Why Did Roddenberry Hate the "dreadnought" from the Starfleet Technical Manual?

[Dukhat]

How could ILM have preferred the Excelsior class model as at least when originally filmed it had simply horrible good viewing angles?

It has nothing to do with viewing angles. Take the U.S.S. Voyager for example. That model looked like crap from pretty much every angle. It has to do with how easy it is to film the model. And in this case, flatter is better. That's why ILM's models such as the Reliant, the Excelsior, and the Enterprise-D were all much flatter and more compact than the TMP Enterprise.

 

[yotsuya]

Yes, ILM had nothing to do with building the Refit Enterprise. It was a well crafted model, but probably didn't confirm to their standards. Though flat had little to do with it. The TNG Enterprise was one ship where they were handed detailed plans instead of concepts.

 

[Dukhat]

Though flat had little to do with it.

A flatter model is easier to get cameras positioned around it. Well, at least before CGI. If you look at all the Excelsior concept models, you'll see that they're flat as pancakes.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20110416025604&path-prefix=en

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20110416001934&path-prefix=en

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20110416011857&path-prefix=en

 

[Maurice]

ILM had a "not invented here" mentality. And the Reliant design came from Paramount (Mike Minor) not ILM. The first ILM designed ships appeared in ST3.

 

[goose814]

The design of the 1701-D had nothing to do with ILM. All ILM did was construct and film the models. They usually had some control over the designs of the models they constructed but for the 1701-D that wasn't the case. That ship was designed completely by Andrew Probert. In fact, ILM wanted to make some changes to it but they were vetoed by Probert. He had very specific ideas of how the ship was to be and made sure that ILM stuck to them.

 

[XCV330]

What about the Galileo shuttle? It's nacelles are separate from the body of the ship, but only slightly - about the same as the Grissom's saucer proper is separate from her nacelles.

As an Oberth's primary duty is to explode or in some other way fail horrifically, the nacelles need to be given proper distance but close enough to wreak havoc, also there must be no easily conceivable way between primary and secondary hull so that engineering staff cannot respond to damage on other parts of the ship without going on EVA. This allows the Oberth class wessle to explode faster, and therefore accomplish its primary design goal.

 

[Leathco]

Honestly, I always thought the number of nacelles adjusted steering capabilities at warp. I got the idea from the infamous Voyager quote "Faster than light, no left or right." My theory is that a single warp nacelle can only go forward, and has no way of turning. Two nacelles gives you the ability to turn left or right by lowering the power of one while keeping the other at full. A third would give the ship the ability to pivot in the opposite direction of the third nacelle. Finally, a fourth would give the ship a wide range of X and Y axis manueverability at warp by adjusting power ratios among all four nacelles, but would require a skilled pilot to be able to make these calculations on the fly.

 

[Kor]

I would conjecture that Roddenberry may have thought the design was too militaristic.

Kor

 

[keel]

With warp drive, it isn't the engines that turn a starship, the engines turn space itself, warping it to the new direction. Remember, warp space is not space, it is a concept.

 

[Forbin]

Finally, a fourth would give the ship a wide range of X and Y axis manueverability at warp by adjusting power ratios among all four nacelles, but would require a skilled pilot to be able to make these calculations on the fly.

Hmm, if only there was some sort of machine or device capable of making complex calculations on the fly...

 

[Leathco]

Hmm, if only there was some sort of machine or device capable of making complex calculations on the fly...

lol, totally see your point, but that's actually an issue in all of Star Trek. Yes, a computer could do the work far more efficiently. That being said, combat could also be had a lot faster by a computer than the captain telling a security officer to target a vessel, lock weapons, and fire, than the officer following the order. Problem, if the computer screws up, we could end up with another M5 incident. I think that's why we still see ships with someone dedicated to helm at all times, along with the other stations. With the way tech is, very technically a single person could run the whole ship (happened in Ship in a Bottle), but people would rather rely on their own skill than a computer.

 

[Dukhat]

I would conjecture that Roddenberry may have thought the design was too militaristic.

Kor

Again, Roddenberry had no problem at all with the ship until FJ started making money off of it. It’s true that he later thought the post-TMP films had more of a militaristic tone than he would have liked (although he had no say in the matter), during TOS he was just trying to make some dough.

 

[Christopher]

Problem, if the computer screws up, we could end up with another M5 incident.

In real life, most "computer errors" turn out to be the result of human error. People screw up far more regularly than machines do.

 

[Forbin]

lol, totally see your point, but that's actually an issue in all of Star Trek. Yes, a computer could do the work far more efficiently. That being said, combat could also be had a lot faster by a computer than the captain telling a security officer to target a vessel, lock weapons, and fire, than the officer following the order. Problem, if the computer screws up, we could end up with another M5 incident. I think that's why we still see ships with someone dedicated to helm at all times, along with the other stations. With the way tech is, very technically a single person could run the whole ship (happened in Ship in a Bottle), but people would rather rely on their own skill than a computer.

A person can still be in the loop. Even now, a combat jet's computer does all the calculations for firing missiles and dropping bombs. The pilot designates the target, the computer figures out how to hit it, and the pilot hits the pickle button. Same with a ship firing an anti-aircraft or anti-ship missile. No need for a human to figure out trajectories and speeds. Heck, at this point, some of the missiles figure it out themselves after launch!

 

[Arpy]

I can't say I'm a fan of FJ's dreadnaught. And my impression of the Saladin Class is this.

The dreadnaught is too much a kit-bash. Both the upper and lower saucer are exactly the same shape. Why again? Joseph was not limited to budget. He could design whatever he wanted. The front and back of the stardrive too -- identical deflector/communications dishes. The nacelle pylon leading to the third nacelle? Make it another neck dorsal; what the hell.

And where he did get creative, it wasn't very creative. The shape of the stardrive is a formless tube. The nacelle pylons are overly thick and stubby, undercutting the brilliance of the thin/sufficiently strong Constitution ones. The space above the front deflector? Derp...I dunno...stick a couple more mini deflectors on there; what the hell.

And, of course, they're all Constitution parts, copy and pasted and stretched where needed, but not distinct. We're used to kit-bashes today, but then? Again, with the unlimited budget of lines on paper?

Beyond the quirky idea of the third nacelle, there's little to really admire in it. Then when you consider the two-nacelle rule, it becomes even more just cut and paste-y silliness. I'm not a diehard for the rule, but I don't know that the design has earned its choice to break it. ...something that might have been interesting is if he had it so that the three nacelles were working in concert with each other. Maybe if the grills along the nacelles were all facing each other?

Also, as a lily-livered peacenik, I don't know that I buy the dreadnaught as a warship. I've got a dick; I don't need a mega-phasered dodeca-nacelled über-ship to sleep well at night. The idea was that the Enterprise itself can handle most anything that comes in its path, and it wasn't a warship alone either. If, for fun, we're going to imagine bigger ships than it, I don't see why they then also need to be warships alone.

 

[Christopher]

If, for fun, we're going to imagine bigger ships than it, I don't see why they then also need to be warships alone.

Well, to be fair, FJ's Ptolemy-class transport-tug is bigger than a Constitution if you include the transport container(s). And the Fleet Headquarters station is a lot bigger, and an impressive work of imagination. FJ's design work on those was a lot more detailed than his work on the dreadnought, which suggests that maybe he was more interested in the peaceful designs than the battleship design.

 

[Unicron]

I can't say I'm a fan of FJ's dreadnaught. And my impression of the Saladin Class is this.

The dreadnaught is too much a kit-bash. Both the upper and lower saucer are exactly the same shape. Why again? Joseph was not limited to budget. He could design whatever he wanted. The front and back of the stardrive too -- identical deflector/communications dishes. The nacelle pylon leading to the third nacelle? Make it another neck dorsal; what the hell.

And where he did get creative, it wasn't very creative. The shape of the stardrive is a formless tube. The nacelle pylons are overly thick and stubby, undercutting the brilliance of the thin/sufficiently strong Constitution ones. The space above the front deflector? Derp...I dunno...stick a couple more mini deflectors on there; what the hell.

And, of course, they're all Constitution parts, copy and pasted and stretched where needed, but not distinct. We're used to kit-bashes today, but then? Again, with the unlimited budget of lines on paper?

Beyond the quirky idea of the third nacelle, there's little to really admire in it. Then when you consider the two-nacelle rule, it becomes even more just cut and paste-y silliness. I'm not a diehard for the rule, but I don't know that the design has earned its choice to break it. ...something that might have been interesting is if he had it so that the three nacelles were working in concert with each other. Maybe if the grills along the nacelles were all facing each other?

Also, as a lily-livered peacenik, I don't know that I buy the dreadnaught as a warship. I've got a dick; I don't need a mega-phasered dodeca-nacelled über-ship to sleep well at night. The idea was that the Enterprise itself can handle most anything that comes in its path, and it wasn't a warship alone either. If, for fun, we're going to imagine bigger ships than it, I don't see why they then also need to be warships alone.

With regards to some of his design choices, I think in part it was motivated by not wanting to feel like he was stepping on Gene's toes in going into completely original designs, which may not have felt like the fit into the series. His daughter mentioned in an interview about his work with Star Trek that that was very important to him. As I recall, he even declined some degree of name mentioning in TMP for that reason, though my memory may not be entirely accurate.

The two nacelle rule wasn't in place then, to my knowledge, and Roddenberry never developed a fully logical explanation for it that would (in my view) preclude odd numbers of nacelles. If one assumes that the nacelles themselves are where the reaction occurs for propulsion, then adding the third nacelle makes sense in having higher speed and more power output relative to a cruiser or frigate. This is one variation I've heard with such designs, anyway. I myself have no issue with a handful of potential warship designs, for reasons I've stated before, but that's just me. It makes more sense in the context of the Federation having to fight wars with its neighbors at times, than to assume Starfleet will just use an "anything" design for that.

 

[Christopher]

With regards to some of his design choices, I think in part it was motivated by not wanting to feel like he was stepping on Gene's toes in going into completely original designs, which may not have felt like the fit into the series.

Why "Gene's toes?" Roddenberry was a writer, not an artist. Matt Jefferies designed the ships. Surely FJ knew that.

 

[Unicron]

Yes, but Roddenberry was in charge of the series overall. I don't recall whether FJ had any potential concerns in terms of what Matt Jeffries had designed, but I do recall that he was uncomfortable with filing in the "wrong" details for Gene's universe, so to speak.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but Roddenberry was in charge of the series overall.

Which doesn't make it any less obnoxious to give him credit for other people's work, especially in non-writing areas. Star Trek was a collaborative creation of many talented people, and the fact that they were working for the same guy doesn't mean they deserve to be ignored and erased in his favor. He did enough credit-stealing of his own without the fans needing to join in.