USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

[patrickivan]

I'm sure everyone here has seen the new poster revealing more unsubstantiated final looks of the new Discovery.

The primary hulls consisting of a sphere and two rings, joined by 4 arms per. The distinct Klingon "wings" on the secondary, angular hull. And the long, sleek squared off warp engines.

I'm still not sold on the design, but it may grow on me, not unlike how the E-D went from my least favorite, to my favorite.

A couple of things I'm seeing pages and pages and pages of arguing over on another un-named forum that I no longer contribute to due to constant bickering and bullying, are the placement of the bridge and the "weakness" of the engine struts and neck of TOS/TMP E vs Discovery's more robust design.

Am I the only one who gives consideration to a few key thoughts on TOS and TMP technology and how advanced it would be to support the E's design?

I've ALWAYS had no issue with the apparent weak LOOKING struts and neck (and the boom on the D-7 for that matter). I've ALWAYS chalked up those design elements to be part form, allowed only because of the fantastic technology.

Let's look at it this way. They've talked about force fields, super strong alloys, structural integrity fields, et c. How is that less plausible to strong enough to withstand enemy attacks, than having things like matter/ antimatter reactors that provide incredible power for faster than light transportation, matter energy dematerialization and rematerializing, replicators, PHASERs, PHOTORPS, et c?

We get all those incredible powers in Star Trek, but people quibble over the weakness of "thin" struts and necks and bridge locations?

I don't buy those weaknesses. Not with the powers and technologies available in Star Trek.

So is the Discovery's massive and highly robust look truly an indicator to technology less advanced than say TOS E's is?

I'm not sure yet. I'm having trouble reconciling the design with established Trek designs. I mean really, the ship even remotely looking like something Star Trek is ONLY for the fans. General non-fan people would and could not care one bit, as long as it looks neat.

TOS/ Refit E certainly looks more refined than Discovery. I don't care how much "detail" it has. It's big and clunky looking. I'm thinking there's a very distinct reason for that and they'll indirectly bring that up, more for fans, than for new viewers.

[TonyG2]

I'm still not sold on the design

You are not alone there. Its really not doing it for me. I tend to have an immediate reaction yes or no when I see any ship design, trek or otherwise. Unlike many I liked the NX-01 straight away. Same with the TOS Enterprise (although perhaps not unsurprising as its the yardstick to measure all the others).

I though the Ambassador Class Enterprise C was excellent (although Ambassador Class? Who names fleet leading ships after ambassadors? Save for certain very famous individuals such as Benjamin Franklin or John Quincy Adams, who remembers the names of Ambassadors. Except maybe Sarek)

I was hooked on the Sovereign Class Ent E at first sight. Same with the Refit Enterprise/Enterprise A

Still have mixed views as to the new movie Enterprise.

And even after all this time I do not like the Galaxy Class Enterprise D. I no longer exactly hate it and there are worse looking Starfleet ships, but for the ships named Enterprise, it comes last.

[SKO]

I'm sure everyone here has seen the new poster revealing more unsubstantiated final looks of the new Discovery.

The primary hulls consisting of a sphere and two rings, joined by 4 arms per. The distinct Klingon "wings" on the secondary, angular hull. And the long, sleek squared off warp engines.

I'm still not sold on the design, but it may grow on me, not unlike how the E-D went from my least favorite, to my favorite.

A couple of things I'm seeing pages and pages and pages of arguing over on another un-named forum that I no longer contribute to due to constant bickering and bullying, are the placement of the bridge and the "weakness" of the engine struts and neck of TOS/TMP E vs Discovery's more robust design.

Am I the only one who gives consideration to a few key thoughts on TOS and TMP technology and how advanced it would be to support the E's design?

I've ALWAYS had no issue with the apparent weak LOOKING struts and neck (and the boom on the D-7 for that matter). I've ALWAYS chalked up those design elements to be part form, allowed only because of the fantastic technology.

Let's look at it this way. They've talked about force fields, super strong alloys, structural integrity fields, et c. How is that less plausible to strong enough to withstand enemy attacks, than having things like matter/ antimatter reactors that provide incredible power for faster than light transportation, matter energy dematerialization and rematerializing, replicators, PHASERs, PHOTORPS, et c?

We get all those incredible powers in Star Trek, but people quibble over the weakness of "thin" struts and necks and bridge locations?

I don't buy those weaknesses. Not with the powers and technologies available in Star Trek.

So is the Discovery's massive and highly robust look truly an indicator to technology less advanced than say TOS E's is?

I'm not sure yet. I'm having trouble reconciling the design with established Trek designs. I mean really, the ship even remotely looking like something Star Trek is ONLY for the fans. General non-fan people would and could not care one bit, as long as it looks neat.

TOS/ Refit E certainly looks more refined than Discovery. I don't care how much "detail" it has. It's big and clunky looking. I'm thinking there's a very distinct reason for that and they'll indirectly bring that up, more for fans, than for new viewers.

I think it's ugly and I love that it's ugly. The finalized version looks a lot more TOS-y than the brief CGI rough sketch we saw last year. I like that it looks like a mishmash of new ideas and old ones, a really nice transition phase between Enterprise and TOS era design. The fact that it looks like such an ugly mish-mash makes it easier to accept the smooth, clean lines of the Connie as an upgrade.

[Tesral]

No I have not.

[SKO]

To me that looks sufficiently crude and TOS-y, and while the deflector is more movie-era glowy at least they appear to have stuck a TOS type antenna in the middle, too.

[Tesral]

Yea, no. Make is so you have only four transfer points between parts of the ship? No naval architect would ever let that fly. It screams structural weakness.

[SKO]

Yea, no. Make is so you have only four transfer points between parts of the ship? No naval architect would ever let that fly. It screams structural weakness.

Well if the registry number of the Grissom is to be believed this was around the same era that we first got the Oberth so maybe they were really passing the bong around Utopia Planitia for awhile.

[Tesral]

Too much Antarean glow water.

[Greyryder]

Yea, no. Make is so you have only four transfer points between parts of the ship? No naval architect would ever let that fly. It screams structural weakness.

Could be worse. They could have connected the ship's two main components together with just a single narrow connecting structure. Or, put the main drive out on spindly little columns.

I love the TOS E, but it really doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not sold on the Disco, yet. But, I'd like to see her in action.

[el gato]

I don't mind the spindly parts in other ships. But I will hold any judgment on the Discovery until I see it in action too