I dont like Fed ships with very roundish disk personally so that looks better. The grill deflector would be more convincing in a carrier type ship having in that constructions bays left and right and actual deflector in the middle all nested within the grill. That said I am mostly into KDF and Rom ships
Every ship has its good angles and bad angles. Even the legendary Connie.
The TOS Connie doesn't have a single good angle imo. The Discoprise on the other hand, that's a thing of beauty.
I see them the other way around, preferring the cleaner, smoother organic curves and angles of the TOS ship over the busier and duller industrial look of the DSC version. Everyone and their dog seems to be using some variation of the art deco style in sci-fi show ship designs nowadays and I am rather tired of it.
The thing I've always disliked about the TOS Connie is that tiny slim neck. The ship in game also looks so tiny compared to 'modern' ships, whereas in the movies and shows it was usually the biggest ship around.
The thing I've always disliked about the TOS Connie is that tiny slim neck. The ship in game also looks so tiny compared to 'modern' ships, whereas in the movies and shows it was usually the biggest ship around.
The slimness of the neck and pylons were deliberate, a way of showing the superior metallurgy of the future. They were not weak points, the technology just did not require them to be thick and squat. In fact, with the nine inch thick tritanium armor the TOS ship had on top of the duranium pressure hull that long slim neck is undoubtedly stronger and more damage resistant than the thin skin designs in TMP, TNG, and DSC that depend on structural integrity fields to hold together.
Hollywood started drifting to the view that "future tech is just like today, only more compact or grander in scale" in the seventies and they have gotten stuck in a rut about it. That is also one of the reasons you never see "flying saucer" style field effect ships with no rocket exhausts anymore, Star Wars got them thinking spacecraft should be essentially aircraft in space "because the audience would not understand anything else".
Probably the best example of that is the producers of the Lost in Space movie said almost exactly that when asked why they did not use the iconic saucer, they felt that the audience would be too stupid to understand the helicopter-like maneuvering of a "flying saucer" so they made it a bait and switch joke and the "real" Jupiter 2 a bog-standard rocket-brick type inside the "launch saucer".
Unfortunately, all the CBS Trek stuff is designed with that same lowest common denominator herd mentality.
The thing I've always disliked about the TOS Connie is that tiny slim neck. The ship in game also looks so tiny compared to 'modern' ships, whereas in the movies and shows it was usually the biggest ship around.
The slimness of the neck and pylons were deliberate, a way of showing the superior metallurgy of the future. They were not weak points, the technology just did not require them to be thick and squat. In fact, with the nine inch thick tritanium armor the TOS ship had on top of the duranium pressure hull that long slim neck is undoubtedly stronger and more damage resistant than the thin skin designs in TMP, TNG, and DSC that depend on structural integrity fields to hold together.
Hollywood started drifting to the view that "future tech is just like today, only more compact or grander in scale" in the seventies and they have gotten stuck in a rut about it. That is also one of the reasons you never see "flying saucer" style field effect ships with no rocket exhausts anymore, Star Wars got them thinking spacecraft should be essentially aircraft in space "because the audience would not understand anything else".
Probably the best example of that is the producers of the Lost in Space movie said almost exactly that when asked why they did not use the iconic saucer, they felt that the audience would be too stupid to understand the helicopter-like maneuvering of a "flying saucer" so they made it a bait and switch joke and the "real" Jupiter 2 a bog-standard rocket-brick type inside the "launch saucer".
Unfortunately, all the CBS Trek stuff is designed with that same lowest common denominator herd mentality.
Sure, its strong, I didn't suggest it wasn't, but its the aesthetics that are at issue. The Excelsior was demonstrably a tougher ship and it had a thick neck that really helps make the ship look tough and sturdy.
The thing I've always disliked about the TOS Connie is that tiny slim neck. The ship in game also looks so tiny compared to 'modern' ships, whereas in the movies and shows it was usually the biggest ship around.
The slimness of the neck and pylons were deliberate, a way of showing the superior metallurgy of the future. They were not weak points, the technology just did not require them to be thick and squat. In fact, with the nine inch thick tritanium armor the TOS ship had on top of the duranium pressure hull that long slim neck is undoubtedly stronger and more damage resistant than the thin skin designs in TMP, TNG, and DSC that depend on structural integrity fields to hold together.
Hollywood started drifting to the view that "future tech is just like today, only more compact or grander in scale" in the seventies and they have gotten stuck in a rut about it. That is also one of the reasons you never see "flying saucer" style field effect ships with no rocket exhausts anymore, Star Wars got them thinking spacecraft should be essentially aircraft in space "because the audience would not understand anything else".
Probably the best example of that is the producers of the Lost in Space movie said almost exactly that when asked why they did not use the iconic saucer, they felt that the audience would be too stupid to understand the helicopter-like maneuvering of a "flying saucer" so they made it a bait and switch joke and the "real" Jupiter 2 a bog-standard rocket-brick type inside the "launch saucer".
Unfortunately, all the CBS Trek stuff is designed with that same lowest common denominator herd mentality.
Sure, its strong, I didn't suggest it wasn't, but its the aesthetics that are at issue. The Excelsior was demonstrably a tougher ship and it had a thick neck that really helps make the ship look tough and sturdy.
And the Excelsior secondary hull is a bathtub that makes the ship look both ugly and ridiculous. (And I've felt that way since I first saw the thing on the screen in a theatre playing STIII:TSFS in 1984).
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The thing I've always disliked about the TOS Connie is that tiny slim neck. The ship in game also looks so tiny compared to 'modern' ships, whereas in the movies and shows it was usually the biggest ship around.
The slimness of the neck and pylons were deliberate, a way of showing the superior metallurgy of the future. They were not weak points, the technology just did not require them to be thick and squat. In fact, with the nine inch thick tritanium armor the TOS ship had on top of the duranium pressure hull that long slim neck is undoubtedly stronger and more damage resistant than the thin skin designs in TMP, TNG, and DSC that depend on structural integrity fields to hold together.
Hollywood started drifting to the view that "future tech is just like today, only more compact or grander in scale" in the seventies and they have gotten stuck in a rut about it. That is also one of the reasons you never see "flying saucer" style field effect ships with no rocket exhausts anymore, Star Wars got them thinking spacecraft should be essentially aircraft in space "because the audience would not understand anything else".
Probably the best example of that is the producers of the Lost in Space movie said almost exactly that when asked why they did not use the iconic saucer, they felt that the audience would be too stupid to understand the helicopter-like maneuvering of a "flying saucer" so they made it a bait and switch joke and the "real" Jupiter 2 a bog-standard rocket-brick type inside the "launch saucer".
Unfortunately, all the CBS Trek stuff is designed with that same lowest common denominator herd mentality.
Sure, its strong, I didn't suggest it wasn't, but its the aesthetics that are at issue. The Excelsior was demonstrably a tougher ship and it had a thick neck that really helps make the ship look tough and sturdy.
What I said was mainly about aesthetics too, though it was mixed with practical considerations.
The googie style (the one the TOS Enterprise was designed in) often has surprising elements like the neck and struts that look too small to "hold up" the saucer and nacelles or seem to take odd shapes or angles for what they do. Along with the "golden spiral" proportions it makes the ship look almost like it was grown instead of built if you squint a bit, and that "natural" feel contributes to the refreshing optimistic feel of the design when you see it for the first time.
The ground view matte paintings show the same googie aesthetics in Federation (and a few alien) locals, like for instance Starbase 11.
Of course, both Enterprises look a lot better than the Inquiry class. Not only does Inquiry have design cues that are more reminiscent of Battlestar Galactica instead of Star Trek, it has an even more dull industrial look to it and the overall impression is aggressive and hostile, something more in line with Klingon warrior ethos than Federation.
The TOS connie looked like it was either poured, woven, or grown. In "wounded sky" a TOS novel that inspired "Where no one has gone before", The TOS ship hulls were woven, using threads of crystalline string. And in TOS, the tritanium metal was 21 time harder than diamond. That, alone says mega advanced. I can also picture the hulls being manifested....a light beam sweeps, back and fourth, as it moves, the hull manifests itself.
Disco connie looks like it was put together in some factory, using steel or something. To this day, I STILL laugh at that old 2009 trailer, where the Enterprise was being put together by a bunch of sweaty guys in boiler suits, using WELDERS....oy.
Every ship has its good angles and bad angles. Even the legendary Connie.
The TOS Connie doesn't have a single good angle imo. The Discoprise on the other hand, that's a thing of beauty.
Couldn't agree more, I have never liked the TOS Constitution Class and never wanted one in game. As soon as I saw the Discovery Enterprise I said "I must have it."
TOS did however bring us the Excelsior which I think ties the Sovereign as the greatest looking on screen Fed Ship of all time.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The thing I've always disliked about the TOS Connie is that tiny slim neck. The ship in game also looks so tiny compared to 'modern' ships, whereas in the movies and shows it was usually the biggest ship around.
The slimness of the neck and pylons were deliberate, a way of showing the superior metallurgy of the future. They were not weak points, the technology just did not require them to be thick and squat. In fact, with the nine inch thick tritanium armor the TOS ship had on top of the duranium pressure hull
'Picard' contradicts UFP/Starfleet because they are trying to hit us over the head commenting about current times. Nothing more, nothing less. 'Lower Decks' turns the Ship back on course.
LD turned it back? In the latest episode, didn't they critique the functionally of the Federation
Disco connie looks like it was put together in some factory, using steel or something.
Well... its still the same ship with the same materials. Its just not the pearl white hull. Its the more common gunmetal grey that was in use pretty much through the rest of the franchise. Even having the glowing blue warp field grills matches everything else other than the TMP era.
Disco connie looks like it was put together in some factory, using steel or something.
Well... its still the same ship with the same materials. Its just not the pearl white hull. Its the more common gunmetal grey that was in use pretty much through the rest of the franchise. Even having the glowing blue warp field grills matches everything else other than the TMP era.
Actually, the bare metal DSC look is not consistent with the other Treks at all except for ENT which was supposed to be before the shift to tritanium, the only difference between the whiter TOS look and the grayer TNG look is the lighting and the way the camera sees it, except for the aztecing making darker patches they are the same very light grayish-green color. What makes it that color from an inworld perspective is an easily reapplied ceramic coating over the tritanium outer hull that Jefferies said was for temperature control and wear resistance (in fact a lot of the green looked like a kind of grunge on the hull if you look at the original model in the Smithsonian, the heaviest green was in patterns that look like grunge trails). They even mention the coating in passing once or twice in TNG.
The tritanium alloy that Starfleet uses for most ship hulls has been established as a sort of coppery-bronze color, you can see a little of the bare metal around the Ent-D deflector, and even more of it on the TOS model (they used brass parts for some of it in fact, like the bussard needles and parts of the deflector/sensor dish and choke ring antenna elements.
The Klingons and Romulans stopped using their version of the coating sometime after TOS and the (slightly different) tritanium alloy they use "weathers" to that greenish patina after a while in the trace gasses and dust of space.
Also, supposedly you do not see the blue glow along the nacelles on the TOS ship because of the armored baffles which you see on the 11 foot model on the inboard sides of the nacelles. In the 2270s the shields got better so they apparently left off the heavy armor the 2240s ships had, including those baffles.
The only silver colored metal mentioned in Trek to be used in Federation hulls (in Berman-era shows) is duranium, and while it was used in shuttles for a while (at least as early as TOS, the Galileo hull was duranium) dialog in VOY states that the Intrepid class was the first full sized ship class they made with a solid duranium hull to lighten the ship for speed. The distinctly metallic surface the DSC Federation ships must be some other metal then, and dialog in DSC S2E1 pins that as regular titanium.
On the other hand, in ENT the NX ships used duranium to line their hull and never mentioned what the outer surface of the composite was made of but the episode Minefield gives a very good look at the outer surface and it looks a lot like titanium. And a line from VOY gives a good clue to what polarizing the hull could be, Neelix mentions that the duranium sheeting in one of the storerooms could be charged up to use as cheap and dirty gravity plating, perhaps in ENT they charged it in such a way that it produced a repulsion effect.
Maybe the tritanium armored hull with ceramic coating was a relatively new technology for the Federation in the early to mid 2200s and in to 2245 only a few types of ships were designed with that heavy armor configuration. It kind of makes sense, according to Roddenberry the TOS Enterprise was the equivalent of a "fast battleship" (like the realworld Iowa class) though Federation politics forced the use of the term "heavy cruiser" (notice Kruge calls the ship a "battlecruiser" which supports that notion) so it is quite heavily armored.
The DSC Enterprise on the other hand is revealed at the end of season two to be a carrier instead and carriers are probably not as armored as battleships/battlecruisers just like in the real world and probably uses a more advanced version of the composite used on the NX ships with full scale shields instead of just "polarized plating" (in fact most of the DSC ships probably do).
TOS Enterprise could have been capable of launching multiple tactical flyers as well. But 1960s tech and budget made it impossible. And I'd still say DSC Enterprise was a "battleship" as well. She dished it out just as much as she was taking it. The only time she really got hammered was when that torpedo slammed into her forward saucer. A Torpedo, I might add, that was specifically designed to pierce the hull and detonate inside. A dedicated ship killer. ANY ship from ANY era would have taken heavy damage from that kind of attack. Hell... armor piercing weapons are a thing today, and are one of the primary ways to attack a modern tank. Pierce the hull and damage the interior.
TOS Enterprise could have been capable of launching multiple tactical flyers as well. But 1960s tech and budget made it impossible. And I'd still say DSC Enterprise was a "battleship" as well. She dished it out just as much as she was taking it. The only time she really got hammered was when that torpedo slammed into her forward saucer. A Torpedo, I might add, that was specifically designed to pierce the hull and detonate inside. A dedicated ship killer. ANY ship from ANY era would have taken heavy damage from that kind of attack. Hell... armor piercing weapons are a thing today, and are one of the primary ways to attack a modern tank. Pierce the hull and damage the interior.
More likely Roddenberry's idea was that the shuttles represented the pair of scout/utility seaplanes most of those battleships carried on rail catapults in WWII or the helicopters that they carried in the Gulf war. In WWII they generally had two planes ready for use and several replacements broken down in storage which could be assembled and readied to replace losses (I am not sure if they had spare compacted helicopters since it would be easy to just fly one over from a carrier or land base nowadays with aerial refueling).
If you compare the shuttlebay with the shuttles, the TOS Enterprise could have only comfortably handled three or four Galileo type shuttles in fly-ready condition at the very most, or two of the bigger shuttles that Jefferies originally designed the bay for nose-to-tail with just about a hallway's worth of walking space around them. There is no way they could have supported several squadrons like they do in DSC even without the additional "workpods" Number One had loaded in (which itself is against Jefferies idea that everything was reparable from inside without the use of EVA pods and whatnot).
Based on the clips I've seen of ST:D fighter scenes, and I think it was the last movie, I really don't like the nuTrek fighter/carrier nonsense. They are awful scenes full of screen clutter that completely destroy the magic and majestic of the starships themselves and ignore the power of directed energy weapons that travel at the speed of light.
DS9 started it though, and I also didn't quite like their screen cluttering battles, but I generally accept it because of the difficulty of showing a battle in space on that kind of scale without cluttering everything close together like it was.
More likely Roddenberry's idea was that the shuttles represented the pair of scout/utility seaplanes most of those battleships carried on rail catapults in WWII or the helicopters that they carried in the Gulf war. In WWII they generally had two planes ready for use and several replacements broken down in storage which could be assembled and readied to replace losses (I am not sure if they had spare compacted helicopters since it would be easy to just fly one over from a carrier or land base nowadays with aerial refueling).
If you compare the shuttlebay with the shuttles, the TOS Enterprise could have only comfortably handled three or four Galileo type shuttles in fly-ready condition at the very most, or two of the bigger shuttles that Jefferies originally designed the bay for nose-to-tail with just about a hallway's worth of walking space around them. There is no way they could have supported several squadrons like they do in DSC even without the additional "workpods" Number One had loaded in (which itself is against Jefferies idea that everything was reparable from inside without the use of EVA pods and whatnot).
I wasn't trying to debate what original ideas were. I'm just saying that as she is the same class, she would have the same capabilities. Weither its used or not is up to the Captain. Hell... the only reason Enterprise had those tactical flyers was probably because they're still coming off a VERY recent war, so they're maintaining at least a higher level of readiness or something. As for workpods... they're useful for a lot more than repairing external damage. They can be used to effect repairs on other things like satellites or other ships, and could be used for cargo transfers if Transporters aren't available. Things can have more than one use. And realistically... being able to effect external repairs as well as internal is a bit more realistic than all internal, especailly in the case of a hull breach.
But again we're trying to compare original intent based on 1960s knoweldge and capabilities vs today's knowledge and capabilities. Its kinda hard to do that without stepping on someone's toes in terms of what should and shouldn't be. All of which is, honestly, a matter of opinion for whoever is discussing it. Some may say it MUST be this way, while others may say there's room for more.
More likely Roddenberry's idea was that the shuttles represented the pair of scout/utility seaplanes most of those battleships carried on rail catapults in WWII or the helicopters that they carried in the Gulf war. In WWII they generally had two planes ready for use and several replacements broken down in storage which could be assembled and readied to replace losses (I am not sure if they had spare compacted helicopters since it would be easy to just fly one over from a carrier or land base nowadays with aerial refueling).
If you compare the shuttlebay with the shuttles, the TOS Enterprise could have only comfortably handled three or four Galileo type shuttles in fly-ready condition at the very most, or two of the bigger shuttles that Jefferies originally designed the bay for nose-to-tail with just about a hallway's worth of walking space around them. There is no way they could have supported several squadrons like they do in DSC even without the additional "workpods" Number One had loaded in (which itself is against Jefferies idea that everything was reparable from inside without the use of EVA pods and whatnot).
I wasn't trying to debate what original ideas were. I'm just saying that as she is the same class, she would have the same capabilities. Weither its used or not is up to the Captain. Hell... the only reason Enterprise had those tactical flyers was probably because they're still coming off a VERY recent war, so they're maintaining at least a higher level of readiness or something. As for workpods... they're useful for a lot more than repairing external damage. They can be used to effect repairs on other things like satellites or other ships, and could be used for cargo transfers if Transporters aren't available. Things can have more than one use. And realistically... being able to effect external repairs as well as internal is a bit more realistic than all internal, especailly in the case of a hull breach.
But again we're trying to compare original intent based on 1960s knoweldge and capabilities vs today's knowledge and capabilities. Its kinda hard to do that without stepping on someone's toes in terms of what should and shouldn't be. All of which is, honestly, a matter of opinion for whoever is discussing it. Some may say it MUST be this way, while others may say there's room for more.
It has nothing to do with "1960s knowledge and capabilities", only with intent and designs of the ships.
Originally Jefferies designed the TOS hero ship (it was not even called "Enterprise" at this point) to be 540 feet in length, with the bridge taking up the entire teardrop shaped bumpout, and drew up the plans at a standard 1:48 scale. Then Roddenberry went with the name "Enterprise" and decided it would be good to have the starship the same length as the WWII carrier Enterprise, so Jefferies fiddled with the numbers a bit an came up with 1:85 scale which was close enough though a bit odd, but Roddenberry was firm about the size and would not approve the more common 1:96 scale (which would have made the ship 1,080 feet in length (close to the fanon alternate length of 1074 feet) which was ironically about the length of the TMP Enterprise). It was all noted on the blueprints the shooting models were made from, the 1:48 scratched out and 1:85 written in.
The Enterprise in Discovery is officially slightly larger according to interviews of the people involved in the show though they don't give the exact length in meters or feet, just the fact that they had to scale it up to fit in with the other DSC ships properly. Fan estimates assuming that it has the same 22 decks and the shuttlebay doors are the same size as the original run approximately 376.4 meters or 1,234 feet according to fan measurements though of course that is not canon.
Anyway, the size difference openly talked about by Kurtzman would make it difficult to justify it being the same ship since the nacelle strut sweepback can only account for so much of the difference. It makes DSC look like it is not precisely the same timeline as TOS, which is not too farfetched considering everyone and their dog has been mucking around with time travel.
Unfortunately without on screen proof that it is a product of temporal shenanigans, we kinda have to accept that it is the same ship. She's got the same history as the TOS Connie, and we see a hologram of her in Picard that is soon replaced with the Enterprise-D. We also have to consider that perhaps the Enterprise undergoes a refit into the more familiar TOS configuration before Kirk takes command. Considering there's still around 10 years before that happens, there is wiggle room to work with. You can easily go with the concept straight pylons, remove some material from the pylons, shrink the impulse engines, completely enclose the bridge module, and change the hull color. BOOM. TOS Connie. Not quite as extensive as the TMP refit, but it would work. Its a plausible theory at least.
The only Connie we know for a fact has been altered by temporal shenanigans is the Kelvin Connie. Rather than being built in 2245 like her prime counterpart, Kelvin Enterprise was built years later, and was state of the art for her time. And dear god the scaling on her is WAY off. All details but one point to a 366 meter ship. Not 700+ like was shown in 1 single scene, that got contradicted in the next scene. The Kelvin Connie is almost as bad at magic size changing as the Defiant!
It will definitely be interesting to see what kind of twisted logic explains a mass produced ship from STO's own approximate time period being in a promopack.
I'm sure they wrote a nice script to "explain" it...but we know why it was...simple greed.
They have been cutting content development and increasing monetary development for a long time now
Comments
The TOS Connie doesn't have a single good angle imo. The Discoprise on the other hand, that's a thing of beauty.
I see them the other way around, preferring the cleaner, smoother organic curves and angles of the TOS ship over the busier and duller industrial look of the DSC version. Everyone and their dog seems to be using some variation of the art deco style in sci-fi show ship designs nowadays and I am rather tired of it.
The slimness of the neck and pylons were deliberate, a way of showing the superior metallurgy of the future. They were not weak points, the technology just did not require them to be thick and squat. In fact, with the nine inch thick tritanium armor the TOS ship had on top of the duranium pressure hull that long slim neck is undoubtedly stronger and more damage resistant than the thin skin designs in TMP, TNG, and DSC that depend on structural integrity fields to hold together.
Hollywood started drifting to the view that "future tech is just like today, only more compact or grander in scale" in the seventies and they have gotten stuck in a rut about it. That is also one of the reasons you never see "flying saucer" style field effect ships with no rocket exhausts anymore, Star Wars got them thinking spacecraft should be essentially aircraft in space "because the audience would not understand anything else".
Probably the best example of that is the producers of the Lost in Space movie said almost exactly that when asked why they did not use the iconic saucer, they felt that the audience would be too stupid to understand the helicopter-like maneuvering of a "flying saucer" so they made it a bait and switch joke and the "real" Jupiter 2 a bog-standard rocket-brick type inside the "launch saucer".
Unfortunately, all the CBS Trek stuff is designed with that same lowest common denominator herd mentality.
Sure, its strong, I didn't suggest it wasn't, but its the aesthetics that are at issue. The Excelsior was demonstrably a tougher ship and it had a thick neck that really helps make the ship look tough and sturdy.
And the Excelsior secondary hull is a bathtub that makes the ship look both ugly and ridiculous. (And I've felt that way since I first saw the thing on the screen in a theatre playing STIII:TSFS in 1984).
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
What I said was mainly about aesthetics too, though it was mixed with practical considerations.
The googie style (the one the TOS Enterprise was designed in) often has surprising elements like the neck and struts that look too small to "hold up" the saucer and nacelles or seem to take odd shapes or angles for what they do. Along with the "golden spiral" proportions it makes the ship look almost like it was grown instead of built if you squint a bit, and that "natural" feel contributes to the refreshing optimistic feel of the design when you see it for the first time.
The ground view matte paintings show the same googie aesthetics in Federation (and a few alien) locals, like for instance Starbase 11.
Of course, both Enterprises look a lot better than the Inquiry class. Not only does Inquiry have design cues that are more reminiscent of Battlestar Galactica instead of Star Trek, it has an even more dull industrial look to it and the overall impression is aggressive and hostile, something more in line with Klingon warrior ethos than Federation.
Disco connie looks like it was put together in some factory, using steel or something. To this day, I STILL laugh at that old 2009 trailer, where the Enterprise was being put together by a bunch of sweaty guys in boiler suits, using WELDERS....oy.
Couldn't agree more, I have never liked the TOS Constitution Class and never wanted one in game. As soon as I saw the Discovery Enterprise I said "I must have it."
TOS did however bring us the Excelsior which I think ties the Sovereign as the greatest looking on screen Fed Ship of all time.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Yeah? Did they assemble it with nine-inch nails?
LD turned it back? In the latest episode, didn't they critique the functionally of the Federation
To be fair... it was an accurate assessment because of the events of that episode.
Well... its still the same ship with the same materials. Its just not the pearl white hull. Its the more common gunmetal grey that was in use pretty much through the rest of the franchise. Even having the glowing blue warp field grills matches everything else other than the TMP era.
Actually, the bare metal DSC look is not consistent with the other Treks at all except for ENT which was supposed to be before the shift to tritanium, the only difference between the whiter TOS look and the grayer TNG look is the lighting and the way the camera sees it, except for the aztecing making darker patches they are the same very light grayish-green color. What makes it that color from an inworld perspective is an easily reapplied ceramic coating over the tritanium outer hull that Jefferies said was for temperature control and wear resistance (in fact a lot of the green looked like a kind of grunge on the hull if you look at the original model in the Smithsonian, the heaviest green was in patterns that look like grunge trails). They even mention the coating in passing once or twice in TNG.
The tritanium alloy that Starfleet uses for most ship hulls has been established as a sort of coppery-bronze color, you can see a little of the bare metal around the Ent-D deflector, and even more of it on the TOS model (they used brass parts for some of it in fact, like the bussard needles and parts of the deflector/sensor dish and choke ring antenna elements.
The Klingons and Romulans stopped using their version of the coating sometime after TOS and the (slightly different) tritanium alloy they use "weathers" to that greenish patina after a while in the trace gasses and dust of space.
Also, supposedly you do not see the blue glow along the nacelles on the TOS ship because of the armored baffles which you see on the 11 foot model on the inboard sides of the nacelles. In the 2270s the shields got better so they apparently left off the heavy armor the 2240s ships had, including those baffles.
The only silver colored metal mentioned in Trek to be used in Federation hulls (in Berman-era shows) is duranium, and while it was used in shuttles for a while (at least as early as TOS, the Galileo hull was duranium) dialog in VOY states that the Intrepid class was the first full sized ship class they made with a solid duranium hull to lighten the ship for speed. The distinctly metallic surface the DSC Federation ships must be some other metal then, and dialog in DSC S2E1 pins that as regular titanium.
On the other hand, in ENT the NX ships used duranium to line their hull and never mentioned what the outer surface of the composite was made of but the episode Minefield gives a very good look at the outer surface and it looks a lot like titanium. And a line from VOY gives a good clue to what polarizing the hull could be, Neelix mentions that the duranium sheeting in one of the storerooms could be charged up to use as cheap and dirty gravity plating, perhaps in ENT they charged it in such a way that it produced a repulsion effect.
Maybe the tritanium armored hull with ceramic coating was a relatively new technology for the Federation in the early to mid 2200s and in to 2245 only a few types of ships were designed with that heavy armor configuration. It kind of makes sense, according to Roddenberry the TOS Enterprise was the equivalent of a "fast battleship" (like the realworld Iowa class) though Federation politics forced the use of the term "heavy cruiser" (notice Kruge calls the ship a "battlecruiser" which supports that notion) so it is quite heavily armored.
The DSC Enterprise on the other hand is revealed at the end of season two to be a carrier instead and carriers are probably not as armored as battleships/battlecruisers just like in the real world and probably uses a more advanced version of the composite used on the NX ships with full scale shields instead of just "polarized plating" (in fact most of the DSC ships probably do).
More likely Roddenberry's idea was that the shuttles represented the pair of scout/utility seaplanes most of those battleships carried on rail catapults in WWII or the helicopters that they carried in the Gulf war. In WWII they generally had two planes ready for use and several replacements broken down in storage which could be assembled and readied to replace losses (I am not sure if they had spare compacted helicopters since it would be easy to just fly one over from a carrier or land base nowadays with aerial refueling).
If you compare the shuttlebay with the shuttles, the TOS Enterprise could have only comfortably handled three or four Galileo type shuttles in fly-ready condition at the very most, or two of the bigger shuttles that Jefferies originally designed the bay for nose-to-tail with just about a hallway's worth of walking space around them. There is no way they could have supported several squadrons like they do in DSC even without the additional "workpods" Number One had loaded in (which itself is against Jefferies idea that everything was reparable from inside without the use of EVA pods and whatnot).
DS9 started it though, and I also didn't quite like their screen cluttering battles, but I generally accept it because of the difficulty of showing a battle in space on that kind of scale without cluttering everything close together like it was.
Just to clarify, was the top it's bad angle? What about 3 quarter view? Side view? How about bottom view? BACK VIEW?
I wasn't trying to debate what original ideas were. I'm just saying that as she is the same class, she would have the same capabilities. Weither its used or not is up to the Captain. Hell... the only reason Enterprise had those tactical flyers was probably because they're still coming off a VERY recent war, so they're maintaining at least a higher level of readiness or something. As for workpods... they're useful for a lot more than repairing external damage. They can be used to effect repairs on other things like satellites or other ships, and could be used for cargo transfers if Transporters aren't available. Things can have more than one use. And realistically... being able to effect external repairs as well as internal is a bit more realistic than all internal, especailly in the case of a hull breach.
But again we're trying to compare original intent based on 1960s knoweldge and capabilities vs today's knowledge and capabilities. Its kinda hard to do that without stepping on someone's toes in terms of what should and shouldn't be. All of which is, honestly, a matter of opinion for whoever is discussing it. Some may say it MUST be this way, while others may say there's room for more.
It has nothing to do with "1960s knowledge and capabilities", only with intent and designs of the ships.
Originally Jefferies designed the TOS hero ship (it was not even called "Enterprise" at this point) to be 540 feet in length, with the bridge taking up the entire teardrop shaped bumpout, and drew up the plans at a standard 1:48 scale. Then Roddenberry went with the name "Enterprise" and decided it would be good to have the starship the same length as the WWII carrier Enterprise, so Jefferies fiddled with the numbers a bit an came up with 1:85 scale which was close enough though a bit odd, but Roddenberry was firm about the size and would not approve the more common 1:96 scale (which would have made the ship 1,080 feet in length (close to the fanon alternate length of 1074 feet) which was ironically about the length of the TMP Enterprise). It was all noted on the blueprints the shooting models were made from, the 1:48 scratched out and 1:85 written in.
The Enterprise in Discovery is officially slightly larger according to interviews of the people involved in the show though they don't give the exact length in meters or feet, just the fact that they had to scale it up to fit in with the other DSC ships properly. Fan estimates assuming that it has the same 22 decks and the shuttlebay doors are the same size as the original run approximately 376.4 meters or 1,234 feet according to fan measurements though of course that is not canon.
Anyway, the size difference openly talked about by Kurtzman would make it difficult to justify it being the same ship since the nacelle strut sweepback can only account for so much of the difference. It makes DSC look like it is not precisely the same timeline as TOS, which is not too farfetched considering everyone and their dog has been mucking around with time travel.
The only Connie we know for a fact has been altered by temporal shenanigans is the Kelvin Connie. Rather than being built in 2245 like her prime counterpart, Kelvin Enterprise was built years later, and was state of the art for her time. And dear god the scaling on her is WAY off. All details but one point to a 366 meter ship. Not 700+ like was shown in 1 single scene, that got contradicted in the next scene. The Kelvin Connie is almost as bad at magic size changing as the Defiant!
I'm sure they wrote a nice script to "explain" it...but we know why it was...simple greed.
They have been cutting content development and increasing monetary development for a long time now