The upside-down Enterprise

[Robert Comsol]

I think one of Matt Jefferies' design concepts for the Enterprise, just after the spherical hull version (now known as the USS Horizon), was pretty much the final model but upside down.

That would be this one.

"There she is..." I think this one is definitely the design inspiration for the USS Reliant in ST II which then gave birth to the design of the USS Grissom which, IMHO, is the evolutionary link between Enterprise and Reliant

(unfortunately nobody wants to listen to this theory, mind read my 9 page theory treatise...)

Bob

P.S.
Just last week I read the anecdote Albertese was quoting. I think it was from the Star Trek Sketchbook.

 

[Wingsley]

They just look upside down with a few tweaks.

Or perhaps you could look at the Connie as just an upside-down version of Matt Jefferies' earlier concept drawings.

 

[Mytran]

(unfortunately nobody wants to listen to this theory, mind read my 9 page theory treatise...)

Well I did finally get round to reading your Oberth essay, and found it very interesting! I particularly like your approach to using the saucer module, a much more believable solution than other ones I've seen, such as using tiny turbolifts to slide down the pylons. Why, oh why....

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ Mytran

Thanks for the kind words. Since I suggested the Oberths' saucer module's undeniable similarity with the Jupiter 2 from "Lost in Space" to be a deliberate hint that we are looking at an older design, maybe I should publish my essay in the current Star Trek / Lost in Space thread?

Bob

 

[Metryq]

Meh, ships should not be designed with bilateral symmetry either.

Moment arms? Maybe that only applies to rockets and not starships with artificial gravity and inertial damping fields. "Warp engines the size of walnuts" would present a problem, otherwise.

 

[Tiberius]

In space there is no up or down.

In relative coordinate systems there is always and up and a down.

Relative to what?

 

[JarodRussell]

When you're in orbit, it's the orbital plane, when you approach a planet, it's the ecliptic plane, when you're in the galaxy, it's the galactic plane, when two spacecraft meet, they're going to settle for one coordinate system as well. Point is, there is ALWAYS an Up defined. Otherwise you couldn't navigate properly.

And if you have a single spaceship, then Up is simply where the ceilings are. And nobody would design a spaceship with an interior where there is no recognizable up and down, because humans would go crazy. Every module of the ISS has a ceiling and a floor, despite zero gravity.

 

[diankra]

And if you have a single spaceship, then Up is simply where the ceilings are. And nobody would design a spaceship with an interior where there is no recognizable up and down, because humans would go crazy. Every module of the ISS has a ceiling and a floor, despite zero gravity.

Actually, they did. The MDA section of Skylab was deliberately designed with no up or down, and consoles on any surface they would fit, in contrast to the more conventional design of the main section, so NASA could see which approach suited the crew best. As 8 of the 9 Skylab astronauts preferred the up-down approach, that's the one that's been used ever since.

 

[Metryq]

When you're in orbit, it's the orbital plane, when you approach a planet, it's the ecliptic plane, when you're in the galaxy, it's the galactic plane, when two spacecraft meet, they're going to settle for one coordinate system as well.

Where, exactly, is the "orbital plane" around Earth? Is it over the equator, while all highly "inclined" orbits are illegal? Uranus has an axial tilt of 97 degrees—should one orbit in the ecliptic, or based on the local rotation of the planet? For that matter, why should vessels in the same orbit have the same attitude?

Suppose another ship of the fleet is approaching from zenith or nadir, thus making its plane of reference along that line of flight. What's the proper etiquette in that situation? Should the ship reaching the rendezvous point second reorient (for no useful reason I can imagine) just to be polite, or should the first ship tumble around to make the arrival feel more welcome?

To paraphrase Doc Brown, "You're just not thinking three-dimensionally!"

Keep in mind that these are starships designed for crossing unimaginably vast distances. While delicate maneuvering around spacedock may be possible, why would ships meeting in deep space even get close enough for naked eye visibility? Their communication (including transporters) is effective without having to rub elbows.

Don't confuse navigational conventions with the attitude of the ship. Heck, every 3D artist knows there are global and local coordinates.

 

[anh165]

Something discomforting about an upside down image of the Enterprise. I think I will need to lay down.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Something discomforting about an upside down image of the Enterprise. I think I will need to lay down.

In theory, the Enterprise's markings/decals should be the only thing that looks out of place when the model is upside down, because it's an entirely fictional spacecraft architecture. But we're so conditioned to see it one way, and so invested in the beauty of that way, that it looks crazy upside down.

 

[scotpens]

In theory, the Enterprise's markings/decals should be the only thing that looks out of place when the model is upside down, because it's an entirely fictional spacecraft architecture. But we're so conditioned to see it one way, and so invested in the beauty of that way, that it looks crazy upside down.

The TOS Enterprise was designed to look uniquely futuristic while creating a subliminal impression of a majestic 18th-century sailing ship. Upside down, it looks like something some kid put together with Tinkertoys.

 

[Maurice]

Regarding "planes" it's easy to "proceed from a false assumption." No one's saying a ship has to approach on a particular plane. For all we know "standard orbit" is a polar one that lets the ship eventually pass over the entire surface of the planet.