What Enterprise is the better design part 2 ?

[RyanKCR]

There is an organic design concept to the D that was lacking in the original and refit. The E began to lose a lot of the organic look. The D had way too many rounded edges and that eye staring at you was very freaky. Plus the top heavy saucer is no where near what the orginal and refit was with their balance. The only good angle on it was the rear view.

 

[trevanian]

DS9Sega said:

RyanKCR said:See my problem with the D, other than how ugly it was, is that it didn't even look like it was from the same universe as Kirk and company. Should have looked more futuristic but not like a completely different universe.

Try comparing a F22 to a bi-plane fighter from 78 years earlier. See? They both have wings and cockpits and engines, but they're more different than the TOS ship and the D.

You're comparing totally different tech, a jet and a conventional plane. In trek terms, that'd be like comparing a warp driven starship with a garbage scow. The TOS ship and the TNG ship have similar function and capability, so you need to find a different analogy (like how different a Cessna is from a spad or fokker ... is it all that different?)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Galaxy class, hands down. The Sovereign is a monstrosity.

 

[General_Phoenix]

Galaxy Glass, hands down. Always been a fan of the design. Too bad she the Enterprise D went before her time, I'm sure she could've had a long and healthy life like the original NCC-1701 had.

 

[StarryEyed]

I like the Sovereign better overall. The Galaxy is nice viewed fore or aft but awful in profile.

 

[Maurice]

trevanian said:
You're comparing totally different tech, a jet and a conventional plane. In trek terms, that'd be like comparing a warp driven starship with a garbage scow. The TOS ship and the TNG ship have similar function and capability, so you need to find a different analogy (like how different a Cessna is from a spad or fokker ... is it all that different?)

The starships being discussed have warp drive nacelles, saucers, engineering hulls and various features like impulse engines and deflectors. The aircreaft I compared have an airfoils (wings), tailplanes, elevators, cockpits, and method of propulsion. If you object to the engine types, let's do prop to prop, jet to jet, fighter to fighter, airliner to airliner. A Spad and a P38. An F-80 and a F-117. A 707 and a Concorde. A YB-49 and an XB-70, or a B-47 and a B-1.

As different in lines and forms as the TOS ship and the D. Shall I continue hauling out examples?

 

[trevanian]

DS9Sega said:

trevanian said:
You're comparing totally different tech, a jet and a conventional plane. In trek terms, that'd be like comparing a warp driven starship with a garbage scow. The TOS ship and the TNG ship have similar function and capability, so you need to find a different analogy (like how different a Cessna is from a spad or fokker ... is it all that different?)

The starships being discussed have warp drive nacelles, saucers, engineering hulls and various features like impulse engines and deflectors. The aircreaft I compared have an airfoils (wings), tailplanes, elevators, cockpits, and method of propulsion. If you object to the engine types, let's do prop to prop, jet to jet, fighter to fighter, airliner to airliner. A Spad and a P38. An F-80 and a F-117. A 707 and a Concorde. A YB-49 and an XB-70, or a B-47 and a B-1.

As different in lines and forms as the TOS ship and the D. Shall I continue hauling out examples?

Trot out as many as you like, but comparing a jet to a non airbreather is not a good call when you're doing it with 2 FTL starships that are both using the same pseudotech. METHOD OF PROPULSION ALONE is enough to make your comparison invalid; one is a jet, the other ain't, yet both of these fictitious space vessels are FTL starships (not an FTL starship and a NERVA- or ORION-style nuclear propulsion interplanetary vehicle.)

 

[VileMike]

I've always thought that the Ent-D was a more graceful design. I prefer the curves of her, than the angles of Ent-E. I figure, D was the dancer, E was the fighter.

 

[azzurri08]

Personally I like the ENT-D better. I think it's much nicer. On the other hand when the next generation came out and up until the ENT-D came out it was defiantley the best designed ship out there.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I have to add that I prefer the representation of the Galaxy-Class in the 6ft model and the CGI model in TATV than the bulky, with the overdone surface, of the 4ft model.

 

[Maurice]

trevanian said:

DS9Sega said:

trevanian said:
You're comparing totally different tech, a jet and a conventional plane. In trek terms, that'd be like comparing a warp driven starship with a garbage scow. The TOS ship and the TNG ship have similar function and capability, so you need to find a different analogy (like how different a Cessna is from a spad or fokker ... is it all that different?)

The starships being discussed have warp drive nacelles, saucers, engineering hulls and various features like impulse engines and deflectors. The aircreaft I compared have an airfoils (wings), tailplanes, elevators, cockpits, and method of propulsion. If you object to the engine types, let's do prop to prop, jet to jet, fighter to fighter, airliner to airliner. A Spad and a P38. An F-80 and a F-117. A 707 and a Concorde. A YB-49 and an XB-70, or a B-47 and a B-1.

As different in lines and forms as the TOS ship and the D. Shall I continue hauling out examples?

Trot out as many as you like, but comparing a jet to a non airbreather is not a good call when you're doing it with 2 FTL starships that are both using the same pseudotech. METHOD OF PROPULSION ALONE is enough to make your comparison invalid; one is a jet, the other ain't, yet both of these fictitious space vessels are FTL starships (not an FTL starship and a NERVA- or ORION-style nuclear propulsion interplanetary vehicle.)

I addressed your objection by listing pairs of aircraft that have similar propulsion systems but which are as different or more different in shape and look and the TOS ship and the D. Every pair of examples in the list are of aircraft in the same general category (airliners, fighters, strategic bombers) with related propulsion types, e.g. an F-80 and a F-117A are both air breathing jet aircraft.

 

[CommodoreKong]

I went with the Sovereign, it looks much nicer then the Galaxy class.
It's funny, I don't really like the Galaxy class all that much, but the Nebula class is my third favorite class, after Akira and Sovereign.

 

[Gotham Central]

I've never understood the appeal of the Sovreign class. Its a complete throw back to the TOS era without any of the elegance and simplicity.

The Galaxy class was meant to convey the idea (quite correctly) that as technology advances it tends to get smaller even while becomming more powerful. All of the 24th century starships (until First Contact) reflected this simple and reasonable philosophy. The engines are smaller because they SHOULD be smaller and take up less space (just as the engines on a modern naval vessel need not be the size of the massive boilers that once propelled ships like the Titanic. Thus if you notice, the engineering section on ALL 24th century starfleet vessels are smaller and have small nacels.

The Enterprise E is a complete violation of the tecnological direction establised for the 24th century. The Sovreign Class does not look like it fits within the lineage of Enterprise. If you look at all of the Starships down the line, there is a logical prgression of the ship shapes (from steadily shrinking engines to curvier more organic shapes. The Sovreign Class looks like it should follow right behind the Excelsior Class. From the Shape of the warp engines to the large dual impusle engines and circular deflector...the SC looks like the Excelsior writ large.


The Sovreign Class also violates some of GR's basic visual ideas about hero ships. He wanted their lines to bbe simple and largely uncluttered. Look at the Sovreign class....what is all that crap on the underside of the saucer? What is with the out of control paint job?

The ship is a monstrosity and an exaple of excessive design. The Number of torpedo launchers featured on the Nemesis version is just ridiculous. Starfleet ships are not supposed to be flying weapons platforms.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Gotham Central said:
I've never understood the appeal of the Sovreign class. Its a complete throw back to the TOS era

That IS the appeal.

without any of the elegance and simplicity.

True.

The Galaxy class was meant to convey the idea (quite correctly) that as technology advances it tends to get smaller even while becomming more powerful.

But it LOOKS like shit. This is a visual medium. A ship with a giant head and stubby little nacelles looks like a midget. It looked awful.

GR's basic visual ideas...

Please. GR was totally senile by 1988.

 

[Stardate]

the engineering section on ALL 24th century starfleet vessels are smaller and have small nacels.

Actually Roddenberry didn't like those small nacelles. Probst originality had design shorter nacelles but Roddenberry told him to make it longer.
Sovereign nacelles are much better in my opinion.

The Sovereign Class also violates some of GR's basic visual ideas about hero ships. He wanted their lines to bbe simple and largely uncluttered. Look at the Sovreign class....what is all that crap on the underside of the saucer? What is with the out of control paint job?

Yeah, you have a point and i agree with you regarding the underside. Elves scold have designed it smother. However the overall the oval-shaped Sovereign saucer are much more appealing then oversized circular Galaxy saucer

 

[RyanKCR]

With this new design lineage and things getting smaller then explain the Excelsior.

The Galaxy was ugly and just did not look right.

 

[Gotham Central]

RyanKCR said:
With this new design lineage and things getting smaller then explain the Excelsior.

The Galaxy was ugly and just did not look right.

The Excelsior is easily explained. The Excelsior was not designed as a "normal" starship. It was the 23rd centruty equivalent of a concept car. Remember it was called "The Great Experiment." The Transwarp engine design was meant to serve as a revolution in Warp technology. It was in essence a first generation engine design and thus significantly larger than its predecessors. The experiement "failed" (conjecture) but the overall design was retained. Subsequent starship engines got smaller. Of course it is best that we ignore the travesty that was the Enterprise-B. That ship was the first victim of the art department throwing logic and simplicity out the window in favor of hideous buffoonery. That ship was a crime and had no business being shown on screen.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I like them both, although I probably prefer the sleeker E-E. But then, my favorite Enterprise is the NX-01, so what the hell do I know?

 

[mattwitz]

the Enterprise D wouldn't be so ugly if the oversized head weren't exacerbated by the thin little neck AND the tiny little engines.

And that argument about engines getting smaller doesn't quite work because modern ships like the akira and the saber have nacelles that run almost the entire length of the ship.

 

[Holytomato]

The Galaxy, aka "The ship not designed by a retard with ADD."

I have ADD. Congrats you insulted me.

These are what the Enterprise-D should have looked like.

The Enterprise-A from the proposed ending of Star Trek the Motion picture. Had a circular saucer, and the TMP refit pylons. not the flipped up TMP K't'nga pylons. Became the Enterprise-C.

The Enterprise-E. This originally was the 1964 Cage pre production design.

1. The bridge module, main sensor dome, impulse engines, secondary hull, curved dorsal, the deflector shield grid on the saucer section, and secondary hull, the vertical lines on the dorsal, swept back pylons, and the horizontal lines on the edge of the saucer were given to the Phase II movie design.

2. Everything from above, and the shortened height, and increased length of the warp nacelles were given to the Phase II tv series design.

3. Everything from above and the full internal main nav deflector was given to the TMP refit.

I gotta nominate the Star Trek XI design as well.

The Enterprise-D design is basically the Excelsior dumped on the proposed TMP ending design, and they screwed with it. GAG.

I was on a website where the Enterprise-C model builders *DENIED* they based the design on anything previous. I was reading "The Art of Star Trek" so I knew this was a lie.

When "Yesterday's Enterprise" was originally on, I covered the Excelsior style pylons. It looked like the TOS Enterprise. When I turned color to black & white. It looked like the TMP Refit. Also the impulse enginess' output color was blue. Not a bridge to the E-D.