This is particularly interesting since the majority of Star Trek's materials are in written works (books, novels, interviews,etc), not films/games/etc.
Still, the ships are nice. STO could use MORE, not less.
agreed, @somtaawkhar. Just putting it out there since it seems they were stuck on the 'film only is right' thing. not even sure who was stuck on it, just that they were. Didn't make any sense to me, since it's not the only source. *shrug* They can argue about which is and isn't later.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Uhm..yeah...about that....
The "dish" on the front is a deflector...it deflected stuff out of the way of the ship as it traveled through space.
Any actual quote from TOS that appeared on screen about that? I actually curious because I don't think there is. Just like there are very few quotes about anything technical.
The Making of Star Trek stated this was done on purpose. A New York street cop wouldn't explain how his revolver (still in use by the NYPD at that time I believe) worked before he drew down on a bad guy. He just drew down on the bad guy. This was how Star Trek was suppose to be shown, like the cop show- all the details either left undefined or hidden behind the curtain because no one in the setting would take to time to explain something everyone already knew.
Latter off screen works and fans started trying to define things in more detail. And we ended up with solving story arcs instead of action and character decisions.
This was nothing but bad and in the end all that detail is meaningless. Everything is what is for what you're watching at the time. Subject to change at the next writer's whim. Nothing more, nothing less.
So the Enterprise had it's parabolic dish that did something unimportant to the story at hand except it was something that always appeared on the ship. One assumes it was needed.
And in STO, pilot ships are thick and wide. One assumes that they need to be that.
And we as customers can say we don't like the look, or that we do.
and as for the last comment...really? That's what you are going to argue? Semantics of stated opinions? Okay. /rolleyes
How you state opinions is important. The words you select determine if you're asserting a fact or just stating an artistic opinion.
You have no facts, just artistic opinion. Please state them that way.
They were. I can't control how you took them. That is quite frankly, your problem and not mine.
You are reasonable for what you write, not I. Learn to write clearly, expressing your meaning, and don't hide behind the excuse that the reader must first read your mind to understand your intent.
If that simply truth is beyond you, I have nothing more to say to you.
and before you point out that it's not stated on screen and is therefor not cannon....
I asked specifically for something on screen TOS. This isn't that, I care nor more about it than I do your inability to clearly write your thoughts.
Thank you for your time.
you really should delete some of your quotes before posting as that mess is rediculous to comment to^
in any case it doesn't have to be just on screen to be canon, if I'm not mistaken, only vetted by an official source. any star trek book would work if that's the issue here. pick one.
Yeah, but the other guy kept in including them and... you know, you're right.
What you say is true, however I was contrasting the different eras of Star Trek and how they approached technobabble and their setting. Thus why I asked specifically for a on-screen TOS reference.
You mean like a 'Top Gear' for Starfleet? 'This week we take the Excelsior class out for a wild ride through the corona of Sol.'
That's Bullships.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
Picard ran across just such a thing. A ship with armor plating that absorbed active sensor scans. Thus forcing the Enterprise to rely on visual observation of the craft to track it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baran's_mercenary_vessel
Why doesn't the ship look like a pancake?
It actually looks pretty flat compared to something as bulky as a Galaxy Class.
It makes perfect sense to me that a flat design, certain shapes and certain materials would be benefitial for stealth even in the 25th century.
Star Trek has to rely on FTL sensors, otherwise they couldn't track ships at warp or across light years.
As far as we know, there is no equivalent of "FTL Light" that would illuminate space for FTL sensors, so passive detection would be very limited - basically only stuff that emits FTL travelling signals could be reasonably detected, but there are no natural sources of FTL radiation that could be reflected off surfaces of targets.
That means FTL sensors have to work on principles similar to Radar - you send out a signal, and potential targets reflect something. If you can ensure your ship has a small cross-section (towards the FTL signal at least), then you present a smaller target that's harder to detect. And of course, this can also help against passive detection methods - chances are you emit less FTL signals across the smaller cross-section.
And the Intel ships are supposed to gather intelligence - so not only stealth is important, also the ability to detect signals. That could explain the black surface - the surface is probably the equivalent of "black" - e.g. absorbing - to not just visible light, but also other forms of (FTL) radiation, so it can absorb maximum information - without giving itself away easily by reflecting part of the signal.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
NO! We need less stupid looking generic federation ships and more ships that look unique. I don't know why ever sto player wants the every ship to look the same
The Federation is suppose to have generic looking ships. It's a one ship fits all kind of place. Sorry to burst your bubble here. But it's the truth. You want more unique looking ships. Well you'll have to turn to a faction that doesn't build the same ship for everyone. The KDF or Romulans come to mind, so do the Cardassians.
Which is why the Federation can get that many new ships that fast. It's not hard to redesign the same coffee table a thousand times.
That's why the KDF has a lack of ships. They have the Klingons, Gorn, Orion, Nausican, and Fek'lhri designs. Just in the Klingon ships you have three different designs BoP, Raptor and Battleship. Then you have the different designs for each of the other four listed. The same goes for the Romulan ships.
As far as we know, there is no equivalent of "FTL Light" that would illuminate space for FTL sensors, so passive detection would be very limited
You don't know any of this stuff. Nor do I.
But here's a wild guess that's is at least based on something...
If NASA's Alcubierre drive theory is at all close to the mark, a warp drive produces a gravity impact (i.e. bending of space) roughly the size of... oh say Jupiter was the smallest the last I heard. Which may be why Spock said a cloaking device would require nearly all the power a ship could produce- it would be running two warp drives in effect with the second hiding the first plus the visual cloaking effect.
In other words, the ship and its effect in show wouldn't work like they said it would.
The real answer is that the writers wanted to use a certain story, and that's how they wrote it. They weren't interested in either the technology or the science in a Star Trek sense- they just wanted a 'stealth fighter' in space because that's was what was in the news.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
Picard ran across just such a thing. A ship with armor plating that absorbed active sensor scans. Thus forcing the Enterprise to rely on visual observation of the craft to track it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baran's_mercenary_vessel
Why doesn't the ship look like a pancake?
In all seriousness though this is a much better example then the one from Enterprise as this ship isn't from a future time period. I have no problem with advanced construction materials and what not. I have a problem with making the ship look like it got ran over by a steamroller and thinking because of that it's "stealthy". The intel ships just didn't look like federation ships, but that's just my opinion so you can take that with a grain of salt.
Enh, I compare them more to the Defiant that to stuff like the Enterprise. Also, real-life stealth planes are painted with radar absorbing paint.
agreed, @somtaawkhar. Just putting it out there since it seems they were stuck on the 'film only is right' thing. not even sure who was stuck on it, just that they were. Didn't make any sense to me, since it's not the only source. *shrug* They can argue about which is and isn't later.
This came about in the late 80s from Paramount's lawyers, who told the producers that they should put the kybosh on the show's writers using anything from licensed works, in case the original authors came looking for extra royalties. So, basically anything that appeared in a Star Trek licensed work essentially became anti-canon, with the show/movies being the only source for canon information.
agreed, @somtaawkhar. Just putting it out there since it seems they were stuck on the 'film only is right' thing. not even sure who was stuck on it, just that they were. Didn't make any sense to me, since it's not the only source. *shrug* They can argue about which is and isn't later.
This came about in the late 80s from Paramount's lawyers, who told the producers that they should put the kybosh on the show's writers using anything from licensed works, in case the original authors came looking for extra royalties. So, basically anything that appeared in a Star Trek licensed work essentially became anti-canon, with the show/movies being the only source for canon information.
Yeah copyright rules are weird like that. You need to get a contract stipulating that their work can be used without their permission and that you've already paid them everything you're going to. Otherwise....IP laws say they have the right to demand payment if you use it again.
The TNG cloaks are Loosely based on the TOS cloak. The TOS episode was basically a sub hunt.
Interestingly one day as I was passing by the living room I swore I heard TOS Enterprise bridge noises. Upon investigation my father was watching an old black and white submarine movie.
Most of the bridge noises besides the computer sounds are from submarine recordings including Photon Torpedo launches and "valving."
This came about in the late 80s from Paramount's lawyers, who told the producers that they should put the kybosh on the show's writers using anything from licensed works, in case the original authors came looking for extra royalties. So, basically anything that appeared in a Star Trek licensed work essentially became anti-canon, with the show/movies being the only source for canon information.
Yeah copyright rules are weird like that. You need to get a contract stipulating that their work can be used without their permission and that you've already paid them everything you're going to. Otherwise....IP laws say they have the right to demand payment if you use it again.
in any case it doesn't have to be just on screen to be canon, if I'm not mistaken, only vetted by an official source.
Unless I'm really bad at explaining things without having to explain them "Vetted by an official source" does seem to mean 'legally' - or to be blunt, by use of a license and contract. But it's possible he thought I ment that the janitor that worked on such and such a set before the scripts were issued gave an interview saying something was officical when it wasn't. Somehow, I don't think that's what I said...Maybe I was too vague, so @therealmaddmatt thought I was in error and needed basic copyright/trademark explained to me. Uselessly, I might add, except that it saved me the effort of explaining it right back. But in sumation: anything created under the license of the Star Trek brand, and allowed by the company who owns that brand, becomes the property of said company - so that, too, falls under the same licensing laws mentioned. It doesn't really matter which company used the license, since the name itself hands that construct over to Star Trek (CBS, as the company who owns the name). That legal example mentioned, just confuses the issue, since in reality it would all be part of star trek if it is under a legal license. They just wanted to simplify that mess they were having to argue in court. It's just a legal loophole. It really only matters if it was part of the licensing name (brand/copyright/trademark) to be a legal part of star trek, as this is how it is applied to any similar fictional entity, but then the loophole allowed the lawyers to avoid little things like who owns exactly what part of the name for what use, thereby bypassing who-can-sue-who-for-what.
It's a mess. I agree. So for the leyman, it's best just to stick with that loophole definition. A true definition would be a bit more simple: if it was made under a name brand/copyright/trademark for the beneifit of said thing, then it would be part of that thing. But the loophole tosses that reality out the window, and dismisses - what? - something like 90plus percent of everything related to the name legally.
*shrug* What can I say? That legal precident throws a wrench in the works.
(Editted because I totally screwed up my quotes in this one.)
The real problem is everyone misguidedly projecting their aesthetic taste/opinion forward as a factual standard by which all ships should be judged.
At this point, most "hero" ships and canon designs of most prominent species of all eras are now in the game, including Cryptic's take on modernizing some canon designs, as well as their wholly original designs.
There's virtually something for everyone now. They're doing it right.
except the K'Vort. my second favorite klink design. and I'd lke a proper K'Tinga skin, like right off TMP
The real problem is everyone misguidedly projecting their aesthetic taste/opinion forward as a factual standard by which all ships should be judged.
At this point, most "hero" ships and canon designs of most prominent species of all eras are now in the game, including Cryptic's take on modernizing some canon designs, as well as their wholly original designs.
There's virtually something for everyone now. They're doing it right.
except the K'Vort. my second favorite klink design. and I'd lke a proper K'Tinga skin, like right off TMP
Well, I'm sure they'll eventually fix up the K'tinga skin.
The K'vort is a bit trickier since, as far as anyone can tell, a K'vort is not actually a real ship on it's own and seems to basically just be a larger B'rel?
If the devs ever get around to adding a K'vort, you can probably assume they'll put their own spin on it, so it's not a gigantic B'rel.
I don't think the design is getting worse. We have a 2409/2410 skin that has become standard on Federation vessels (ex Valiant, Andromeda, Pathfinder etc) that I think is pretty good looking and a great step forward.
However, the Dyson and other stuff are ships that are designed and made by "alien" technology to Federation / Klingon / Romulan standards.
Artistic license is one thing, but lately all of these new ships that are being added to the game are just... ugly. Temporal vessels, Dyson vessels; they all look like Tron in space, not star trek. The kelvin line stuff isnt terrible but it's on the edge.
What happened to classic star trek ship design? This hardly feels like a star trek IP anymore with all of the neon lights.
On the contrary have you seen how Fugly those 23rd century connies are? Floating museum ships that should be scapped off to the depths of Drozana and never see the light of the day. The temporal ships and Dyson are very cool and sexy
You mean like a 'Top Gear' for Starfleet? 'This week we take the Excelsior class out for a wild ride through the corona of Sol.'
That's Bullships.
Nice Honor Harrington referrance!
Buships stands for 'The United States Navy's Bureau of Ships', abbreviated as Bu Ships (since replaced by another group). There are/were counterparts in other militaries.
The Ranger has finally grown on me, My first TOS ship
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Yes, I did know that but pressed a bit to make a corny joke.
Buships is also part of the Honorverse.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Comments
Still, the ships are nice. STO could use MORE, not less.
Yeah, but the other guy kept in including them and... you know, you're right.
What you say is true, however I was contrasting the different eras of Star Trek and how they approached technobabble and their setting. Thus why I asked specifically for a on-screen TOS reference.
Blame Buships. (and if you don't know who that is, you probably shouldn't be arguing about ships...)
= ^.^ =
Imagine if sci-fi actually had a Buships that controlled ship design and made things consistent?
It might prevent things like Star Trek Discovery, but it would have likely also prevented TOS Enterprise as well- too radical.
You mean like a 'Top Gear' for Starfleet? 'This week we take the Excelsior class out for a wild ride through the corona of Sol.'
That's Bullships.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
It makes perfect sense to me that a flat design, certain shapes and certain materials would be benefitial for stealth even in the 25th century.
Star Trek has to rely on FTL sensors, otherwise they couldn't track ships at warp or across light years.
As far as we know, there is no equivalent of "FTL Light" that would illuminate space for FTL sensors, so passive detection would be very limited - basically only stuff that emits FTL travelling signals could be reasonably detected, but there are no natural sources of FTL radiation that could be reflected off surfaces of targets.
That means FTL sensors have to work on principles similar to Radar - you send out a signal, and potential targets reflect something. If you can ensure your ship has a small cross-section (towards the FTL signal at least), then you present a smaller target that's harder to detect. And of course, this can also help against passive detection methods - chances are you emit less FTL signals across the smaller cross-section.
And the Intel ships are supposed to gather intelligence - so not only stealth is important, also the ability to detect signals. That could explain the black surface - the surface is probably the equivalent of "black" - e.g. absorbing - to not just visible light, but also other forms of (FTL) radiation, so it can absorb maximum information - without giving itself away easily by reflecting part of the signal.
The Federation is suppose to have generic looking ships. It's a one ship fits all kind of place. Sorry to burst your bubble here. But it's the truth. You want more unique looking ships. Well you'll have to turn to a faction that doesn't build the same ship for everyone. The KDF or Romulans come to mind, so do the Cardassians.
Which is why the Federation can get that many new ships that fast. It's not hard to redesign the same coffee table a thousand times.
That's why the KDF has a lack of ships. They have the Klingons, Gorn, Orion, Nausican, and Fek'lhri designs. Just in the Klingon ships you have three different designs BoP, Raptor and Battleship. Then you have the different designs for each of the other four listed. The same goes for the Romulan ships.
They done much worse.
You don't know any of this stuff. Nor do I.
But here's a wild guess that's is at least based on something...
If NASA's Alcubierre drive theory is at all close to the mark, a warp drive produces a gravity impact (i.e. bending of space) roughly the size of... oh say Jupiter was the smallest the last I heard. Which may be why Spock said a cloaking device would require nearly all the power a ship could produce- it would be running two warp drives in effect with the second hiding the first plus the visual cloaking effect.
In other words, the ship and its effect in show wouldn't work like they said it would.
The real answer is that the writers wanted to use a certain story, and that's how they wrote it. They weren't interested in either the technology or the science in a Star Trek sense- they just wanted a 'stealth fighter' in space because that's was what was in the news.
In short, stupid writers.
My character Tsin'xing
This came about in the late 80s from Paramount's lawyers, who told the producers that they should put the kybosh on the show's writers using anything from licensed works, in case the original authors came looking for extra royalties. So, basically anything that appeared in a Star Trek licensed work essentially became anti-canon, with the show/movies being the only source for canon information.
My character Tsin'xing
Interestingly one day as I was passing by the living room I swore I heard TOS Enterprise bridge noises. Upon investigation my father was watching an old black and white submarine movie.
Most of the bridge noises besides the computer sounds are from submarine recordings including Photon Torpedo launches and "valving."
yeah... I believe I said that with:
Unless I'm really bad at explaining things without having to explain them "Vetted by an official source" does seem to mean 'legally' - or to be blunt, by use of a license and contract. But it's possible he thought I ment that the janitor that worked on such and such a set before the scripts were issued gave an interview saying something was officical when it wasn't. Somehow, I don't think that's what I said...Maybe I was too vague, so @therealmaddmatt thought I was in error and needed basic copyright/trademark explained to me. Uselessly, I might add, except that it saved me the effort of explaining it right back. But in sumation: anything created under the license of the Star Trek brand, and allowed by the company who owns that brand, becomes the property of said company - so that, too, falls under the same licensing laws mentioned. It doesn't really matter which company used the license, since the name itself hands that construct over to Star Trek (CBS, as the company who owns the name). That legal example mentioned, just confuses the issue, since in reality it would all be part of star trek if it is under a legal license. They just wanted to simplify that mess they were having to argue in court. It's just a legal loophole. It really only matters if it was part of the licensing name (brand/copyright/trademark) to be a legal part of star trek, as this is how it is applied to any similar fictional entity, but then the loophole allowed the lawyers to avoid little things like who owns exactly what part of the name for what use, thereby bypassing who-can-sue-who-for-what.
It's a mess. I agree. So for the leyman, it's best just to stick with that loophole definition. A true definition would be a bit more simple: if it was made under a name brand/copyright/trademark for the beneifit of said thing, then it would be part of that thing. But the loophole tosses that reality out the window, and dismisses - what? - something like 90plus percent of everything related to the name legally.
*shrug* What can I say? That legal precident throws a wrench in the works.
(Editted because I totally screwed up my quotes in this one.)
except the K'Vort. my second favorite klink design. and I'd lke a proper K'Tinga skin, like right off TMP
Well, I'm sure they'll eventually fix up the K'tinga skin.
The K'vort is a bit trickier since, as far as anyone can tell, a K'vort is not actually a real ship on it's own and seems to basically just be a larger B'rel?
If the devs ever get around to adding a K'vort, you can probably assume they'll put their own spin on it, so it's not a gigantic B'rel.
However, the Dyson and other stuff are ships that are designed and made by "alien" technology to Federation / Klingon / Romulan standards.
On the contrary have you seen how Fugly those 23rd century connies are? Floating museum ships that should be scapped off to the depths of Drozana and never see the light of the day. The temporal ships and Dyson are very cool and sexy
neat ship^
but at least is wasn't a victim of the Plushie Alternate Reality:
Nice Honor Harrington referrance!
Buships stands for 'The United States Navy's Bureau of Ships', abbreviated as Bu Ships (since replaced by another group). There are/were counterparts in other militaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Ships
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
My character Tsin'xing
Buships is also part of the Honorverse.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'