Same could be said RE the ST:TMP refit compared to the TOS original (especially the interior of the ST:TMP shuttlebay.
Spoilers The Strange New Worlds Starship Thread™
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Personally I find RCS thrusters with ports dating the tech to look like 1960's NASA-era technology. As to the impulse engines, at least on the TOS Enterprise, I took the exhaust ports at the back of the saucer as thermal or radiation exhausts and not for propulsion since the TOS Enterprise has gone in full impulse reverse numerous times and there are no physical ports facing forward. YMMV.
Yes, I see that now as Hotrod pointed them out above.
Because the RCS thrusters point back to old tech. Even Macintosh in a post above points out how old and reliable they are. The lack of such design cues on the TOS Enterprise makes it hard to pin down how the ship works. So that helps in not dating the ship. IMHO.
But that 10% says there is room for doubt
Last edited:
But they don't look anything like a 1960s NASA reaction control system, which look like this:
The reaction control system aboard Starfleet ships, while based on simple Newtonian principles, is still centuries ahead of this. Utilising the same basic principles as ancient technology doesn't mean it is ancient technology. It means it's simple, well-understood, and robust, and if it's the most essential, minimal, low-power way of moving your ship then that's what you want it to be. The ship already has non-Newtonian spacetime manipulation engines that it uses most of the time. Why do you want other ones just to make it fancier? "Because it looks old"? You realise even the most advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carriers today are using rudders to steer (which are about 2,000 years old in concept) and screw propellers for thrust (which are about 400 years old in concept)?
But that 10% says there is room for doubt
Sure, it's in the DS9 Technical Manual and a lot of people have read it. but if you haven't read it you'd never know just from what's shown on screen, and I'm guessing more people have watched DS9 than read the DS9TM, even on Star Trek fan sites like this.
Seriously, this is a question? Look, I love the TOS Enterprise, and would have preferred a much more subtle update, but there was a quantum leap forward in ship model making and special effects in the late 1960s, exemplified by 2001. Combine that with the additional techniques development for Star Wars and the simple fact is by 1979 the art form had matured to a level that prevents it from looking dated.
To be fair a number original TOS visual effect shots are in fact as good as some of the visual effects shots from 2001.
Erm...
They didn't have the time or budget to refine them to that level.
Yes, head canon. Not a directive from the higher ups.
It doesn't date the ship, it makes it more realistic,
They also don't look like current tech RCS thrusters.
All due respect, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment at all. 2001's VFX were crisp and showed little-to-no halos (for the most part) or other weird color artifacts from the compositing process. The film also appeared to be of a higher granular resolution than what was used for many of the effects on TOS, especially when it came to close-up's of the ships.
But they don't look anything like a 1960s NASA reaction control system, which look like this:
No, they don't look like Apollo-era RCS thrusters. They do look like the ones off the shuttle (project started in late 60s, actual design in 70s) or Starliner (surprisingly retro).
Your example of the ships and rudders dates the tech, IMHO. A far future Enterprise should be like an X-65 compared to the Queen Elizabeth crossing the Atlantic... (IOW, going from rudders to no moving control surfaces plus flies above the water.)
Well, I watched "Serene Squall" where the impulse thrusters were targeted and disabled. The weapons fire were directed exclusively at the warp nacelles (all 4 weapon hits targeted them). The damage spread back to the impulse exhausts on the back of the saucer. So it would seem that the producers of SNW don't think the impulse thrusters are exclusively on the back of the saucer or where they might have been assumed to be all these years. This could also apply to other ships, like the Defiant... YMMV.
Realistic means understandable with our current level of understanding. That, IMHO, dates it. And the stealth thrusters on the SNW look alot like the ones on the shuttle and to some extent the Starliner...
Curious, why should the Enterprise's technology be realistic given that by SNW's time they had the benefit of alien tech from all the other species they've made alliances with?
Last edited:
A lot of ship shots from third season of TOS look better than the moon shuttle shots, or many of the shots of the Boeing space shuttle docking with the orbiting Earth space station in my opinion.
Wait. SERIOUSLY? The X-65 is a sailing yacht! Oh sure, there's nothing technologically dated about sails!
Also, you are absolutely missing the point here. The military ships are still using the tried-and-tested methods because they work and they're reliable, and a modern supercarrier is going to outpace a yacht. Maybe not in bursts, sure, but a Nimitz or a Gerald R Ford can sustain 30+ knots indefinitely until something breaks. The Enterprise isn't a hotrod sailboat for rich people who have a couple of spare million to burn, or a tech demo for some academically inclined institution showing off its latest theories, it's a working starship that has to be operational as much as possible.
We were talking about the Defiant specifically there, but sure, other starships have had impulse reactors in other parts of their hulls apart from clustered where the engine exhausts are. There's even one highlighted on Voyager's MSD. It's about power generation, and if we assume that impulse leverages subspace driver coils, that power could come from somewhere else.
The ship's got faster-than-light engines, artificial gravity, and teleporters, but you're worried the manoeuvring thrusters date it...
Why would alien technology be unrealistic? It's following the same laws of physics in the same universe. This isn't Harry Potter.
no they're both NCC-1279
Jörg got a clearer picture.
https://twitter.com/gaghyogi49/status/1670480241402298370
Wait. SERIOUSLY? The X-65 is a sailing yacht! Oh sure, there's nothing technologically dated about sails!
Oh, I didn't realize it's too new to be well known. The X-65 test aircraft.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/x-65-darpa-new-plane/https://www.airandspaceforces.com/x-65-darpa-new-plane/
With you looking at the X-65 yacht of course your argument makes more sense. But as I point out above, I'm talking about the X-65 aircraft that has no moving control surfaces. Different argument altogether. You have your Nimitz stuck on the water cruising at 30+ knots and the X-65 is in the air operating alot of faster and controlled differently than an old school watercraft.
Which now gives us a bit of uncertainty to how Defiant's impulse engines work. That helps to keep it from being dated from a design aesthetic. IMHO.
This entire line of argument came about from the appearance of the ship and features that would date it. So yes, the presence of shuttle-style RCS thrusters that are visible on a starship dates the technology. All the other stuff you argue for like FTL engines, artificial gravity, transporters are not readily apparent.
Why would alien technology appear to be achievable or expected (realistic's definition)? Once you have "realistic" you can achieve it and therefore becomes dated. Alien technology can still follow the same laws of physics in the same universe and still be incomprehensible to us. YMMV.
Just like FTL engines and transporters, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C Clarke.
Salvage.
Similar threads
