Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
This might have mentioned... but it reminds of the original RMQ design he painted for the original ST: Phase II
KrangPrime
Master Member
Why does the design of this new ship remind me of a klingon bird of prey? except for the saucer, it doesn't look very federation too me.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
I really like the design of the ship! I like the angular aspect of it, and if it were to be because of a Federation/Klingon alliance, I think that would be wonderful! To me, it sort of mirrors the Federation symbol, of the triangular/arrowlike/pointing-to-the-stars emblem, so I think it's beautifully apropos, if that's what they go with. The name Discovery is PERFECT! What a great tribute to NASA and real world space exploration!
Last edited by a moderator:
I whipped up a montage of the McQ/Adam Enterprise from Planet of the Titans...
KrangPrime
Master Member
The Rock base it's based on is awesome.
but i think the ship itself is kind of ugly.
but i think the ship itself is kind of ugly.
Some are noting the IDIC resemblance. You can see the ship in it...
I think if they shrunk the triangular secondary hull down it would help with balancing proportions.
Last edited by a moderator:
As I have immersed myself in Trek lore (real-world and in-universe) for almost as long as I have Star Wars and Transformers, let me take you back to first sources...
Jeffries was an aerospace engineer, and he had some things in mind when designing the Enterprise. No rocket flames coming out of the warp engines -- nothing so primitive to tie it to what would, in the future, likely be as far removed from whatever propulsive technology they actually had as DaVinci's designs are from actual helicopters. He did indeed speculate that the larger the ships, the more powerful the warping effect needed, and the farther away from the habitable volume the engines needed to be. Hence why smaller ships can have the warp engines tucked in close with no harm.
This, incidentally, is why I hate the Sabre and St(r)eamrunner classes.
As for the line-of-sight stuff... *sigh* "Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design" came about in the early '80s to discredit and render null Franz Joseph's new ship designs in the Star Fleet Technical Manual he published -- with Roddenberry's enthusiastic blessing -- in the '70s. Gene had asked FJ to work with him on a new pilot he was doing, but they were from different worlds and what should have just been a minor communications breakdown devolved thanks to their respective egos and stubbornness into never speaking again for the rest of their lives and Gene using every opportunity to smear FJ's work with Trek stuff. "Warp engines are always in pairs" was to nullify the single-nacelled Destroyer/Scout design as well as the three-nacelled Dreadnought; "Nacelles require at least 50% 'crosstalk' between the inboard field grilles" nullified the Transport; and the "Greater than 50% forward visibility" further hammered it home.
The other lasting damage comes from Gene insisting FASA and Mike Okuda not use FJ's work for Constitution class registry numbers. The only other resource out there was an issue of a fan magazine in which Greg Jein (one of the main model makers from the films through TNG into DS9) wrote an article wherein he used self-admitted "barely logical" methods to connect the known Constitution class ships in TOS with the list of registry numbers on Commodore Stone's office wall in the first-season episode "Court Martial". If not for this, the Constellation would have been the only Constitution with a <1700 registry number to sort out (honestly, I wish they'd at least done it as "1710", or even *gasp!* splurged for a second model kit so they had more options -- "1700" to make it the Constitution herself, maybe, or "1707", "1711", "1717", "1770", etc...).
This is why I hope they change the registry number to something like "10310" and place it in the "Lost Era" between 2293 and 2264.
--Jonah
Jeffries was an aerospace engineer, and he had some things in mind when designing the Enterprise. No rocket flames coming out of the warp engines -- nothing so primitive to tie it to what would, in the future, likely be as far removed from whatever propulsive technology they actually had as DaVinci's designs are from actual helicopters. He did indeed speculate that the larger the ships, the more powerful the warping effect needed, and the farther away from the habitable volume the engines needed to be. Hence why smaller ships can have the warp engines tucked in close with no harm.
This, incidentally, is why I hate the Sabre and St(r)eamrunner classes.
As for the line-of-sight stuff... *sigh* "Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design" came about in the early '80s to discredit and render null Franz Joseph's new ship designs in the Star Fleet Technical Manual he published -- with Roddenberry's enthusiastic blessing -- in the '70s. Gene had asked FJ to work with him on a new pilot he was doing, but they were from different worlds and what should have just been a minor communications breakdown devolved thanks to their respective egos and stubbornness into never speaking again for the rest of their lives and Gene using every opportunity to smear FJ's work with Trek stuff. "Warp engines are always in pairs" was to nullify the single-nacelled Destroyer/Scout design as well as the three-nacelled Dreadnought; "Nacelles require at least 50% 'crosstalk' between the inboard field grilles" nullified the Transport; and the "Greater than 50% forward visibility" further hammered it home.
The other lasting damage comes from Gene insisting FASA and Mike Okuda not use FJ's work for Constitution class registry numbers. The only other resource out there was an issue of a fan magazine in which Greg Jein (one of the main model makers from the films through TNG into DS9) wrote an article wherein he used self-admitted "barely logical" methods to connect the known Constitution class ships in TOS with the list of registry numbers on Commodore Stone's office wall in the first-season episode "Court Martial". If not for this, the Constellation would have been the only Constitution with a <1700 registry number to sort out (honestly, I wish they'd at least done it as "1710", or even *gasp!* splurged for a second model kit so they had more options -- "1700" to make it the Constitution herself, maybe, or "1707", "1711", "1717", "1770", etc...).
This is why I hope they change the registry number to something like "10310" and place it in the "Lost Era" between 2293 and 2264.
--Jonah
That is one fugly-ass ship. Dare I say, it's so damned ugly that I already know I'll struggle to enjoy the show based on that alone.
Oh, and WTF is the prime timeline?
- - - Updated - - -
First thing I thought. Can't un-see it!
Oh, and WTF is the prime timeline?
- - - Updated - - -
First thing I thought. Can't un-see it!
The TV series timeline, not the new films.
SmilingOtter
Master Member
With the music, particularly the drums, it does suggest some Klingon influence in the design.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
It occurred to me that this design may be the way it is because if it has saucer seperation, the two halves almost look like two complete ships on their own; at least moreso than when we've seen the other ships (Enterprise) seperate.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, I think there is a new trick to show.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saucer separation was to play a big role in "Planet of the Titans" I believe. Some of the McQuarrie art is of the separated saucer, flying and landed.
The Enterprise-D made good use of saucer sep, and as I recall some people liked the "battle configuration" better than the entire ship!
The Enterprise-D made good use of saucer sep, and as I recall some people liked the "battle configuration" better than the entire ship!
Eyes Only
Sr Member
Similar threads
- Locked
