USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Groppler Zorn]

I'm saying that there aren't that many that we can compare it to because, as stated earlier, the Enterprise changed the way starships are designed.

Ok - which sci-fi ships of that era would we compare the Enterprise with? And where there are similarities, would that be evidence for the design being dated?

I’m not a 60s sci-fi buff so I genuinely don’t know what ship you’d compare the Enterprise with.

Shouldn't we stick to music from the 60s if we're to compare 60s music?

That’s exactly my point. Shouldn’t we stick to 60s sci-fi ship designs if that’s what we’re talking about? The “visual design” mentioned earlier would specifically relate to the visual design of sci-fi space ships designed in the 1960s. And, to paraphrase @lawman context is crucial (and for kings...)

The saucer was also supposed to be a sphere earlier on, but was changed because it was "too bulky". I suspect a sphere wouldn't look quite as nice in motion, too.

Didn’t those early designs influence the Daedalus class? And also the Pasteur design too?

Plus spherical ships would have confused the Borg...

 

[TrickyDickie]

I found what I was looking for and it turns out that it was much more recent than I had remembered. It is from 2004:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5pYsyQJx6f4Q084YTFiWFoxdjA/view

"We will keep the classic silhouette of the Enterprise, but fit her out with an amazing level of technology based on what the best and brightest minds tell us the future will look like in 200 years."

The classic silhouette....which means that from the outside the ship looks the same as it did in TOS. It is the inside that they had planned to change.

Which gets back to what I said upthread: you can have two nacelles that look identical from the outside, but have entirely different engineering inside.

I submit that 2004 was not so long ago. They thought, at that point, that the TOS Enterprise needed no updating on the outside.

 

[Belz...]

Seems to me YOU are pretty much the only one around, making the "dated" statement.
And doing it in such a way that comes across as a fact rather than your own guess, while at the same time dismissing anybody who disagrees, again with some supposed 'authority' only you possess.

It's rather grating and boarders on being quite rude.

Speaking of being rude, why are you lying? It's a FACT that many people, in this very thread and beyond just myself, see the original as dated, silly or tacky. Many people have stated that they do, so how is that not a FACT?

We get it, you don't care for the TOS version at this point in time.
You can come down off that high-horse of yours anytime now.

High horse? What in the name of fuck are you talking about? Is it because you think I dislike the original Enterprise design that you think I'm talking "down" to those who don't? That makes no sense. Everyone keeps repeating your own opinion as well, so why should I shut up just because you "get it"? If you can't handle me having different opinions than you, then I think there's a forum feature allowing you to not see my posts.

However, know that I don't mean to come off as rude; it's just the way I hold discussions. If that rubs you the wrong way, then I'm sorry. On the other hand, that's the way I am, so you'll have to adapt, just like I have to adapt to irrelevant arguments thrown around in this thread.

That’s exactly my point. Shouldn’t we stick to 60s sci-fi ship designs if that’s what we’re talking about?

My whole point is that there's no need to limit yourself to sci-fi ships for reference. Why do you keep insisting on this?

 

[TrickyDickie]

Note that in that treatment, they specifically say "classic silhouette". They do not say vague silhouette, or similar silhouette, or even subtly altered silhouette.

This is the classic silhouette, so they intended the exterior of the ship to look the same as it was in overall shape:

 

[Tuskin38]

Seems to me YOU are pretty much the only one around, making the "dated" statement.

What about me?

I feel left out.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe you're not rude enough.

 

[XCV330]

Ok - which sci-fi ships of that era would we compare the Enterprise with? And where there are similarities, would that be evidence for the design being dated?

I’m not a 60s sci-fi buff so I genuinely don’t know what ship you’d compare the Enterprise with..

The ship from the movie the show was based off of.

the United Planets Cruiser C57D

 

[Mudd]

C57D is the best.

 

[DaveyNY]

Maybe you're not rude enough.

Well that's TWO.. .
Wanna go for broke and find three or perhaps even four?

BTW... that still doesn't make any kind of a majority.
I'll give ya a minority of a minority though.

 

[TrickyDickie]

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/history/1701-33-inch.html

"Jefferies didn't want windows or the like on the surface of the ship"

 

[Tuskin38]

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/history/1701-33-inch.html

"Jefferies didn't want windows or the like on the surface of the ship"

Ok?

In the end he didn’t get that wish.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

My whole point is that there's no need to limit yourself to sci-fi ships for reference. Why do you keep insisting on this?

Why do I keep insisting that in order to argue that the Enterprise design is dated we compare it with contemporary designs of the same type of object?

I’m proceeding from the viewpoint that in order to agree that the Enterprise is dated it forms part of a trend - an observable similarity of forms - from the 1960s in the domain of televisual science fiction.

I’m using this as a starting point. I’m not denying there were other things that influenced the design of the Enterprise (see @lawman’s post about this above), but to argue that the Enterprise is dated when it doesn’t look like the majority of other examples of fictional craft in the same context, but it may share some similarities with contemporary aircraft is unconvincing to me.

the United Planets Cruiser C57D

Thanks!

For some reason the pic you shared wouldn’t load on my phone but google provided images of this ship as essentially a flying saucer similar to the Jupiter 2 - is that right?

In that case I would say the Enterprise stands out from such designs due to her relative size and the fact that she was designed to be a long term workplace in space - unlike most flying saucer designs of the era.

 

[Belz...]

Well that's TWO.. .
Wanna go for broke and find three or perhaps even four?

BTW... that still doesn't make any kind of a majority.
I'll give ya a minority of a minority though.

I'm sure you understand that this forum is not exactly representative of the general audience. You're much more likely to find die-hard fans here who'd sooner die than bad mouth the original series in any way.

In any case, you were wrong. It's rude to pretend otherwise. Now, how about you address the actual points and arguments made?

Why do I keep insisting that in order to argue that the Enterprise design is dated we compare it with contemporary designs of the same type of object?

I’m proceeding from the viewpoint that in order to agree that the Enterprise is dated it forms part of a trend - an observable similarity of forms - from the 1960s in the domain of televisual science fiction.

Right, and I'm saying that we need a larger sample than just ships if we want to "get" the era, design-wise.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Right, and I'm saying that we need a larger sample than just ships if we want to "get" the era, design-wise.

I agree - but I feel your emphasis on which influences are more important in defining the Enterprise design as “dated” may be reversed.

Given her lack of rockets, her relative size, and her lack of overt visual design cues from early space craft, I maintain that the Enterprise design is ahead of its time and looks like nothing that came before or alongside it.

She doesn’t fit the trend of sci-fi designs in the 60s and, although we may acknowledge the influence of some design elements from 1960s buildings, aircraft, toasters, etc., none are so overt in the design of the Enterprise that it screams “60s”.

Ultimately though - although this discussion has been really interesting and has reaffirmed my own belief that the Enterprise design is more timeless than it is dated - I don’t know if we’re going to get much else out of this without going round in circles, what do you think? Agree to disagree?

We’d have better luck deciding whether that moon was called “Ponn Makarr” or “Weytahn”...

 

[Tuskin38]

We’d have better luck deciding whether that moon was called “Ponn Makarr” or “Weytahn”...

It rightfully belongs to the Andorrans.

Edit:

I’m not fixing that

 

[Groppler Zorn]

It rightfully belongs to the Andorrans.

Edit:

I’m not fixing that

The Vulcans would argue that the treaty of 2097 gives them ownership of Paan Mokar (apparently the correct spelling - who knew?) rather than the skiing fanatics of a tiny, independent principality situated between France and Spain in the Pyrenees mountains on Earth.

Hehe

 

[XCV330]

For some reason the pic you shared wouldn’t load on my phone but google provided images of this ship as essentially a flying saucer similar to the Jupiter 2 - is that right?

In that case I would say the Enterprise stands out from such designs due to her relative size and the fact that she was designed to be a long term workplace in space - unlike most flying saucer designs of the era.

That's kind of funny because Lost in Space got its ship ideas, and Robbie the Robot, from Forbidden Planet. The C57D from Forbidden planet was on the same kind of mission as Enterprise, long exploration, supported by some kind of interstellar federation with an all-human crew. IF you see behind the scenes photos of the interior, it was pretty well thought out, in terms of crew concerns, sleeping berths, the bridge, etc. Very submarine-like. In many ways it looks more advanced than Enterprise.

In other ways it IS enterprise without the secondary hull and the two power units. That saucer on the front of Enterprise is no mistake.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Some of Doug Graves' renderings, the ones that intentionally or unintentionally de-emphasize the white, suggest that something as simple as changing the color of the original design to silver-blue or something similar makes quite a difference:

I propose assembling a group of people who are completely unfamiliar with 'space stuff'....NASA, astronomy, etc....and who have never watched Star Trek. Show them a bunch of photos of the ISS and satellites and shuttles and such. Include a photo like this, because the deflector dish on the Enterprise somewhat resembles one of these:

Next, show them some high-quality renders of the Enterprise in the darker color, from different angles, and tell them that it's a design proposal for a future NASA spacecraft.

I seriously doubt they would think it was silly.

 

[Ronald Held]

I think the TOS 1701 is not a dated design, but YMMV. Reegardless DSC ships should fit in with the Cage and TOS.

 

[BillJ]

Some of Doug Graves' renderings, the ones that intentionally or unintentionally de-emphasize the white, suggest that something as simple as changing the color of the original design to silver-blue or something similar makes quite a difference:

Subtle tweaks and it is ready for 21st century TV's.