Trek 11's ship IS the Enterprise

[Rii]

Forget the Enterprise, the vessel I'm really impressed with, unfortunate name notwithstanding, is the Kelvin. The design shouldn't work, but it does.

 

[Tom Riley]

Of course, it is cool and fun that most of the changes in the TOS visuals could be fit into "canon" and what didn't, like the Klingons, really didn't matter.

I suspect it will be the same for this film.

Then again, when Star Trek: Enterprise hit TV, they decided to explain the change in the Klingons appearance...

Which predates Abrams' film in both the TREK timeline as well as production order. The Archer era isn't changed by Nero's time travel. Just Kirk's.

...Ok... lol, all I was getting at was that the things in TOS that they changed for the later shows and movies that he said DIDN'T get explained at first, did EVENTUALLY get explained... I wasn't complaining about the new storyline here...

 

[Tom Riley]

But about the actual ship, I think it in itself is a nice looking ship, it does have it's differences from TOS Enterprise, but it's not anything too crazy. I'm just a little concerned about the interior of the ship. From the brief interior shots from the trailers, it looked really cool inside, but it didn't look like anything out of Star Trek lol.

 

[Tom Riley]

Forget the Enterprise, the vessel I'm really impressed with, unfortunate name notwithstanding, is the Kelvin. The design shouldn't work, but it does.

Yeah, the Kelvin's one huge nacelle... man... lol. I like how it looks old and stuff...

 

[Rii]

Forget the Enterprise, the vessel I'm really impressed with, unfortunate name notwithstanding, is the Kelvin. The design shouldn't work, but it does.

Yeah, the Kelvin's one huge nacelle... man... lol. I like how it looks old and stuff...

I think it's very credible as an ageing workhorse type in contrast to the Enterprise as a contemporary ship of the line. It's the Millenium Falcon of Star Trek.

 

[3D Master]

Also, big engines is a bad combination with these bendy pylons that that look like they are melting. If neck on the old design looked like it could snap, these new pylons look like they could break at any moment at their thinnest point, which is just below the bulkiest part of these huge engines.

The ship is ugly, but a curved construction makes something structurally stronger than a straight construction.

 

[number6]

Also, big engines is a bad combination with these bendy pylons that that look like they are melting. If neck on the old design looked like it could snap, these new pylons look like they could break at any moment at their thinnest point, which is just below the bulkiest part of these huge engines.

The ship is ugly, but a curved construction makes something structurally stronger than a straight construction.

Mark your calendars folks!
3D Master actually just said something positive about the construction of Trek XI's Enterprise.

 

[Longinus]

The ship is ugly, but a curved construction makes something structurally stronger than a straight construction.

It looks weak. It was an observation based on aesthetics, not engineering.

 

[Praetor]

I may be mistaken, but I believe curves in this context are actually structurally weaker, or at least more prone to sagging.

 

[ST-One]

I may be mistaken, but I believe curves in this context are actually structurally weaker, or at least more prone to sagging.

This is space - no sagging.
And, if the nacelle-pylons on the old Enterprise (which were - or at least looked - much weaker) wouldn't snap off of or get torn off during accelleration, then the new ship's pylons (which are much more robust looking) will be fine.

 

[saddestmoon]

I'm all over these new ships!

It would be a shame if Playmates don't also make a USS kelvin starship to go alongside the USS Enterprise.
Considering they are producing a Narada starship, it makes just as much sense to make a Kelvin as well, IMO - it has a significant amount of airtime as well, and it's a legendary starship, by all accounts...

 

[Kirk1980]

I don't like the look of it really... I can't figure out why they'd put TMP style (exactly mind you) impulse engines on it.

Personally, I'd have preferred a much more radical redesign. Be original entirely instead of cobbling something together.

The one new thing I don't like which these pics made evident is....I don't know... (and yes, probably biased by the original's configuration) the NCC-1701 lettering looks way too close to the leading edge of the hull. It looks oddly placed.

I imagine there will be a model kit? It might be the first one I attempt to kitbash.

 

[Vassa]

Looks pretty good to me.


Still say it's crazy to stick your bridge and command staff in giant bulls-eye like that...

 

[Devon]

I'm a Die-Hard TOS fan, so I like my Trek to look like it is in the right time period. This looks nothing like TOS enterprise.

Good.

 

[Skywalker]

Maybe it's just because I grew up with TNG and still can't really make it through most TOS episodes, but I love the new design. I still think the engineering hull starts to taper way too soon, though, and the nacelle struts should sweep back a little bit, or something, because right now they don't look very stable supporting those huge warp nacelles.

 

[Irishman]

I'd rank them:

TMP
TOS/JJPrise
D
NX-01

Good. I hate the E-E. It was the worst design. It was a bastardization of Voyager and a toilet bowl seat.

Well, I didn't mind the shape as much as the greebling up treatment it got.

What the hell? Colored panels on the saucer for no good reason? Terraces on a saucer? it just gave it an asthetic I hated. I wish someone would remodel it with a TMP sensibility, or even an Ent-D sensibility.

 

[Ghrakh]

No, it's not beautiful.

The more angles there are of this shitfest, the worse it gets.

That "thing" looks like it's the unnatural love-child of the TOS Enterprise and the TMP-Enterprise, after its been forced out of a constipated a-hole, the pressure deforming it into a misshapen turd.

And the more I look at it, and the more ways I see it, the more obvious this gets.

I wanted to like it when it first appeared, and from the glimpses it looked interesting, but since then, I agree.

The design does nothing for me. In defense of the designers, it looks bastardized by committee, as I see no congruency, no over-all design aesthetic. "Make this part bigger!" the committee cried... It's ended up grotesque, overdone, and having little subtlety, like a 50s american car. I can rationalize the "50s looking earlier than the 60s" mentality that will register on a superficial level, but that's as far as I can go.

otoh, the Kelvin, apart from some minor proportion nits I have, is successful. They nailed the one-nacelle design. I'm thinking they were given more creative control with it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

To those who think the new Enterprise is ugly, two words:
Grow up.

It's 2009, not 1969. You don't like it because you think it has to look like it was designed 40+ years ago. Too bad. This is the Enterprise for the 2009 and forward movie series(, unless it's changed again)

What a wonderful, convincing argument.

Think of anything that you, personally, don't like.

My response to your feelings re: that are "grow up."

Yeah, that's a GREAT argument, isn't it?

I don't like this new version. And I'll guarantee you I'm a hell of a lot more "grown up" than you are.

All we know is that we'll be seeing this "alternate reality" ship in this film. We don't know if it's the ONLY version we'll be seeing in the film. We don't know if it's intended to completely replace the one we've known and loved for 40+ years or not. We also don't know if there will ever be another film using this particular version.

That's a "grown-up" realization, there, kiddo.

It's 2009? You mean it's not still 1966? Wow... I'm stunned. Really!

There's not one damned thing on this "new" ship that couldn't have been done in 1964 (when the ship was designed... not 1966). It isn't a matter of being "dated," it's a matter of artistic vision and style.

This new version (and everything else from this film) has a different artistic vision and style from the original vision and the original style.

Some people like the original better. I'm among them. Some people like the new version better. Some people don't like EITHER, and some like both.

That's the funny thing about art, isn't it?

You, by saying "dood, you're a poopie-head if you don't like it, nanny-nanny-goo-goo" aren't really helping your case.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I wonder how all the people of the world felt in 1966, walking around with their childish ideas, hoping to grow up someday and become modern and wise like us. I feel sorry for them, really.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I may be mistaken, but I believe curves in this context are actually structurally weaker, or at least more prone to sagging.

This is space - no sagging.

Wrong.

"Sagging" isn't caused by gravity, "sagging" is caused by application of forces, and the inability to resist those forces.

Straight beams are stronger, in bending, in tension, in compression, than curved beams. Always. Without exception.

uniform circular shells, on the other hand, are always stronger than other shapes.

The ideal form for a structural element is straight, hollow round tube. Which is why it's used so often in real life.

The ideal shape for an unloaded stand-alone element is a sphere. But a sphere isn't effective in resisting tension or compression due to applied external loads.

Putting unnecessary notches into structural elements (say, nacelle housings, or dorsals) weakens the structure to a significant degree without adding any mechanical benefit whatsoever. Putting curvature into a pylon, similarly, results in a more massive pylon which is also weaker overall.

Regardless of "space" or "planetside" application.

And, if the nacelle-pylons on the old Enterprise (which were - or at least looked - much weaker) wouldn't snap off of or get torn off during accelleration, then the new ship's pylons (which are much more robust looking) will be fine.

Except that your comment about them being "more robust-looking" isn't really accurate (though I'm sure it's an accurate description of how you're perceiving it, not saying otherwise), this isn't a bad argument.

The fact is, the original mounting structure wasn't as robust as I'd have made it if I were designing a REAL structure. But this new structure is (your visual perceptions to the contrary) a WEAKER structure than that of the original ship's engine-mounting structure. And it's SIGNIFICANTLY weaker.

That said... none of this is real, is it? It's all art. And that's the SOLE reason that the "new" ship looks like it does. Not for any practical reason, and not because the original design is "dated" in any way. No... it's how it is simply because someone on the new film's production staff thought that this change would make it look more "kewl."