They don’t
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
They have a few similar shapes, but that is about it. The only details that are the same are the navigation defector, most the saucer's rim angle, andthat there is a secondary hull-ish rump along the central spine. Almost every other detail is different. From the nacelles, to the pylons, to the saucer and the stern. All different.
Different as in not exactly the same. But the positioning of the pylons and nacelles is very similar, and so is the structure below/above the back of the saucer. And really, if you list the deflector, the rim, the hump, and have to pretend that slightly different details make the ships entirely different, I suspect you know how very similar they are.
Not to my eye. Basic shapes of a saucer and nacelles, and the mid line. But, the proportions are different to me. The Shepherd doesn't look as cramped.Seriously?
Here is an additional idea about design evolution and things with TOS and Discovery not seeming to fit with each other:
It's been established that 'money' isn't used, but 'credits' are. So, the inference is that business is not all that different in various aspects from what it is today.
Then why make it that there is only one shipyard constructing ships?
It could be a bidding contract process. Different builders trot out prototypes for review and Starfleet makes choices based on them. Different builders incorporate different styles and different design elements. Starfleet may not stick with just one builder, for various reasons at various times.
Sort of like a company contracting with different auto makers at different times for its fleet of vehicles, police departments alternating between Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge, etc.
It's been established that 'money' isn't used, but 'credits' are. So, the inference is that business is not all that different in various aspects from what it is today.
Then why make it that there is only one shipyard constructing ships?
It could be a bidding contract process. Different builders trot out prototypes for review and Starfleet makes choices based on them. Different builders incorporate different styles and different design elements. Starfleet may not stick with just one builder, for various reasons at various times.
Sort of like a company contracting with different auto makers at different times for its fleet of vehicles, police departments alternating between Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge, etc.
We know of at least two shipyards in Trek, Earth McKinley and Utopia Planitia Mars Fleetyards.
For some reason I thought both the big e’s were mars jobs. Thanks for that.
I like to think the runabouts are knocked out in Chatham, and Portsmouth does Miranda’s.
Don't forget Riverside. With all the visual cues taken from the Kelvin universe, I'm sure they've got room for characters posing in front of an awesome half-built starship.
Yeah, but if you told me that, say, the upside-down Shepherd was a fan-model of the Shenzhou made right after the premiere when there was hardly any reference (well, forgetting that Eaglemoss had already released orthographic views), I would've believed it. Yeah, it's different, but it's different in the way most fan-made models were back before the 2000s, when TVs had less resolution and reference material was harder to come by. The proportions are all screwy, but the spirit is there.
Actually, come to think of it, Stargate: Atlantis had a weird thing where each VFX studio they used made their own models, and the Shepherd and Shenzhou look about as different as the different versions of the City or Puddle Jumper models did on that show, and those were all definitely supposed to be the same thing.
Multiple shipyards, different concepts. 
If DSC meshes were available,a nacelle substitution would be fairly easy.
Key word here being details. The overall silhouettes are almost identical.
It's be like if somebody took the TOS enterprise, replaced the nacelles with different but still cylindrical, red-capped nacelles, changed all the small details like the black rectangles on the pylons, the shape of the bridge dome, the impulse engines, etc, then flipped it upside down. Would you accept that as a totes new ship class, easily distinguishable from the Enterprise?
New shows tend to have that.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Not if there is confidence and trust in the show makers and ship designers.
Lots of other shows haven't made such simple unforced mistakes in regards to the design of the ships in the past, the other Star Trek shows were nowhere near as bad, same goes for B5.
Could have been too much interference from CBS, a lot was riding on the show.
Unforced errors are the worst kind, I suspect many who weren't impressed by the Klingon appearance and dialogue overload (not the actors fault) in the pilot could have had their minds changed if they had ended with a battle between two recognisable fleets, they did a solid job with the Starfleet ships (minus the nacelles) but they really missed an opportunity with the Klingon ships.
Unlike some it wont stop me watching the show at all I just think its a shame.
I'd just wonder why the ship was upside down, myself.
Easy joke, but it does betray something about the current design aesthetic. Unlike the original Ent, way too many "new" Starfleet ship designs have such a flat profile, and so many extraneous details and layers, that it's literally not easy to tell which end is up.
There is no up in space.
Another easy joke
As you stated, there was a lot riding on this show. And, this might sound extremely forgiving, but it doesn't bother me. Missed opportunity? Certainly, and maybe they'll go back and do a TOS-R on Season 1, kind of like "Children of the Gods" was revisited for graphics and audio after the show found its footing.
But, I don't expect perfection, especially not on this production, and, like you, it will not stop me from enjoying the show.
Similar threads
