^ I'm sticking with my theory that it's a marine troop transport.
What is the ugliest ship in starfleet?
- Thread starter Willim Davies
- Start date
- Status
U.S.S. BladerunnerNot an ugly ship, as such, but a weird *name*: the Steamrunner class. What the hell does that word even mean, anyway?
Plus, one has to wonder just what the remaining ships of the class are named?
USS Hedgetrimmer?
USS Vaporwader?
U.S.S. Forerunner
U.S.S. Frontrunner
U.S.S. Gunrunner
U.S.S. Roadrunner
U.S.S. Rumrunner
U.S.S. Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner
(The last one was dropped when it was discovered it wouldn’t fit on the saucer.)
The original Constitution-class, aka TOS Enterprise, was designed for its visual impact. At the risk of repeating myself for the tenth time, the tall, slender pylons are meant to be reminiscent of masts on a sailing vessel. The design may be a structural paradox, but it looks right.
After all, if a deep-space vessel is going to make structural sense, it should be basically just a big sphere with one or more propulsion units attached. Boring.
The Sabre class is a pretty ugly looking ship and the norway class.
The Enterprise C- during the Klingon/Romulan war era and this was the flagship?
And the Stargazer-I know Picard was fond of it, but whoever designed that one needed to put away the pipe for a few weeks.
And the Stargazer-I know Picard was fond of it, but whoever designed that one needed to put away the pipe for a few weeks.
I've never cared for the look of the Freedom class. I think it looks too weird having a single nacelle dangling from the bottom of the saucer.
I was going to say that the Freedom class is the ugliest, but after seeing some of the ships in this thread I may have to change my opinion.
I was going to say that the Freedom class is the ugliest, but after seeing some of the ships in this thread I may have to change my opinion.
Nothing wrong with the Galaxy class. I was not too keen about its look when it came out in "87 due to it Not being like the TOS era (both original AND the refit), but it grew on me. I would vote for all those as the Niagara,Freedom and Yeager kitbashes
Maybe we need to ask what is the ugliest starship Enterprise in starfleet?
The Enterprise-D. It's like this melted starship shape with a bajillion cruise liner windows added.
I got a kick out of the OTT dreadnought upgrade in "All Good Things". Such overkill! I think Admiral Riker was compensating for something. Shame we never saw any of those during the Dominion War.
Maybe we need to ask what is the ugliest starship Enterprise in starfleet?
The Enterprise-D. It's like this melted starship shape with a bajillion cruise liner windows added.
.
Agreed!!!
Hey, I like the "technology unchained" look.
As for the windows, there's no reason for ANY advanced starship to have ANY open windows. A) If their power is so totally gone and their situation so dire that they need to look out a window: they're screwed, and B) for the one in 800 quintillion chance when they actually do need one, the window should at all other times be shuttered. So, if you're going to go that route, then like a nuclear submarine, there shouldn't be any visible windows on a starship most of the time.
Of course, I think that's silly.
No, this really annoys me. I don't get people's reaction to windows. I see it as a minor perk of advances in technology. It's like primitive man being incredulous at the notion of double-quilted toilet paper when their ancestors used leaves or hands or nothing for millions of years. These people warp the nature of space and time and energy and matter: windows are a non-issue.
As for the windows, there's no reason for ANY advanced starship to have ANY open windows. A) If their power is so totally gone and their situation so dire that they need to look out a window: they're screwed, and B) for the one in 800 quintillion chance when they actually do need one, the window should at all other times be shuttered. So, if you're going to go that route, then like a nuclear submarine, there shouldn't be any visible windows on a starship most of the time.
Of course, I think that's silly.
No, this really annoys me. I don't get people's reaction to windows. I see it as a minor perk of advances in technology. It's like primitive man being incredulous at the notion of double-quilted toilet paper when their ancestors used leaves or hands or nothing for millions of years. These people warp the nature of space and time and energy and matter: windows are a non-issue.
Steamrunner. The Elkins. The Curry.
You know, the usual suspects.
You know, the usual suspects.
Maybe they're there just to give the crew something to look at? The psychological impact of having no windows, no view of the outside, can be quite unsettling. If the crew has at least *some* view - even if it's just outer space - that's better than nothing.
I don't know if I agree with you or not, but I like this answer. Would you care to elaborate?
My problem with the windows is that they appear too large on the models of the ship. The sets don't match.
Only because the ship was scaled up to accomodate a double-decker saucer rim.
But...but....but...only J.J. Abrams would do such a thing! Star Trek was bastion of technical accuracy before the Abramsprise!
I don't know if I agree with you or not, but I like this answer. Would you care to elaborate?
I've always found the Galaxy class reminded me of a sexy supermodel- well stacked with curves in all the right places, but when I look at the Intrepid from most perspectives (except a few angled views from below) she looks like a bloated old hag going well into her golden years. Bloated in the all the wrong places.
And that is officially IMHO
Last edited:
But...but....but...only J.J. Abrams would do such a thing! Star Trek was bastion of technical accuracy before the Abramsprise!
Now, is this bastion facing forward, or rotated to line up the turbolift with the nub on the outside?
I don't know if I agree with you or not, but I like this answer. Would you care to elaborate?
I've always found the Galaxy class reminded me of a sexy supermodel- well stacked with curves in all the right places, but when I look at the Intrepid from most perspectives (except a few angled views from below) she looks like a bloated old hag going well into her golden years. Bloated in the all the wrong places.
And that is officially IMHO
It also looked great from behind. Which is probably why every single shot of Voyager was either from below facing the front, or from behind slightly above.
I think it's a great looking ship, but that top heavy bulbous look does limit it's good angles. But at the right angles it's one of the sexiest sleekest ships in Starfleet imo.
The Galaxy class had the same angle issues with it's wide saucer, and nacelle placement. From a top view it looks like a short, stumpy ship that is limping home after a crash, but at it's good angles it's a very distinctive, muscular looking ship.
It's all about the angles!
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
