USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
U.S.O.S. SEAVIEW (movie)
S.S.R.N. SEAVIEW (TV series) ...,
The sub from 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" was call the SEAVIEW.
And it's 'shuttlecraft' was called the FS-1 "Flyingsub"
Last edited:
Ah, thank you!U.S.O.S. SEAVIEW (movie)
S.S.R.N. SEAVIEW (TV series) ...,
The sub from 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" was call the SEAVIEW.
And it's 'shuttlecraft' was called the FS-1 "Flyingsub"
I guess as a submarine the Seaview also falls into the same category as the TARDIS insofar as it’s based on a real thing.
My supposition here is that there’s nothing designed in the 60s that’s quite like the Enterprise - in the hope of arguing that the design hasn’t dated since it’s really the only one of its kind.
Well, not to be pedantic (yes yes yes), but the TARDIS design we know and love dates back to 1929; police boxes curiously were first used in the United States in the late 19th century.
As for the windows, well, they're the wrong size.
It's hard to think of much of anything from that period that is that large (or larger), especially on TV. Most if not practically all spacecraft of that era have much smaller crews. Even in Forbidden Planet, there were less than two dozen people aboard the spacecraft.
Discovery One from 2001?
Every spaceship in that movie has become 'iconic', from the Discovery to the Moonbus.
As well as it's version of the ISS (Space Station V), which ironically, is 300 meters in diameter.
I don’t count it as pedantry when I learn something
i didn’t know police boxes were that old and international, thanks! This is a good point - the Enterprise is very large relative to other sci-fi ships of the 60s. Given the series that came later (BSG, Star Wars, etc.) which featured larger ships that were long term workplaces in space could we argue that the Enterprise being larger was actually ahead of its time?
How did I forget that?
Essentially the Discovery One is a long rocket (because of the boosters on the back) and it’s basically a greebly ball with dishes all over it connected to a pipeline. I mean it’s cool as hell, but it’s only designed to work within the solar system and (I think but I’m probably wrong) was based on contemporary space tech(???). Design wise it’s similar to Fireball XL-5 on a general level.
Oh and it’s full of stars...
Every spaceship in that movie has become 'iconic', from the Discovery to the Moonbus.
As well as it's version of the ISS (Space Station V), which ironically, is 300 meters in diameter.
It's one groovy looking future. The bases on the tulip tables are terrible, but the use of color is spectacular.
How did I forget that?
Essentially the Discovery One is a long rocket (because of the boosters on the back) and it’s basically a greebly ball with dishes all over it connected to a pipeline. I mean it’s cool as hell, but it’s only designed to work within the solar system and (I think but I’m probably wrong) was based on contemporary space tech(???). Design wise it’s similar to Fireball XL-5 on a general level.
Oh and it’s full of stars...
It's also responsible for the greebly aesthetic that we're told is essential for Trek to look modern, don't you think?
A ship from 1968.
Heh.
The Discovery was also designed to continue the boneyard metaphor established in the famous four-million year jump cut (actually, a match cut). The whole length of the ship looks like a spinal column and the spherical module can't help but to suggest a skull. Known, but worth stating.
Micdrop
There are plenty of aircraft, automobiles and other designs from the 60s to look at.
It's more a feature of fandom, which tends to creep back into the franchise once it goes on long enough.
We've already addressed this. Episodes made specifically for nostalgic purposes are different. Looking silly isn't an issue.
Just a side note: looking at the SR-71 (which I knew very little about until just now), I'd have never guessed it was designed and built in the 1960's.
I would. Aircraft tend to be pretty distinctive depending on the period.
I’m still struggling to find a sci-fi design that comes close in aesthetic or arrangement to the prime Enterprise.
My premise is that if the Jeffries Enterprise design is dated, then it must align with other sci-fi designs from the time, right? If my logic is flawed there can someone illustrate how?
The general trends I’ve found from 60s spaceship designs usually include:
A rocket design - I.e. pointy in the front plus long and thin - like a rocket.
Boosters in the back - cf Discovery One, Fireball XL-5, that ship from space 1999
Windows in the front - because the tiny crew (number not height) needs to see outside and where they’re going
A tiny crew - these ships are mostly short range things for interplanetary (not intergalactic) flight and not designed to be lived and worked on.
Now, I’m not a 60s sci-fi buff. There must be other ships designed in the 60s that are comparable to the Enterprise for us to argue that it’s dated - because the design would have to align with the general design trends in sci-fi from the 60s for us to argue that it’s dated, right? I don’t think that’s a straw-man, but if someone can explain how it is, please enlighten me. I’m happy to change my view if I’m proven wrong.
Where is this fleet of ships outside of Trek with which the Enterprise aligns proving that she’s dated?
They best not be cloaked
My premise is that if the Jeffries Enterprise design is dated, then it must align with other sci-fi designs from the time, right? If my logic is flawed there can someone illustrate how?
The general trends I’ve found from 60s spaceship designs usually include:
A rocket design - I.e. pointy in the front plus long and thin - like a rocket.
Boosters in the back - cf Discovery One, Fireball XL-5, that ship from space 1999
Windows in the front - because the tiny crew (number not height) needs to see outside and where they’re going
A tiny crew - these ships are mostly short range things for interplanetary (not intergalactic) flight and not designed to be lived and worked on.
Now, I’m not a 60s sci-fi buff. There must be other ships designed in the 60s that are comparable to the Enterprise for us to argue that it’s dated - because the design would have to align with the general design trends in sci-fi from the 60s for us to argue that it’s dated, right? I don’t think that’s a straw-man, but if someone can explain how it is, please enlighten me. I’m happy to change my view if I’m proven wrong.
Where is this fleet of ships outside of Trek with which the Enterprise aligns proving that she’s dated?
They best not be cloaked
Why would we look at those, though? I’m trying to look at like for like designs - as yet I’ve not come across any sci-fi space ships from the 60s that are anything like the Enterprise. Plus we’d expect space ships to be influenced by the designs of things that already exist. Most 60s space ships seems to be influenced by rockets. The Enterprise appears at present without precedent and doesn’t align with other designs of the period. I’m not convinced that the design is dated based on the lack of equivalent designs in contemporary science fiction.
But, since lore is defined as:
“a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group”
Then as visual changes have been explicitly addressed within the traditions of spreading knowledge about Star Trek (that is the transmission of episodes of the show) then we should expect visual changes to be addressed. Enterprise creating issues once again
You are probably thinking of XB-70 Valkyrie. It wasn't based on SR-71 though.
Hardly a strategic bomber yeah
US didn't have a supersonic strategic bomber built in large scale until B1-B Lancer (BTW, designed in 1970s, still active). It's the same one Jimmy Carter famously cancelled, but was resurrected and built anyway.
Bring on ANY military plane trivia. I have been a fan of military planes of all eras since I was about 5 years old
The only reason why you'd do this is to ensure you never have to admit that the ship looks dated.
The Enterprise was the first starship design of its type. Looking at other designs from the era, regardless of their nature, sounds rational, but there's nothing rational about dogmatically sticking to a position.
There is nothing wrong or dated about the original Enterprise, beyond CBS wanting a new version to sell to suckers like us.
Similar threads
