The Different Versions of the Enterprise
- Thread starter Devon
- Start date
Plum said:
Still... I hope they keep the bongos in the theme.
Well, I do hope they have a new computer voice. Not wanting the voice of Voyager, TNG, and not wanting that woman’s voice of the 1960s. When I think of that voice, it sounds like a woman with a sinus infection dealing with a cold.
I'll never wrap my head around why some people keep saying this (about the Enterprise "not looking good on screen"). I'm sorry, it's just utter NONSENSE.
Nobody who's doing a WWII movie ... at least nobody COMPETENT... thinks "Well, that WWII-era aircraft carrier doesn't look good... I'd better put some flourescent panels on it in bright primary colors... otherwise it'll look bad on-screen." DO THEY?
The folks doing this movie MIGHT decide to take liberties with the 1701's design. I doubt it, but they might. But even if they do, that couldn't be attributed to "the design not being good." It might be attributable to all variety of other legal, moral, or business reasons... (ie, the "artists" wanting to have their own take on it?). But I can think of NO technical rationale for why the ship design "must" be altered in order for it to "look good."
Can ANYONE give a true, rational argument for why they think this is the case? Other than these (which are NOT rational or logical):
1) "Dude, it has a satellite dish on it."
This sort of argument is typically made by kiddies who have no actual scientific/technical knowledge whatsoever, but who grew up in the TNG "brightly illuminated primary color panels equals kewl technology"
I won't bore the rest of you with another diatribe on why parabolic reflectors are made in parabolic form, with a receptor or emitter at the focii of the dish... but suffice it to say it's REAL SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AT WORK.
2) "The ship needs more details... it's too plain, and that's boring."
This is caused by kids who grew up on Star Wars and assume "guts on the outside" means realistic.
This was a stylistic choice made by Lucas's folks on the first movie (based in part upon choices made by Trumbull's stuff in 2001).
The Star Trek philosophy, created by Matt Jeffries and consistent with REAL LIFE design principles... is that if you have a choice of having a piece of hardware inside of the ship... in a "shirt sleeves" environment... or outside the ship (where you need a space suit just to perform routine maintenance)... the obvious choice is to put it on the inside. It's just common sense, really...
3) "The ship design is too fragile."
Well, by that argument EVERY ship we've seen in Trek, and the majority we've seen in any other show, are all "too fragile." Without knowing the exact strength of the components, and the exact maximum loads they were designed to bear, it's impossible to say that anything is "too weak."
Is it actually any weaker than (pick your favorite ST ship and insert name here)? Can you DEMONSTRATE that?
Ezri said:
Plum said:
Still... I hope they keep the bongos in the theme.
Well, I do hope they have a new computer voice. Not wanting the voice of Voyager, TNG, and not wanting that woman’s voice of the 1960s. When I think of that voice, it sounds like a woman with a sinus infection dealing with a cold.
I love Majel Barrett's voice. I hope they continue to use it.
What I hope they *don't* use is two quirks they used for her in TOS: the high-pitched monotone, or that lameass 'typewriter' noise every time she speaks.
I think that the so-called "typewriter noise" is a goner.Babaganoosh said:
Ezri said:
Plum said:
Still... I hope they keep the bongos in the theme.
Well, I do hope they have a new computer voice. Not wanting the voice of Voyager, TNG, and not wanting that woman’s voice of the 1960s. When I think of that voice, it sounds like a woman with a sinus infection dealing with a cold.
I love Majel Barrett's voice. I hope they continue to use it.
What I hope they *don't* use is two quirks they used for her in TOS: the high-pitched monotone, or that lameass 'typewriter' noise every time she speaks.
Just FYI... that's exactly what really old computers (build using RELAYS) would sound like. The sounds you hear are hundreds of relays... each one, essentially, a "logic gate"... switching on and off.
That sound was well-known, at that time, to represent "computers." And since people were unfamiliar with computers in general, they needed to use a familiar sound effect. So they took sounds from a real computer and put it into the background.
No longer really necessary... maybe they'll add "disk drive spin-up sounds" instead?
^ That noise sounded like those typewriter noises you always used to hear in news programs. Like that Walter Cronkite sketch that Johnny Carson used to do, where Johnny (as Cronkite) turned around and said "For GOD's sakes, KNOCK off that dickity-dickity-dickity!" 
Last edited:
With the era of high definition television (HDTV) the NCC – 1701 (Star Trek XI) better look better then the ship of the 1960s. Why have a ship designed in the era of antennas and televisions with vacuum tubes should be the standard in the era of satellites, cable and technologies that is going to evolve into something even greater in the years to come.
Babaganoosh said:
^ That noise sounded like those typewriter noises you always used to hear in news programs. Like that Walter Cronkite sketch that Johnny Carson used to do, where Johnny (as Cronkite) turned around and said "For GOD's sakes, KNOCK off that dickity-dickity-dickity!"
That has to go ... period.
If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago.
WWII movies are based on historical events. Nobody ever made a Starship before. The truth is that we have no idea what it must look like! The closest we have are our manned spacecraft. Look at the ISS. Notice all the little details? Notice all the work that has to go on outside versus all the work that goes on inside? It is different than what Star Trek portrays. Real spacecraft look either very very simple or very very messy. Aesthetics are 5th on the list with function #1.
A real space craft would look like a multi-colored lego model. Aztec pattern? No. There would be no pattern at all but a bunch of different colors depending on the section. Paint is too expensive for most space flight. The only reason the shuttle has different colors is because it has a purpose (heat absorbing/reflection properties).
The 1701 has some technical reasons for being designed the way it was, but it was also designed that way because it is easier to be built. They couldn't build an Intrepid-class starship in the 60s and show each detail on the screen. Jefferies choose the color of the ship partly because it is easy to throw lights on it and make it look a different color. Damage is easier to show if required, and production is generally easier. I'm saying that the ability to create those kind of details is why we have them on Trek's ships today.
Why put it under a big saucer then? Why not on a long boom away from the ship? Why not two to get good coverage? Why not a rotating dish like aircraft carriers have? Why not a radio-transparent dome covering the dish to protect it like weather stations use (and to satisfy the "keep everything accessable without space suits" argument that you like).
Just because it is a saucer doesn't mean it's position makes sense. And don't get me started on the neck, the bridge, or shuttlecraft bay positions...
You didn't actually SAY anything there. You couldn't have been less specific had that been your stated goal!
So, wanna expand on that with some specifics?
What part of the Enterprise design is "archaic" and needs to go... what improvements do "modern" moviegoing kiddies "need to see" in order to think it's "kewl?"
C'mon... it's easy to say "no." ANYBODY can do that. Say what you, personally, would do. Give us specifics. Let's see if you can come up with anything that we all will agree is an improvement upon Matt Jeffries' design.
Excuse me? What the hell is THAT supposed to mean? I know, you think you're being "witty" here but snideness isn't "smarter" by couching it in "folksy" dress.
This was a totally nonsensical comment. And it DOESN'T make you look smarter. Mark Twain made a lot of "folksy" comments, but his always had an underlying logic to them. That's why HIS worked... and why this one didn't.
Not at all. Do you actually believe that there was a WWII sub in the pacific that got painted pink, for instance? Do you actually believe that John Wayne fought in every battle in the war?
And that statement is patent nonsense.
The reason that most films placed in a particular setting use the hardware from that particular setting is twofold. First... it's easier, since the design already exists (ie, you don't have to come up with something new). And second... THE AUDIENCE KNOWS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, AND EXPECTS IT TO LOOK THAT WAY.
Sure, you could have made a WWII-setting movie with an entirely fictional ship design or plane design. And sure, you COULD give us something pathetic like the "Intrepid-class" design (aka the "flying spoon" or "the flying sperm" to most viewers) and try to foist that off on the audience. But the audience already knows what this ship looks like, and the further the presented design deviates from that, the more it will put-off the audience.
I'm guessing you're not REALLY familiar with the design of the ISS, are ya? With the exception of the JEM exposed module and a couple of additional hardware pallets along the primary truss, all equipment that CAN be inside IS inside (excepting, primarily, the solar arrays and the radiator arrays).
And the JEM pressurized module has a CRANE and an airlock, so the crew doesn't have to go EVA to bring experiments in or send them out onto the JEM exposed module, anyway!
Once the station is fully constructed, EVA will be much more rare than it is now, while the thing is still under construction, you know! EVA will, principally, be used for maintenance of the panel arrays or, if called for, damage repair.
Go read the specs on the US Lab module, just for example... and look how the lab payloads, modular elements, are secured on the inside (with windows in some locations allowing some packages to have outside views) and are brought in... and out... through the logistics pod when it's swapped in or out.
You couldn't have made a worse argument if you'd planned to.
This is quite amusing, having you (a student) lecture me on this. Sort of like a medical intern lecturing a chief of surgery...
Oh, and where in the WORLD did you come to the conclusion that I even MENTIONED aesthetics? I asked YOU (well, not y ou specifically, but anyone who feels this way) to provide a logical, reasoned argument why the design should be different.
You think that a real 23rd-century spaceship (if one ever exists) will look... like what, specifically? Like a contemporary NASA ship?
You mention that you think it would be "messy" or "simple." Well, "MESSY" is NEVER an option. And "simple" is always a GOAL. The design, simply stated, must fulfill the design requirements. SO, I say again... pretend that this is a "real" 23rd-century ship we're talking about. What aspect of the TOS Enterprise design do you... YOU, PERSONALLY... think is "wrong?"
HUH? A LEGO MODEL???
How the hell do you come to that conclusion? Other than the fact that you may have built LEGO spaceships as a kid, I can't imagine ANY argument supporting this.
You MIGHT be saying "real spaceships will be modular." Which is true, to an extent, with the limitations of today's space program in place (ie, the thing can't be sent up, today, in a single launch, but must be sent up in segments and "snapped together" in orbit... which is what I ASSUME you meant. The "multicolored" bit, however, is simply STUNNINGLY DUMB. I'll gladly explain why if you really have trouble "getting" it, though.
True and false... the original "aztec" pattern painted onto the TMP Enterprise was a modelmaker's cheat... you weren't necessarily supposed to see a pattern at all, only very subtle variations from panel to panel... the sort that you might see if looking at hull metal with slightly different finish grain, for instance. Since the "aztec" pattern is just a modelmaker's cheat... you're right, real ships most likely wouldn't have that. But unless the entire hull was fabricated in a single piece, rather than "plate-wise," you WILL see variation from plate to plate, simply because no two plates could ever be 100% identical.
However... "a bunch of different colors depending on the section?" Gee... I wonder why nobody has ever done that 'til now when designing spacecraft? HMMMM... any clues?
"Too expensive?" Do you have ANY IDEA how expensive a single space launch is? Do you HONESTLY think that the cost of a little bit of paint makes ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER??? That statement was simply GIBBERISH...
What is paint? It's a COATING. Paint serves a variety of purposes. COSMETICS is only ONE purpose paint serves. C'mon... you must be able to think of at least ONE other purpose. (I'll give you a hint... how long does a painted house last, versus how long would an unpainted one last?)
And there we see that you ARE thinking, at least a little bit. You're absolutely correct there. White-painted surfaces reflect... black painted surfaces absorb and radiate.
SO... what color is the underside of the shuttle, again? BLACK, right? And when the shuttle is in orbit, and the bay doors are open (with their radiators exposed), which side of the shuttle is facing the sun? Hmmm... must be another reason for the underside being black if the absorbtive side is the one facing the sun, huh?
BALLONEY. There's nothing on the horrific abortion of a design called the "Intrepid" that couldn't have been modeled in 1966, or even in 1936, except maybe the lighting.
The Intrepid class design is HORRIBLE. It's UGLY. It's graceless. Models of the ship sold extremely poorly, at the same time that models of the original Enterprise kept selling. It's saying a LOT that the old Ertl 1701 model, having been out for several DECADES already, still outsold the Monogram Voyager kits during the time that both were available... isn't it?
Explain to me, what part of the Voyager model would have been impossible to make in, say, 1955?
You're talking out of your ass. Jeffries didn't pick the paint used on the TOS Enterprise. And better than half the folks on this website can tell you who DID. Making up "facts" about Trek may work in your day-to-day life, where nobody you know cares as much about this as you do... but on HERE, making up your own facts just ain't gonna float.
Did you just change topics and switch over to discussing the pros and cons of CGI work? Sounds like it...
If so... well, you're correct, it's easier to do the two things you just describe if you're working in CGI as opposed to working with physical models. However... we're just talking about the medium, the fact that you're doing something with CGI or with a model really SHOULDN'T be driving how the work looks. The artist will know what they're trying to show, and will use the tool to show that thing.
Just because you have a took that lets you take liberties doesn't mean you MUST, or that you SHOULD, take them, in other words.
No... not at all. The ability to create details has always been there. Go back to the early Flash Gordon serials. Those ships were VERY detailed... individual rivets and plating seams and so forth.
And consider "2001" which was done at the SAME TIME that Star Trek was on the air. Seems to me that they were entirely able to do "lotsa detail" THEN.
So your argument falls pretty much entirely on its face, I think, on that point.
Well, gee whiz, you sure got me there, I guess... okay, not really!
The dish is forward facing (with a small cosmetic-only physical hinge element built into the dish back on the original model, implying a small degree of traversal built into the device).
Everything you just said implies that you think this is a RECEPTOR antenna. As opposed to what we all pretty much accept its main purpose is... a focused beam projector.
The "spike" is the emitter element. It reflects off of the dish, creating a focused beam. Oh, gee, ya know... sort of like how a REAL AIRCRAFT RADAR operates (go look inside the nosecone of an F-16 Falcon sometime!) Except in this case, the beam is supposed to be powerful enough to exert a force on distant objects, changing the velocity vector of that object so that it won't impact the ship.
Why not rotate? BECAUSE THE SHIP DOESN'T FLY IN SPIRALS!
And here you seem to branch off from the discussion of the deflector dish into a discussion of... what? You think that the primary hull's location is "wrong," as far as I can figure out.
Why not?
Okay, lots of folks think that the dorsal (the "neck") and the engine pylons seem "fragile." Of course, SINCE I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THIS ALREADY (ie, unless you know the strength of the structure and the forces that the structure is designed to withstand, you can't say that it's "too week," can you? All we can really say is that, evidently, the structure is strong enough to withstand its design loading... because it does. How it's manufactured, or what it's made out of, or how much force it can actually take... we don't know any of that. But we know (because it's FICTION) that the design meets the requirements.
As for the bridge... don't tell me, you think it needs to be "inside" and not "on top," right? Why? Don't pretend that it'd be better protected deeper inside... with weapons that can blast the tops of mountains off without effort, I can't imagine what extra protection a couple of additional layers of sheetmetal would provide... can you? Fact is... if the shields are up, the whole ship is safe. If the shields are down... doesn't matter WHERE the bridge is, it can be hit. (In TWOK, the only reason that Khan didn't hit the bridge first was because "First, I wanted you to know who it was who had beaten you.")
And lastly... you have a problem with the shuttlecraft landing bay position? I'd be VERY curious to hear what THAT issue is. Considering an "aircraft carrier" model, for instance, where the carrier can speed up to help a craft in trouble land ("stretching" the effective runway length)... well, seems that having an aft-facing shuttlebay makes perfect sense. So, what problem do you have with it?
Be VERY careful not to equate the current state of our spacecraft design... to what we're talking about here... that's similar to (but even further removed from) making an argument about the construction of the USS Ronald Reagan based upon the design constraints present in the construction of Roman slave-barges or Norse longships.
Except that even the longships were able to travel across the oceans. We've never had an actual SPACECRAFT leave our immediate planetary system (Earth and Moon). Everything that HAS left our space, so far, has been a PROBE... one-way, single-purpose, limited duration, no passengers, crew, or cargo. So, honestly, we're FAR BEHIND the Norsemen in this particular comparison so far.
By this argument, we've rowed our rowboats around the lagoon, and floated a few bouys out into the ocean... and that's about it.
You can't apply generalizations about how we've built spacecraft so far towards how we might build them once we've got a significant space infrastructure in place, have actual SPACE CRAFT in service, and are actually GOING PLACES regularly.
Again... people outside of this BBS who you say that to will probably say "wow, I didn't know that" but you have to realize that we ALL... EVERY LAST ONE OF US... knows at least as much about this as you do. We all know that:
1) Jeffries put the shuttlebay there from the get-go,
but,
2) Roddenberry invented the transporter to avoid the cost (dollars, production hours, and "wasted" screen-time) involved in setting down the ship every week, too.
WE ALL KNOW THAT. But... so what? What's your point? Are you suggesting that, since it's less of a hassle to do this in a 2008 movie, the Enterprise should be turned into something that can land?
If so... you need to come up with a better rationale for this than "because we CAN." Unless it's going to give us a better story... there's NO REASON to do it. And if it's going to put-off some portion of the audience (and it would, you know!)... there's a good reason NOT to do it.
If you want a science fiction show with a different ship... one that looks different and can land and doesn't have all the details you dislike... fine. Go design the ship, go try to sell the show. If it's as awesome of an "improvement" as you think it would be, hey, you'll be rich!
Oh, yeah... great idea.
You "vaguely remember" which is better than some people do... Filmation came up with the concept of "life support belts" instead of the TOS "silver space suits" for a very simple reason. They could then reuse their existing stock of poses, expressions, and body parts... just overlaying a simple "fuzzy outline"... and saving massively on the cost of production of a single animated episode.
It was a cheat. An ingenious one, I'll grant, but a cheat nevertheless. And if given a choice between a suit (which will protect me even if the power momentarily lapses) or a forcefield (which, if it "flickers" for even five seconds, will kill me)... the choice is really no choice at all.
Good for you. I was an engineering major 20 years ago... spent the next several years serving in the military, to pay off a very expensive education... and have spent the past fifteen years practicing engineering, including designing equipment that IS IN SPACE RIGHT NOW.
Well, if you think that the Enterprise should be a multicolored LEGO design, I'm not sure how seriously I can treat that ultimatum.
You're overestimating your knowledge here. You're taking some very simplistic knowledge and extrapolating it into "expertise." This is not to say that you can't have the level of knowledge that you seem to think you do now... only that you'll get it from EXPERIENCE... experience in critical thinking. That's CORE to what being an engineer (aka an "applied scientist") is all about. You're not showing too much of that now. But you show some promise... if you really work on thinking things through BEFORE deciding what you think. That's the big flaw in all your arguments here so far. You make a point... choose your point-of-view... and THEN you try to find some way to support it. That's as opposed to what a scientist does - withhold judgement until and unless you can support a particular position with FACTS and with a SOUND, LOGICAL ARGUMENT.
I asked for a logical argument why any part of the USS ENTERPRISE design should be altered. And that's not really what you've done here. You've argued in vague terms, in NEGATIVES (rather than in POSITIVES) for the most part. Your two "positive" points seem to be that you seem to want it to be able to land and to be made of multicolored snap-together blocks.
Well, SCIENCE isn't ever a matter of opinion (no matter how much Al Gore might try to convince people that "consensus" or "opinion" is relevant in scientific matters!). Opinion only matters, in this particular argument, on the standpoint of ART... not of SCIENCE.
This is entertainment. You can discuss psychology and sociology (real sciences) to review how changes in the art of this design will affect audiences, or you can make sound arguments about why something in the art is consistent or is inconsistent with "real science."
You've made arguments here about how you'd like to see the ship look. Fine. You've then claimed that they are valid arguments because they're "scientific," which they are not... or at least, they are no MORE scientific than the oppposing viewpoint.
So... really... you're attempting to couch your PERSONAL PREFERENCE in the guise of "science." That's another of those "bad science" things we see far too often (again, "global warming" springs to mind as a great example of how prevalent this is).
If you say "I think it should be this way, and here's my scientific basis for that"... well, that's a fair statement. But to say "I think that how someone else thinks it should be is WRONG" well... you need to support that with facts and sound reasoning, and be prepared to defense your point.
A suggestion that the Enterprise NEEDS TO BE CHANGED is a NEGATIVE. If you think you know how a starship should be designed... design one, and submit it to review, on scientific AND artistic merit.
See, this "Jeffries worship" comment is just obnoxious. The reason I like his work is because he was a REAL AEROSPACE ENGINEER (with a hell of a lot more experience DESIGNING REAL EQUIPMENT as well as designing things for the entertainment industry) and a private pilot as well. He thought things through. He may not have gotten everything PERFECT, but he did pretty damned good for the limited detail level he was paid to create (what I refer to as a "sketch" rather than a full-scale design).
And your flippant dismissal of it as being some form of "worshipfullness" is just obnoxious and offensive. I like his work because it was good... I don't think it's good because it's his work! If you can't tell the difference... you, once again, need to work on your critical-thinking (and your LISTENING) skills.
Kiddo, you really, really need to get this through your head... you may have discovered all this recently, but most of us here knew all this before you were even born. So you'd do REALLY WELL to stop "pouring out your wisdom" like this... it comes across as fairly... well... DUMB, honestly.
Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that most of us haven't seen the various sketches Jeffries put together... the derivation of the design? Do you think we aren't familiar with what Jeffries stated, quite clearly, that he was doing as he did this?
Maybe your high-school chums didn't know this stuff, but around here, we ALL DO. And we all know that Jeffries set out with certain rules up-front, including (but not limited to)
1) No visible rockets or similar propulsion systems)
2) "Guts on the inside" style construction
3) No features that looked like anything previously seen in "conventional" (and yes, GREEBLIE-COVERED) rocket ship designs.
WE ALL ALREADY KNOW THIS. Better than you, it seems, and certainly for far longer.
Kid, if you're wondering why I've just basically ripped you an new bodily orifice in this response... THAT COMMENT is why I decided not to be "gentle" with you.
Being that much of a smartass... you'd goddamned well better make sure you have your own house in order. And kid, you DO NOT. Your arguments are weak, or even nonexistent. You state your personal opinions as though they're facts. You "lecture" people who know more about this stuff than you do... and in the process, you get key elements of your "lectures" WRONG.
You know more about Star Trek than anybody in your household, and probably than in your dormitory floor. And in that situation, you can get away with that sort of smug bullshit. But around here... you're the intern trying to lecture the chief surgeons, without ever having held a scalpel yourself... and it shows.
Funny, when I first saw the ENT version of the Enterprise I was sure that it seemed more like something dreamed up in the 1930s than the 21st century. It looked like someone flashed a quick peak of the TOS Enterprise to the effects designers for Flash Gordon (1937-1940) or Buck Rogers (1938) and then asked them to build what they thought they saw.
I think this is a quote from Stargate. He's saying that the answer is obvious, though the actual quote is meant to begin an eternal process of contemplation. Not unlike "if a tree falls in a forest, is there a sound?"
I actually think it is appropriate in this context, because the differences of opinion are rooted in the differences between the generations that loved the original show, and those that loved the later spinoffs. The Generation Gap is a toothsome subject for those that revel in imponderables, and this BBS lives and breathes off the energy produced by the resultant friction.
This is correct. And yet, science fiction is fiction based on a scientific premise, not a fantastic one. Elements of both permeate Star Trek, but it is arguable that a big part of what has made it endure is fidelity to a well-researched premise. A year was spent researching "what might be" before a camera ever rolled on the first pilot. Matt Jefferies was among those that engaged in and consumed that research.
I think that it was designed the way it was because believability and dramatic demands converged at that design. A basic dramatic shape emerged out of the sketching process which itself was informed by Jefferies' background in aeronautics, his research into what had been done by SF illustrators in the past, and what NASA contractors were contemplating. Once he had a dramatic form that looked powerful and fast, was sensibly modular, and had the "fragility" he'd come to expect of of a zero-G design -- check out the kind of spacecraft he had pinned to his wall here
http://www.fabiofeminofantascience.org/RETROFUTURE/strombecker-d38-100.jpg
and
http://www.fabiofeminofantascience.org/RETROFUTURE/MannedOrbitingSatsmall.jpg
-- he moved on to refining the design. The notion of a smooth hull was again a convergence of sense, style and need. The accepted (what we now call retrofuturist) style of the time for something that looked "futuristic" was smooth and sleek. It was informed by the look of aircraft, which got sleeker the faster they became. But this was a spacecraft, so it needed additional rationale for the sleekness. Not one to leave things hanging unexplained, Jefferies supplied the reasoning that an advanced spacefaring race would have long since employed modularity from the interior versus the exterior. A ship with plenty of interior volume like the one he was designing could afford this luxury, versus a small craft like those being flown by NASA or the USSR.
That would never have occurred to Jefferies. It didn't fit the design ideas of the time, or the rationalization he had developed for what he was doing.
This brings us to the important question of what looks futuristic today. If sleek and smooth was a defining consideration then, what is now? I'd argue that to most average. run-of-the mill moviegoers, the layered, gobbed-up look of Star Wars defines the look of what they perceive as SciFi. They'd still think a sleek car looked futuristic, and would be surprised by a fast plane being anything but.
Does Star Trek want to look like SciFi, or stay true to what contributed to its longstanding appeal -- an attention to looking believable? What might a real starship look like? Well, NASA has only tackled that question once that I know of, and the answer they came up with avoids protuberances in the interest of maintaining a smooth antigravity-generated space around a ship deforming spacetime fore and aft with hypergravity sources.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/warp_drive.jpg
It's smoooooth, baby. Like Grand Marnier Cuvée du Centenaire, or Leon Phelps' Courvoisier. And like our good, old NCC-1701.
Similar threads
