Woo hoo!!
I must confess to never liking the Intrepid-class bridge, as it had too much wasted space.
Whereas I felt it was inefficiently designed with too many different levels and railings and whatnot. And I dislike the trend to move away from the simple E-D-style bridge back to one more cluttered with blinky lights and metal and techno-stuff. The E-D design reflected the idea that technology had advanced so far as to become more invisible, less obtrusive -- and that far fewer people were needed to operate it. Later designs feel like a huge step backward in technological sophistication.
Reminds me of the fanon Proteus Class. (That's also what I see when I picture the Aventine)
Ugh... personally, I'm getting tired of streamlined starships. Space is a vacuum -- there's no need for streamlining. It's a purely superficial way of making a ship look "fast" and "sleek" to the viewer's eye. My preference would be for ships that look less like aircraft or darts and more like something that's a practical design for a vessel operating in weightless vacuum. That's what Matt Jefferies gave us with the original Enterprise, and nothing since has lived up to that brilliant, elegantly simple design.
I seem to recall reading (I believe it was in the Star Trek: The Magazine Technical Guide for the Intrepid Class) that the streamlining of the ships had something to do with the variable geometry warp nacelles. It worked to help stem the subspace damage that was discovered in TNG Season Seven for high warp travel.
What about vessels designed to land on planets, meaning having to go atmospheric? They have to be at least partially streamlined to glide through an atmosphere like the Intrepid- and Nova-classes were designed to do. As for starships that don't need to go skinny dipping through the atmosphere, it is aesthetically pleasing to have a "sleek" ship. Would a ship designed more like the battlestars of BSG look better to you, Chris?Ugh... personally, I'm getting tired of streamlined starships. Space is a vacuum -- there's no need for streamlining. It's a purely superficial way of making a ship look "fast" and "sleek" to the viewer's eye. My preference would be for ships that look less like aircraft or darts and more like something that's a practical design for a vessel operating in weightless vacuum. That's what Matt Jefferies gave us with the original Enterprise, and nothing since has lived up to that brilliant, elegantly simple design.
I read on his website that new pics will see the daylight sometime in october.
In the (to be released) October issue of Star Trek magazine there is an article (quite extensive article even) about the U.S.S. Aventine. I got interviewed by Marco Palmieri, mostly talking about the work involved to design the ship. It features quite a lot of build up images that where not shown before, as well as some new orthographic views and a new beauty shot that is also used as a "miniposter".
^ goddamn. why a magazine that you cant get a hold of in europe? (and no, britain isnt europe...) love the pic though. albeit small, but still nice
^ goddamn. why a magazine that you cant get a hold of in europe? (and no, britain isnt europe...) love the pic though. albeit small, but still nice
And the UK is also a member of Europe and a European nation!
Are we going to 'officially' find out what the Aventine's bridge will look like?
Have they talked about the Aventine over in Trek Tech as well, or is all "uncanon" ship discussion done here in Trek Lit?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.