They "appear" too thin. And if you ever built the original AMT model version, you'd agree they were flimsy as hell.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
They "appear" too thin. And if you ever built the original AMT model version, you'd agree they were flimsy as hell.
Which doesn't change anything about what I said.
But that’s a “real world” concern, and not really relevant to what we see on screen in a fictional show. The Abramsprise pylons are quite thin as well, but that didn’t stop them from being part of the ship.
Yeah, I know the warp necelles aren't there for thrust, but could still be somewhat unstable.
The refit Enterprise (AMT) kit's angled pylons were a bit stronger, so there's that.
In a world of inertial dampeners and structural integrity fields, I don't think it is a problem. We see them hold up quite well flying in a planet's atmosphere and surviving breaking away from the gravity of the Sun.
So I'll go with "it's the future" and material and construction techniques make them sturdy enough to handle the stresses of spaceflight.
Actually, I’ve messed around with both models in the past (the AMT TOS Enterprise and the AMT/ERTL TMP Enterprise), and I remember that the pylons for the TMP refit were much more of a pain in the ass to keep connected than the TOS pylons, due to a super-small connecting piece at the bottom of the pylons. I don’t recall the TOS pylons being anywhere near that difficult to keep in place. But it was a long time ago.
The refit ones I used to have (1701, ST V:TFF 1701-A with a little shuttlecraft, and the lights and sounds one) all had at least one of the pylons snap off at the engineering hull. My TOS ones on the other hand never had pylon problems.
The thickness of the TOS Enterprise's nacelle pylons is irrelevant. This is the mid-to-late 23rd century and with duranium hull construction and who knows how many other metals and composites used by starship construction engineers in that era contributing to incredibly heavy ship parts being suspended and held upright by seemingly flimsy and lightweight structures it shouldn't be an issue. This is a ship that operates the vacuum of space. "Aerodynamic" shouldn't really play into its design. We just demand such sleekness and width and thickness of supporting structures based on our modern, real world sensibilities.
Frankly it seems more advanced to me that such large and bulky warp nacelles could be supported by such thin and narrow pylons as opposed to the wider and thicker ones used a century before to support much smaller nacelles on Enterprise NX-01.
Frankly it seems more advanced to me that such large and bulky warp nacelles could be supported by such thin and narrow pylons as opposed to the wider and thicker ones used a century before to support much smaller nacelles on Enterprise NX-01.
The original enterprise was specifically designed to have "too thin" nacelle pylons by Matt Jeffries himself. To show on the future material sciences have moved on. It's a central part of the design.
Imagine someone else coming up saying " well the ship looks too top-heavy, it would flip down in gravity, let's change that". Or "it's too advanced, rockets would never look like the nacelles".
That would be just plain stupid.
Imagine someone else coming up saying " well the ship looks too top-heavy, it would flip down in gravity, let's change that". Or "it's too advanced, rockets would never look like the nacelles".
That would be just plain stupid.
It _is_ relevant because it makes them appear too thin. That's part of how one appreciates the design.
And that's the irony of it: the TMP design's pylons _were_ flimsy, and they had to be reinforced so they wouldn't twist when the model was moved or tilted. The TOS model's were sturdier. However, they didn't look sturdier, which is what's being said.
Do you have a quote for that?
In "appreciating" the design, one also has to have the information on what the design is intended to be.
And appreciation of something is wholly subjective.
Agreed. The tabs at the bottom of the refit pylons were smaller, but the overall pylon did less twisting.
One of the last TOS E's I built, I remember filling the insides of the pylons with Plasti-Zap, so they ended up solid and didn't move a bit. I also drilled through the inserted part and put model RR track nails thru the holes.
It has been a while, but I never had an issue with the pylons twisting.
It could have been the earliest kits. It's possible they redid the mold later. Maybe around the time they stopped with the raised gridlines on the saucer. I put some 1970's kits together that were molded in blue.
Absolutely not. It's entirely up to subjective tastes. But experience goes into it. So what if someone can assume that the pylons are made of ultra-strong material and can hold the nacelles in place? They still look too small to the person.
I can't find one personally.
I'll have to recall this point when people bring up how terrible the DSC Enterprise is and how they quote Jefferies and Probert and their intention in the design.
Personally, I always found design appreciation to be highly subjective, but there is an aspect of appreciating what the design was meant to do.
Similar threads
