USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[ITDUDE]

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.

A thing of beauty!

 

[Longinus]

This is what I wanted to see.

 

[BillJ]

This is what I wanted to see.

I would've bought that one from Eaglemoss!

 

[ITDUDE]

This is what I wanted to see.

But if they only changed the color (or not even that, just the lighting it seems) that's not enough to be 25% different so CBS can't sell license to it as a new toy.

 

[BillJ]

But if they only changed the color (or not even that, just the lighting it seems) that's not enough to be 25% different so CBS can't sell license to it as a new toy.

If I had money to bet, I'd bet every visual change was dictated by CBS for merchandising purposes.

 

[ITDUDE]

If I had money to bet, I'd bet every visual change was dictated by CBS for merchandising purposes.

I want to say you would win a lot of money, except no one would bet against you.

 

[Tuskin38]

FWIW I have no problem with the Enterprise's deflector.

In fact the deflector on the DSC one is nearly, if not exactly, the same as the original right down to the colour and the shape of the antenna.

 

[F. King Daniel]

As much as I love the original Enterprise or the movie and Kelvin movie versions, they wouldn't fit with the established Disco aesthetic.

Boxy impulse engines were added (to go with the boxy warp nacelles of the other Discofed ships), the ship was flattened, greebled etc. The end result is uninspired but I see why they did what they did. I'm eager to see what she looks like on the inside, and see the crew in those bright Beyond-ish unis.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm not seeing any greeble on the DSC Enterprice.

It has very smooth surfaces, only broken up by hull panel lines and the occasional phaser emitter or light.

but nothing that fits the model definition of greeble.

Also, it is now live in Adversaries

 

[BillJ]

Why would they get rid of the curve on the underside of the saucer?

 

[Longinus]

Why would they get rid of the curve on the underside of the saucer?

That really bugs me too. It was very unique feature. And there was a lot of talk about 'primitive shapes' earlier; well, this update made the saucer shape more primitive.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm not seeing any greeble on the DSC Enterprice.

It has very smooth surfaces, only broken up by hull panel lines and the occasional phaser emitter or light.

but nothing that fits the model definition of greeble.

Added fins on the saucer and nacelles. Escape pods(?) on the underside rear of the saucer. Boxy additions to the nacelles.

 

[Tuskin38]

Added fins on the saucer and nacelles. Escape pods(?) on the underside rear of the saucer. Boxy additions to the nacelles.

None of that is greeble.

That really bugs me too. It was very unique feature. And there was a lot of talk about 'primitive shapes' earlier; well, this update made the saucer shape more primitive.

I agree.

 

[TrickyDickie]

One thing that I notice is that the 'additional detail' makes it look as if the surface is made up of individual tiles. From an engineering standpoint, that did not go well for the shuttles because they kept falling off.

I much prefer the smoother look, without all of the clutter.

 

[Dukhat]

By that logic, since both bows and guns shoot projectiles, the differences between them are irrelevant.

If someone had never seen a gun or a bow & arrow before, did not know the mechanics behind either device, and then observed someone else using them to kill people, the outcome is the same: people died from an unknown weapon.

Whether the Klingon cloaking device was built with a Pu-38 explosive space modulator, and the Romulan cloaking device was built with a flux capacitor, the outcome is the same: both ships that had them were able to become invisible in an unknown way to outside observers. That’s all that matters.

None of that is greeble.

Er, “greeble” is a made-up word which usually means extraneous objects. So what was pointed out is the exact definition of that made-up word.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not seeing any greeble on the DSC Enterprice.

It has very smooth surfaces, only broken up by hull panel lines and the occasional phaser emitter or light.

but nothing that fits the model definition of greeble.

Also, it is now live in Adversaries

Lovely.

 

[XCV330]

If someone had never seen a gun or a bow & arrow before, did not know the mechanics behind either device, and then observed someone else using them to kill people, the outcome is the same: people died from an unknown weapon.

Whether the Klingon cloaking device was built with a Pu-38 explosive space modulator, and the Romulan cloaking device was built with a flux capacitor, the outcome is the same: both ships that had them were able to become invisible in an unknown way to outside observers. That’s all that matters.



Er, “greeble” is a made-up word which usually means extraneous objects. So what was pointed out is the exact definition of that made-up word.

Any culture that had reached star-flight had almost assuredly studied various stealth technologies, as well as metamaterials. Radar evasion started being worked on in the real world almost as soon as Radar became deployed. Visual evasion obviously millenia earlier. IR avoidance and other techs likewise started being worked on.

If we see someone in a camo t-shirt, we don't nods to those with us and say "Lo! A great hunter given a shirt by his shaman to hide his presence from both game and enemy! How can this be, for assuredly no invisibility cloak has ever existed, as it not?!"

It's a mater of degrees. Of course people would have been working on stealth tech as soon as they started weaponizing their own little corner of space, because they'd have neighbors who'd invariably like to make that corner their own corner.

 

[Dukhat]

Any culture that had reached star-flight had almost assuredly studied various stealth technologies, as well as metamaterials. Radar evasion started being worked on in the real world almost as soon as Radar became deployed. Visual evasion obviously millenia earlier. IR avoidance and other techs likewise started being worked on.

If we see someone in a camo t-shirt, we don't nods to those with us and say "Lo! A great hunter given a shirt by his shaman to hide his presence from both game and enemy! How can this be, for assuredly no invisibility cloak has ever existed, as it not?!"

It's a mater of degrees. Of course people would have been working on stealth tech as soon as they started weaponizing their own little corner of space, because they'd have neighbors who'd invariably like to make that corner their own corner.

That’s all fine and dandy, but my point was that cloaking technology was completely unknown to Kirk and Spock until BoT, when they should have known that ten years before, there was a ship that had it. Certain people want to argue semantics that “it’s not the same thing” because the technology could be different, which is irrelevant because the outcome is the same.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Lo! A great hunter given a shirt by his shaman to hide his presence from both game and enemy!

Sounds like Monty Python....

 

[Belz...]

If someone had never seen a gun or a bow & arrow before, did not know the mechanics behind either device, and then observed someone else using them to kill people, the outcome is the same: people died from an unknown weapon..

And yet the point remains that they are two completely different technologies. Can you acknowledge this?

Why would they get rid of the curve on the underside of the saucer?

I like the curve, too, but it makes sense to remove it if only because having it just cuts into an entire deck for no reason.