retro’ have to do with that? Nothing, that’s what. That’s why Matalas had Drexler come up with some in-universe ‘safety’ reason (which apparently only applies to the Titan and not the Stargazer.) If you don’t get that…well, I’m not sure what else to tell you at this point. 
Last edited:
I don't get it.Why does ‘going back to exploration mode’ mean that ships now have to look like they did 150 years ago? What does ‘retro’ have to do with that? Nothing, that’s what. That’s why Matalas had Drexler come up with some in-universe ‘safety’ reason (which apparently only applies to the Titan and not the Stargazer.) If you don’t get that…well, I’m not sure what else to tell you at this point.
Last edited:
Why does ‘going back to exploration mode’ mean that ships now have to look like they did 150 years ago? What does ‘retro’ have to do with that? Nothing, that’s what. That’s why Matalas had Drexler come up with some in-universe ‘safety’ reason (which apparently only applies to the Titan and not the Stargazer.) If you don’t get that…well, I’m not sure what else to tell you at this point.
You’re smarter than this - that’s like asking why the speaker in a cell phone is at the top and the microphone at the bottom. From a scientific standpoint, it would be easy to imagine that sensors require a particular structure to function. Or that focusing on exploration dictates a certain ship layout.
As for why something might look old, it could be as simple as manufacturing methods. Honestly, the space program is a great parallel. Capsules are back, but my whole childhood it was all about shuttles. Quite a backpedal…..seemingly…..but there are a lot of reasons that they have for doing it. It’s not the only approach clearly, but that doesn’t make it less sound.
But look, if you want something shiny and new looking, I really can’t say anything to change your mind. I’m talking about the true basis of design - if that seems to you like I’m defending the look of Titan-A, I’m not. I’m saying their process was the same as I’ve seen in industry, and for that they should be commended not condemned.
I wasn't aware you knew me well enough to know how smart I am. Or knew me at all, actually.
Clearly I overestimated you.
The only thing I'm thinking about is the Daedalus and Olympus class. Wouldn't the round primary hull be a throwback too?
I know, I know, it's not logical.
I know, I know, it's not logical.
