Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, yeah, I know it's not science. I was speaking in context of the fictional Star Trek.

But the point is, in the context of the fictional Star Trek the right answer to that changes depending on what the story needs are. The tech isn't consistent.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I'm aware of artificial gravity but I didn't know you could change it in specific parts of the ship without affecting the rest of the ship. What about having simply one wide and thick neck not like the ugly Galaxy class but like the Excelsior class?

You could do that but, to my sense of style, that would be less graceful.

Ah, function following form. Watch that slope, 'tis slippery.

Right now, you and Sheridan are having a real conversation with me... please don't "follow suit" with those who just want to play "chest-beating territorialist." There's no need to be even a little bit snide.

I did not, and HAVE NOT EVER, suggested that I think that the design of the 1701 should be changed. What I said, which was very clearly stated, was that "if I had been there in the beginning, this is what I would have done" and the reason I gave was "because the apparent mechanical fragility of the design is the one legitimate criticism of it which I've seen." So, what I threw out, above, is simply a way to keep things as close to the original MJ intent and style as possible while addressing that legitimate complaint.

So, it's not a "slippery slope" really. What I want to see on-screen is the 1701 which we all know, not what I just presented. You know what I said and you know what I meant, don't you? Please don't join in the "oooo... we see an opening... go for blood!" thing a few other folks are trying to get started here, OK?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Yeah, yeah, I know it's not science. I was speaking in context of the fictional Star Trek.

But the point is, in the context of the fictional Star Trek the right answer to that changes depending on what the story needs are. The tech isn't consistent.

Absolutely true. Some stories have made it clear that every car has its own independent gravity system on-board, for that matter... and it only makes sense (though TNG and ST-V contradicted this) that you wouldn't have gravity at ALL in the turboshafts.

Remember, all I said here was what I would have done "in 1964/65" has I been there working with MJ. I'd have kept the design exactly as it is, including keeping fairly "graceful" interconnecting structures (as opposed to big, chunky bulky ones) but tried to increase strength in the directions that you'd see the greatest stresses applied.

Oh, and... I got a private email a few moments ago reminding me that there had been a Starfleet ship with the general dorsal connection scheme I mentioned previous to my coming up with it earlier. Seems that in the old game "Klingon Academy" there's a ship called the "Ulysses" class dreadnought. I was provided with these pictures of it... this is a bit broader and flatter than what I had in mind and I don't care for the "clump" near where the two dorsals come together, but it does show how this sort of thing might look in 3D.

 

[Eric Cheung]

It's still kind of meh--which isn't surprising. The video games had a lot of kitbashes that seemed kind of arbitrary so that they could have brand new classes of starships.

 

[ST-One]

What I want to see on-screen is the 1701 which we all know,

But the fact of the matter is that the new movie has (probably) a new design aesthetic (one from 2008) with only elements from the 1960s designs.
So the original Enterprise (as presented on the TV) wouldn't fit in the new setting.

 

[ST-One]

It's still kind of meh--which isn't surprising. The video games had a lot of kitbashes that seemed kind of arbitrary so that they could have brand new classes of starships.

And this one is particularly ugly.
This makes the 'Norway' and 'Sabre' classes look good

 

[Sheridan]

If I were to do a redesign of the TOS Enterprise I would have it look similar to the NX-01 but still have a secondary haul underneath. I still think they should maintain from Jefferies' design though but I'm just explaining how I would design it if I was asked to do a redesign different from Jefferies'.

 

[ST-One]

If I were to do a redesign of the TOS Enterprise I would have it look similar to the NX-01 but still have a secondary haul underneath. I still think they should maintain from Jefferies' design though but I'm just explaining how I would design it if I was asked to do a redesign different from Jefferies'.

Today I too would use the NX-01 design elements to re-design the TOS-Enterprise, tomorrow I would probably use those of the new movie-TOS-Enterprise.
My tastes and interestes shift quite a lot in that regard. And I have no problem with up-dating an old design.

But then, the NX-01 is also a sore point for some here.
Shall I tell the new people here about the 'Conestoga-conspiracy', Cary?

 

[Sheridan]

If I were to do a redesign of the TOS Enterprise I would have it look similar to the NX-01 but still have a secondary haul underneath. I still think they should maintain from Jefferies' design though but I'm just explaining how I would design it if I was asked to do a redesign different from Jefferies'.

Today I too would use the NX-01 design elements to re-design the TOS-Enterprise, tomorrow I would probably use those of the new movie-TOS-Enterprise.
My tastes and interestes shift quite a lot in that regard. And I have no problem with up-dating an old design.

But then, the NX-01 is also a sore point for some here.
Shall I tell the new people here about the 'Conestoga-conspiracy', Cary?

Well, I googled Conestoga and came across this:

http://img.skitch.com/20080822-ct3bftd3txr8cxyjc59hi8yn68.jpg

Which I have to say is the most awesome looking Star Trek ship I've ever seen. But I don't understand how this is related to the subject we're are talking about nor do I want to get off track on this thread so I'll figure out whatever this 'conspiracy' is eventually.

 

[ST-One]

If I were to do a redesign of the TOS Enterprise I would have it look similar to the NX-01 but still have a secondary haul underneath. I still think they should maintain from Jefferies' design though but I'm just explaining how I would design it if I was asked to do a redesign different from Jefferies'.

Today I too would use the NX-01 design elements to re-design the TOS-Enterprise, tomorrow I would probably use those of the new movie-TOS-Enterprise.
My tastes and interestes shift quite a lot in that regard. And I have no problem with up-dating an old design.

But then, the NX-01 is also a sore point for some here.
Shall I tell the new people here about the 'Conestoga-conspiracy', Cary?

Well, I googled Conestoga and came across this:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/conestoga3.jpg

Which I have to say is the most awesome looking Star Trek ship I've ever seen. But I don't understand how this is related to the subject we're are talking about nor do I want to get the off track on this thread so I'll figure out whatever this 'conspiracy' is eventually.

It is a great design, I agree.
Around here are people who think that this ship was designed as the NX-01 before the the actual NX-01 was aproved as the show's hero-ship.
TPTB, according to those people, have since then covered up the fact that Conestoga was actually going to be the NX-01 and not the 'Akiraprise' we got.
Ridiculus and stupid.
These are some of the people we have to deal with here.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

Well, I googled Conestoga and came across this:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/conestoga3.jpg
...

Thanks for making that a link, Sheridan, but please also be careful not to post inline images hosted on space not belonging to you.

 

[Sector 7]

what specific aspects of the design ethic would clue you in to the notion that it was an older design, rather than something that was designed as recently as last week?

Cylinders butted up against rectangles butted up against disks with no transitions; exterior lamps fastened to the hull, a great big round dish antenna jutting out the front - the appearance of the TOS ship compares to, say, the TMP or particularly the TNG ship in the same way that a 1954 Chevy sedan compares to a 1996 Ford Taurus. You can argue about which design is "better" or more "classic" but it's not at all difficult to assign a chronology to them based simply on the sophistication of manufacture and finish.

Or, if you prefer:

Now, you know what? I'd rather own the older of those two Mustangs, but that's just me - there's still not any doubt which one dates from the mid-1960s and which is contemporary. You can tell by looking, and you could tell from your general knowledge of cars and design even if you'd never seen a Mustang.

Good point, but the ultimate reality is that someone will find a way to bitch about that, too.

 

[ancient]

Eh, the design doesn't look at all 60's to me, and probably not to anyone else who wasn't even born then.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Trek's dead now. Abrams can't hurt it.

Can't argue with that. No doubt, it will be just as dead when he's through with it, regardless of whether or not this film is a financial sucess.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Around here are people who think that this ship was designed as the NX-01 before the the actual NX-01 was aproved as the show's hero-ship.
TPTB, according to those people, have since then covered up the fact that Conestoga was actually going to be the NX-01 and not the 'Akiraprise' we got.
Ridiculus and stupid.
These are some of the people we have to deal with here.

I remember when that happened. Though I'd like to point out that I'm not one of the people being referred to there.

 

[3D Master]

In the context of Trek: In 'Enterprise' we have seen that in some places of the ship the gravity is first nullified and then reversed.
But since that transition is very noticable it wouldn't be very practical to have the gravity change within the turbolift-shaft in that angled dorsal....

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

 

[ST-One]

In the context of Trek: In 'Enterprise' we have seen that in some places of the ship the gravity is first nullified and then reversed.
But since that transition is very noticable it wouldn't be very practical to have the gravity change within the turbolift-shaft in that angled dorsal....

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

'Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?'

 

[3D Master]

In the context of Trek: In 'Enterprise' we have seen that in some places of the ship the gravity is first nullified and then reversed.
But since that transition is very noticable it wouldn't be very practical to have the gravity change within the turbolift-shaft in that angled dorsal....

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

'Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?'

What the idiots in STV and TNG era did, writers, in universe engineering fools, or what not is not my concern. Anyone who can control gravity like the Star Trek folks can, are not going to build a lift shaft with gravity.

 

[Gepard]

^I always assumed the gravity in the shaft was coming form the tubolift car underneath them and not form the bottom of the turboshaft itself.

 

[ST-One]

Gravity in the Turbolift-shaft? If you're smart you keep the shaft DEVOID of gravity. That way you don't have to fight gravity with the lift propulsion itself. You also don't have to fear the lift falling down and killing everyone inside (or in the shaft) should something bad happen the lifts propulsion and anchors. You put the gravity IN the lift (cabin) ITSELF. That way it doesn't matter one bit how the lift changes position or angle as it zips about, to the people inside, up remains up, and down remains down. Indeed, it would also help putting any inertial dampers inside the lift, so it can zip around as fast or slow as possible without the people inside being reduced to meat patties.

'Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?'

What the idiots in STV and TNG era did, writers, in universe engineering fools, or what not is not my concern. Anyone who can control gravity like the Star Trek folks can, are not going to build a lift shaft with gravity.

In-universe continuity disagrees with you.
I mean, your idea would be the intelligent one, but we have seen that the shafts have gravity, and that is how it is - untill other writers contradict it.