USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[lawman]

... It's blatantly obvious when you look at Probet's original design in a lineup...

Something I notice that I hadn't quite put my finger on before, as I take another look over the comparative ship profiles you posted (and the photo montage Belz posted)... a sense of balance. Some ships have it, and some don't.

And I don't mean "balance" here in some ambiguous, artsy, design sense... I mean balance in a literal, distribution-of-weight-around-a-center-of-gravity sense.

If you look at both the original TOS Enterprise and the TMP refit, you can imagine positioning a fulcrum or pedestal under the lowest point of the ship (or, let us say, of a model thereof), or floating it on water, and having it rest comfortably in that position, horizontally balanced. The Ent-C, as seen on screen, looks at least pretty close to that as well. (As does the NX-01, I must admit, if only because it's so flat.) OTOH, the Ent-B would tip backward toward the nacelles, and the Ent-D would tip forward toward the saucer. Both of them look off balance.

Of course, in space, there's no actual need for a starship to be balanced against gravity that way. But visually, especially since we almost always see ships positioned horizontally, it makes a difference.

 

[DaveyNY]

The Enterprise-D was designed from the start with the intention of including Families of the crew on board during her service life.
It was therefore purposely constructed with the overtly large Primary Hull becoming the actual living quarters for all those people.
The Secondary Hull was meant to be the Main Power Plant and a detachable, "Defensive/Offensive" part of the ship, used separately in emergencies while the Primary Hull fled the danger area.

Unfortunately, we only saw this aspect of it's design used mainly in the first episode and then it was pretty much dropped due to cost constraints of creating the show.
(and the fact that writing in a separation, would detract time from what ever the story of the week was)

It was a very interesting aspect of how life on board could be routinely disrupted, but became too involved for continual use in a weekly TV show.

 

[DaveyNY]

Has anybody done a picture comparison of the Eagle-moss "TOS Enterprise" and "Discovery" around here yet?

I've got them both, but suck at creating and uploading pics with my phone.

If it can be assumed that the two models are in an approximate similar scale...
The primary hull of the E-M "Enterprise" is actually about the same size as the inner primary hull of the "Discovery'. (in both Height & Width)
Also...
With Discovery's outer ring probably being a mostly non-inhabitable area filled with the machinery for the Spore Drive and the secondary hull being made up of large areas of Labs, the Spore Containment Room and the very large Shuttle Bay at the rear, the only outlier between the two ships, seems to me, is the overtly long nacelles.
Another interesting comparison is that the Deflectors on the two ships, while different in shape, are approximately the same size in area.

I have not decided on a personal-head-canon yet, to explain why the nacelles would have to be so huge, but overall (to me), they are close enough in scale to fit together in the TOS era.

 

[cooleddie74]

I didn't know that the Enterprise and Discovery deflector dishes were roughly the same size. I guess the main difference between the two at least from a visual standpoint would be that the Discovery's has two prongs whereas the Enterprise's has always had one.

 

[jaime]

Something I notice that I hadn't quite put my finger on before, as I take another look over the comparative ship profiles you posted (and the photo montage Belz posted)... a sense of balance. Some ships have it, and some don't.

And I don't mean "balance" here in some ambiguous, artsy, design sense... I mean balance in a literal, distribution-of-weight-around-a-center-of-gravity sense.

If you look at both the original TOS Enterprise and the TMP refit, you can imagine positioning a fulcrum or pedestal under the lowest point of the ship (or, let us say, of a model thereof), or floating it on water, and having it rest comfortably in that position, horizontally balanced. The Ent-C, as seen on screen, looks at least pretty close to that as well. (As does the NX-01, I must admit, if only because it's so flat.) OTOH, the Ent-B would tip backward toward the nacelles, and the Ent-D would tip forward toward the saucer. Both of them look off balance.

Of course, in space, there's no actual need for a starship to be balanced against gravity that way. But visually, especially since we almost always see ships positioned horizontally, it makes a difference.

It’s ironic, because the D actually does balance nicely on a centre of gravity roughly between the battle bridge and main engineering (depending on what your model is made of and if it’s all one material) whereas the constitution class versions are an absolute sod to balance, and the nacelles try to tear off near the hull. The Voyager is fairly balanced too, just in front of the Navigational deflector. The D is possibly the most balanced in all directions though. Haven’t handled an ambassador model enough to tell you where that balances, but instinct tells me again it will be in that navigational deflector spot.

 

[Belz...]

It's uncertain when the TOS (or DSC if you will) Constitution class Enterprise was built in relation to the other DSC ships, since registry numbers are not chronological in DSC. I would assume based on the lineage you show above that it would be better placed between the Kelvin and the T'Plana'Hath. And I think that the Pasteur, while only seen the the future time of AGT, was actually built before the Ent-D based on the registry.

Also, the Enterprise-F isn't canon

I know it's not canon, but it's nice and kind-of official. I wouldn't be surprised if, if at some point we get something around that era, it became canon later on.

As for the order of the ships it's entirely my own determination based on design. I've deliberately ignored Eaves to try to find the right balance. That it matches the registries is a bit incidental, though it certainly influenced my perception.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is odd, considering how much of the Walker is apparent in the Shepard.

The only thing of the Walker apparent in the Shepard in common is the deflector dish and a vague similarity in the secondary hull (the underside of the Shepard and the "strongback" of the walker). Beyond that, they have almost nothing else in common.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

IMHO he did a pretty bad job of it, then.

Can't say I disagree. Not that I can't see where he was going with those designs, but I think his interpretation of aerospace engineering is more than a little esoteric and he doesn't do a really good job of expressing his concepts when it comes to a final design.

But it is relevant, at least, that it's also on the record that he couldn't use round nacelles.

I almost feel like Eaves is a victim of his own success in this regard. Consider this: somebody hands you a directive that you can't use round nacelles for a 23rd century starship... you would think the first thing he would look at would be the nacelles of the TMP Enterprise for inspiration, no? If that thought ever even crossed his mind, it isn't represented in his designs.

 

[Prax]

I'm pretty sure Eaves has had a personal mandate of "no round nacelles" since 1995, or whenever he hooked up with star trek.

John Eaves is a square.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well he designed the Phoenix. That had round nacelles.

His NX-01 concept art had round nacelles.

He even put round nacelles on some of the USS Discovery concept art. I'm guessing that was before Fuller said no to round nacelles.

 

[Dukhat]

I'm pretty sure Eaves has had a personal mandate of "no round nacelles" since 1995, or whenever he hooked up with star trek.

John Eaves is a square.

I've spoken to John before when he and Doug Drexler were writing their blogs. He's a nice guy, if somewhat ADD.

Now with that said, I've always felt that he simply has trouble with design variation. He was originally brought on board to design the Enterprise-E, and his designs really never seem to deviate from that, regardless of what race, organization or time period it is. While I see no reason for him to make up what the producers allegedly told him, I doubt that if he used rounder nacelles than what was actually shown, that it would have made much of a difference.

And with THAT said, I agree that the look/design of the TOS Constitution class has gone from being what most fans for decades have considered the example from which all mid-23rd century Starfleet designs derive from, to being basically a one-off that was only around for a relatively short while and then discarded just as quickly. That's just what happens when a franchise is around for that long and more and more people put their ingredients in the pot.

And I know I'll catch the ire of trufans everywhere, but should't that really be the case? The producers say it's the same universe as that show produced in the '60's, but anyone who really expected something produced in 2017 to look exactly like it did in 1966 were just kidding themselves. I knew the Enterprise wasn't going to look like it did in TOS. I'm honestly surprised that it looks as close as it does.

"Visual reboot" is just a buzz word for "TOS looks silly, so we're going to completely change everything but say it's the same universe, because this is reality, and we're not going to continue to show a '60's vision of the future."

 

[Saul]

Reading from the Eaglemoss magazine: John Eaves based his design of the Discovery off Ken Adam's, Ralph McQuarrie's and Paul Christopher's design.
I've never seen Paul Christopher's discovery design, anyone know about it?
Eaves was also told "No round Nacelles" by Fuller.
The 2016 comic con Discovery was based off early concept art that they had already moved passed (which sounds a bit strange).

Also I've heard that the reason for the discovery fleet being so different was that Starfleet was going through a period of design evolution and was experimenting with different designs before settling on one type for all starships. (was this info in the Discovery eaglemoss magazine too?)

 

[lawman]

...I've always felt that [Eaves] simply has trouble with design variation. He was originally brought on board to design the Enterprise-E, and his designs really never seem to deviate from that, regardless of what race, organization or time period it is.

Pretty much.

And with THAT said, I agree that the look/design of the TOS Constitution class has gone from being what most fans for decades have considered the example from which all mid-23rd century Starfleet designs derive from, to being basically a one-off that was only around for a relatively short while and then discarded just as quickly...

And I know I'll catch the ire of trufans everywhere, but should't that really be the case?

Ooh, you've caught my ire! No, I honestly don't think it should.

Why not? Because...

"Visual reboot" is just a buzz word for "TOS looks silly, so we're going to completely change everything..."

This. This is why the phrase (and its execution) bothers me... because of the underlying logic. TOS does not look silly, and there's no reason to pander to people who think it does.

The producers say it's the same universe as that show produced in the '60's, but anyone who really expected something produced in 2017 to look exactly like it did in 1966 were just kidding themselves...

Well, not exactly the same. (Cue the recurring discussion about the distinction between production values, and design vocabularies.) But certainly pretty much the same. After all, it's my understanding that this is what Bryan Fuller wanted and expected (aside from his take on the Klingons), before his parting of the ways from CBS.

 

[Ovation]

Actually, and TOS is my favourite Trek by far, TOS does look “a little silly” (and I started watching it in 1973, when it didn’t look as silly). It is of its time (as an historian, I am well aware of all that implies) and I don’t find it “silly” in its storytelling (no more than anything of its era), but it looks a bit silly—much like 60s-80s Who.

 

[Tuskin38]

I've never seen Paul Christopher's discovery design, anyone know about it?

No idea, but if this is the same Paul Christopher, he does some great work hes done designs for some big films and Orville.
https://www.thedoodleworm.com/

Also I've heard that the reason for the discovery fleet being so different was that Starfleet was going through a period of design evolution and was experimenting with different designs before settling on one type for all starships. (was this info in the Discovery eaglemoss magazine too?)

IIRC that was a theory Eaves came up with in the Shenzhou book, not actual lore.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Where do the USS Republic and USS Farragut fit into all of this? Do they, any more? They were part of Kirk's back story, but seem to have fallen through the cracks.

Would anyone have preferred the design of Republic rather than what was done with Discovery? Here are some images:

Also, has anyone noticed how close the Discoprise is in design to Ricky Wallace's USS Constellation that he posted up 8 years ago at madshipyard? :

 

[Tuskin38]

Where do the USS Republic and USS Farragut fit into all of this?

Kirk was on the Republic 2 years before Season 1 (2254)

Right now (2257) Kirk would be on the Farragut, though the ship will soon lose most of it's crew because of the Dikironium cloud creature.

 

[lawman]

Actually, and TOS is my favourite Trek by far, TOS does look “a little silly” (and I started watching it in 1973, when it didn’t look as silly). It is of its time (as an historian, I am well aware of all that implies) and I don’t find it “silly” in its storytelling (no more than anything of its era), but it looks a bit silly—much like 60s-80s Who.

Huh... that seems like an odd comparison. Star Trek was a notoriously expensive show (for its time), while original Who was famously the exact opposite, produced on a (tattered and fraying) shoestring.

I'll grant, as I did above, that production values have moved on since the '60s, and what was state-of-the-art then wasn't now, in terms of fabrication of sets and props and costumes, lighting and cinematography, special effects, and more. But that has nothing to do with the design vocabulary of TOS, which was thoughtful, brilliant, and beautiful.

Apply modern production values to that design vocabulary, and it would look spectacular — as it did, e.g., in ENT's "IAMD" two-parter. People say "oh, that was just a tribute episode," as if it was only tolerable to watch for a single story or something, but I'm never quite sure what they're thinking there, because it worked beautifully. Exteriors and interiors, even the new sets that were designed to show previously unseen parts of the TOS-era Defiant, looked fantastic on screen, no compromises or apologies necessary.

Where do the USS Republic and USS Farragut fit into all of this? Do they, any more? They were part of Kirk's back story, but seem to have fallen through the cracks.

Would anyone have preferred the design of Republic rather than what was done with Discovery? Here are some images:

Where did that design (and model) come from? I was under the impression that the Republic has never actually been seen in Trek canon, and its ship class remains unconfirmed, although it was originally (and has typically thereafter been) assumed to be a Connie.

Kirk was on the Republic 2 years before Season 1 (2254)

Right now (2257) Kirk would be on the Farragut, though the ship will soon lose most of it's crew because of the Dikironium cloud creature.

How do you figure? Kirk was an ensign aboard the Republic (per "Court Martial"), whereas he was a Lieutenant on the Farrragut (per "Obsession"), so presumably the Republic came first, but we don't know exactly when. And the cloud creature encounter came 11 years before "Obsession" (in late 2267 or early '68), whereas Discovery is already up to around November of 2257, so the incident is almost certainly already in the past.

 

[Tuskin38]

I was under the impression that the Republic has never actually been seen in Trek canon

You would be correct.

 

[Tuskin38]

How do you figure? Kirk was an ensign aboard the Republic (per "Court Martial"), whereas he was a Lieutenant on the Farrragut (per "Obsession"), so presumably the Republic came first, but we don't know exactly when.

I got that date from Memory-Alpha.

They probably estimated from a line of dialogue or something.