Constellation Class Development

[DSG2k]

What's considered an "original universe production?" I assume you mean the prime timeline? Which everything I posted belongs to.

Rather than derail the thread, I'll simply point you to the distinction between Original and Prime demonstrated here:

News - Discovery and Trek Continuity

In an interview with Digital Spy, Kurtzman, co-creator and showrunner of Star Trek: Discovery, was asked about keeping consistent with the novels and comics. Of course, any production staffer asked that in the 90s would've said they weren't part of the canon continuity, besides the little...

www.trekbbs.com

 

[DSG2k]

A few observations:

Michael Okuda made the TUC chart showing the Constellation NX-1974. His implication seemed to be that the prototype Constellation was brand-new as of 2293 (which is why it still has its NX designation and was undergoing 'certification tests'), but that can't possibly be correct. The Hathaway was commissioned in 2285, so the Constellation had to have been built before that date.

Indeed. 1974 being before 2000 makes that very odd. (He could've aimed for 2100 to kinda-sorta cover for the 7100 of the yellow model.)

Ironically, the same Okudagram was used later for background displays on the bridge of the Bozeman (lost in 2278), so it essentially fixes this continuity problem (although it makes all the ships on that list having the exact same assignments 15 years apart, and that the Excelsior existed 7 years before it was commissioned, lol.)

I doubt that's even remotely readable.

My point: We can't reliably use illegible-on-screen background displays as evidence of anything.

I disagree, but we could meet in the middle by going with whatziswriter from Enterprise who did the computer screen biographies from "In A Mirror, Darkly", labeling them 'soft canon'.

 

[HotRod]

Rather than derail the thread, I'll simply point you to the distinction between Original and Prime demonstrated here:

News - Discovery and Trek Continuity

In an interview with Digital Spy, Kurtzman, co-creator and showrunner of Star Trek: Discovery, was asked about keeping consistent with the novels and comics. Of course, any production staffer asked that in the 90s would've said they weren't part of the canon continuity, besides the little...

www.trekbbs.com

Yeah.... no. It's all the prime timeline or it's Kelvin Timeline. That's the official word from Paramount.

 

[blssdwlf]

Yeah.... no. It's all the prime timeline or it's Kelvin Timeline. That's the official word from Paramount.

Well, in the episodes we know the "prime timeline" is constantly being mucked about with by Romulan time agents as per "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow". I'm thinking that DSG2k is referring to the timeline before Khan's birth is moved later by 50 years (or even changes earlier than that) which consists of TOS, TOS Movies, etc?

 

[Dukhat]

The Disco ships were admittedly different from what we would initially expect from ships of that era. But I don't think it's John Eaves fault.

If I recall, there was a directive from those in power to make the ships different. Infact I think it was Bryan Fuller who before he left demanded there to be no round Nacelles.

I think Eaves did what he could to satisfy 3 design criteria....He needed to follow his bosses demands, make something new and interesting, AND make something for the existing fans to appreciate. The design are interesting, I'll give him that. And if you don't use the TOS Enterprise as your design lineage starting point, but instead use the NX-01, I personally think it works out pretty good.

The number one thing that makes the Disco designs stand out are their square nacelles. I've posted these before, but I'll show them again as I think it shoes nicely how with different Nacelles, the designs fit so much better within the established lineage.

They come off as no more advanced looking than Radiant class, in my opinion.

I respectfully disagree. Even with those SNW Enterprise nacelles, the ships themselves still look far more advanced than the Krause-type vessels. They would have worked better as post-TUC designs rather than pre-TOS ones.

John Eaves drew concept art of about 40 different ship designs when DSC was in pre-production, and perhaps even before a set time period had been established for the show. They all had squared nacelles, looked absolutely nothing like ships you would expect to see in a ten-years-before-TOS prequel, and had zero design attributes with the TOS Enterprise. Many of them looked like ships he would have designed for a show post-Nemesis. I simply think he doesn't understand the concept of time-period-based designing. He just has a set type of design he's known for, and that's what he does for everything.

My "head-canon" reasoning for why the ship classes introduced in Discovery look so different from TOS starships is they are two different generations of technology and design, like the leap from the TOS aesthetic to the movie-era one.

While I'm understanding your head-canon approach, I have to say that the leap from the TOS aesthetic to the TMP one is the more logical approach, because you're going from a less-advanced design to a more-advanced design. DSC is basically showing the opposite of that.

I doubt that's even remotely readable.

Well, the TUC one wasn't remotely readable either.

I disagree, but we could meet in the middle by going with whatziswriter from Enterprise who did the computer screen biographies from "In A Mirror, Darkly", labeling them 'soft canon'.

My take on background display information is that it can be treated as official, or not, until better canon evidence comes along to invalidate it.

 

[DSG2k]

Well, the TUC one wasn't remotely readable either.

It's not easy, I'll grant, but not far-background-impossible way in the background.

Starship Mission Assignments

Starship Mission Assignments was a chart listing starship deployments in a range of sectors. Two such charts were on display in the upper right, and lower left corners at the communications station, with an additional one in the upper right corner at the master situation station on the bridge of...

memory-alpha.fandom.com

 

[Daedalus]

Well, in the episodes we know the "prime timeline" is constantly being mucked about with by Romulan time agents as per "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow". I'm thinking that DSG2k is referring to the timeline before Khan's birth is moved later by 50 years (or even changes earlier than that) which consists of TOS, TOS Movies, etc?

Do things like this and use terms like "visual reboot" and you can understand the confusion.

It sucks for people who enjoy seeing in-universe ship evolution over time.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

While I'm understanding your head-canon approach, I have to say that the leap from the TOS aesthetic to the TMP one is the more logical approach, because you're going from a less-advanced design to a more-advanced design. DSC is basically showing the opposite of that.

I think part of the problem with Starfleet ship design, is that we tend to judge how advanced they are by how awkward the shapes would be to manufacture as part of a miniature and how much detail there is. From TOS to Voyager, Starfleet ships were designed in chronological order, more or less, so they had a natural progression as real life design trends evolved and technology improved. But really I'm sure there's nothing stopping 23rd century Starfleet from building a ship that looks like the Enterprise E, aside from the fact that they haven't thought of it yet and don't want to. So an 'advanced design' is subjective and a more complicated-looking ship can precede one that looks a bit archaic.

I mean you can tell right away when a ship has TMP or TNG elements that pin it down to one of those eras, that's one of the reasons the Titan-A looks so bizarre in the 25th century and the USS Leondegrance has no business existing before the Sovereign-class. But I can live with the Cardenas-class coming before the Radiant-class, because it fits fairly well with its boxy-nacelle Disco-era sisters.

 

[DSG2k]

Yeah.... no. It's all the prime timeline or it's Kelvin Timeline. That's the official word from Paramount.

Yes, something like that is probably the current official canon policy. "Prime" includes the Original Universe of live-action material as produced 1964-2005 plus other (previously non-canon) material added, then expanded upon starting in 2017's Discoverse (itself with elements based on the Kelvinverse) and all follow-on material.

Under the current policy, I concur that the Constellation hypothesis I presented is invalid based on other four-nacelle ships existing prior to 2293 and based on the notion of chronological registries being less sustainable (e.g. Glenn 1030, Discovery 1031, NCC-7901, et cetera). However, I also find the new Prime universe fundamentally unanalyzable due to its profound internal inconsistencies, not to mention inconsistencies versus the previous production (some via intentional "reimagine").

From TOS to Voyager, Starfleet ships were designed in chronological order, more or less, so they had a natural progression as real life design trends evolved and technology improved.

{…}

I mean you can tell right away when a ship has TMP or TNG elements that pin it down to one of those eras, that's one of the reasons the Titan-A looks so bizarre in the 25th century and the USS Leondegrance has no business existing before the Sovereign-class.

I had similar thoughts here:

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2022/07/starships-and-continuity-of-style.html

Saucer shape is a good example. In the old days, they were all round until sometime in the 24th Century, at which point there was apparently some experimentation followed by settling on wide ovals, then suddenly elongation was the new normal. There was even "pretty official" lore to it in the TNGTM regarding warp dynamics.



The Discovery fleet, however, contains every saucer shape, suggesting no inherent purpose or predictive power for determining eras at all.

 

[CaptChris42]

The Disco ships were admittedly different from what we would initially expect from ships of that era. But I don't think it's John Eaves fault.

If I recall, there was a directive from those in power to make the ships different. Infact I think it was Bryan Fuller who before he left demanded there to be no round Nacelles.

I think Eaves did what he could to satisfy 3 design criteria....He needed to follow his bosses demands, make something new and interesting, AND make something for the existing fans to appreciate. The design are interesting, I'll give him that. And if you don't use the TOS Enterprise as your design lineage starting point, but instead use the NX-01, I personally think it works out pretty good.

The number one thing that makes the Disco designs stand out are their square nacelles. I've posted these before, but I'll show them again as I think it shoes nicely how with different Nacelles, the designs fit so much better within the established lineage.

They come off as no more advanced looking than Radiant class, in my opinion.

My word - they all look so much better this way.

I've always liked tapered and cigar like nacelles, and they just speak of a more classic era really. Maybe a hint of Cold War and early jet technology? Plus pure cylinders of course.

The Malachowski still looks slightly funky though, with the irregular saucer.

Also, I swear some of the size estimates are off - can the Hoover really outmass the Malachowski? It looks pretty small at the Binary Stars.

 

[Daedalus]

My word - they all look so much better this way.

I've always liked tapered and cigar like nacelles, and they just speak of a more classic era really. Maybe a hint of Cold War and early jet technology? Plus pure cylinders of course.

The Malachowski still looks slightly funky though, with the irregular saucer.

Also, I swear some of the size estimates are off - can the Hoover really outmass the Malachowski? It looks pretty small at the Binary Stars.

Ship sizes are arbitrary anyway. We have the basic size, but nothing is perfect.

(I'm looking at you Oberth and B'rel.)

 

[David cgc]

I think part of the problem with Starfleet ship design, is that we tend to judge how advanced they are by how awkward the shapes would be to manufacture as part of a miniature and how much detail there is.

Even that doesn’t entirely cover it. The DSC ships are made entirely of corners and flat planes or cones, but look “more advanced” than the curving, blended shapes of TOS because of what was in and out of fashion in the late 70s and 90s. If TMP hadn’t had its deco-revival vibe, and instead the ship looked more like the JJ-Prise or the Enterprise-D (and same with the Enterprise-E likewise tending towards flatter and pointier) and the trend was unambiguously ships getting smoother and more flowing as time goes on, what would that do to our readings of how advanced the DSC ships look?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Even that doesn’t entirely cover it. The DSC ships are made entirely of corners and flat planes or cones, but look “more advanced” than the curving, blended shapes of TOS because of what was in and out of fashion in the late 70s and 90s. If TMP hadn’t had its deco-revival vibe, and instead the ship looked more like the JJ-Prise or the Enterprise-D (and same with the Enterprise-E likewise tending towards flatter and pointier) and the trend was unambiguously ships getting smoother and more flowing as time goes on, what would that do to our readings of how advanced the DSC ships look?

The hard corners, flat planes, & cones are reminiscent of Automobile Design of the 1970's & 1980's.

We didn't get complex curvature until the 1990's and beyond.

 

[Dukhat]

Even that doesn’t entirely cover it. The DSC ships are made entirely of corners and flat planes or cones, but look “more advanced” than the curving, blended shapes of TOS because of what was in and out of fashion in the late 70s and 90s. If TMP hadn’t had its deco-revival vibe, and instead the ship looked more like the JJ-Prise or the Enterprise-D (and same with the Enterprise-E likewise tending towards flatter and pointier) and the trend was unambiguously ships getting smoother and more flowing as time goes on, what would that do to our readings of how advanced the DSC ships look?

The design of the season 1 DSC ships were influenced by two factors:

1. ENT (and specifically the NX-01), and

2. They were all designed by John Eaves, who incorporates things like sharp angles, negative spaces, and superfluous fins into every ship design he makes regardless of what time period they come from.


TOS had little to no influence over the designs. Eaves can whine all he wants that 'Fuller made me do it!', but in the end, it's his design style which still permeates over it all. If they had instead hired someone like, say, Bill Krause, to design the ships, we would have gotten a more TOS vibe to them and in my opinion a more realistic sense of a design lineage over time. Some of Eaves's ships resemble the NX-01, some of them look like they should have been built in the TMP era, and some look right at home as FC ships in the late 24th century. It's just a hodgepodge of non-era-specific designs.

 

[Airmandan]

My "head-canon" reasoning for why the ship classes introduced in Discovery look so different from TOS starships is they are two different generations of technology and design, like the leap from the TOS aesthetic to the movie-era one.

Note that most of the "new" ships have registries in the "early 1000s" like Engle class USS T'Plana-Hath NCC-1004, Walker class USS Shenzhou NCC-1227 (which Georgiou describes as "old" to Burnham when she first comes aboard), and Cardenas class USS Buran NCC-1422.

If USS Constitution NCC-1700 and USS Enterprise-1701 date from the mid-2240s they're already a decade old at the start of Discovery, meaning the Walker, Cardenas, Nimitz etc. classes could be much older, maybe from the early 23rd century.

Perhaps this is why the UFP fared so poorly against the Klingons in the war...a bulk of their forces were decades old at the start of the conflict. After the cease-fire lot of these ships may have been retired or assigned to "light duty" such as planetary defense or transport roles, which is why we never see them out on the frontier in the later 23rd century.

*it's intersting the USS Pioneer has the registry number NCC-1500; the start of a "block" like the USS Excelsior's NX-2000 (and it's ALSO the lead ship of a class). 1500 is one of the lowest NCC numbers on a "TOS-style" starship aside from notable exceptions like the Antares NCC-501, Archer NCC-627, or Constellation NCC-1017, which may be special cases (I'm of the opinion that NCC numbers are "mostly" chronological with bureaucratic "exceptions" mixed in).

Maybe the Pioneer "pioneered" a whole range of new or upgraded technologies and established the visual "style" we associate with Star Trek (1966)?

The problem with this is the Discovery itself. Stated to be a brand-new ship, yet she has the older style nacelles.

My assumption is they were particular nacelle design that turned out to be a design dead end, at least at the time, so they went with the more rounded designs that we're familiar with from the Constitution till they figured them out.

 

[Dukhat]

The problem with this is the Discovery itself. Stated to be a brand-new ship, yet she has the older style nacelles.

My assumption is they were particular nacelle design that turned out to be a design dead end, at least at the time, so they went with the more rounded designs that we're familiar with from the Constitution till they figured them out.

So they went from round (Phoenix, Valiant) to round (Emmette type, Warp Delta type, Intrepid type, Y, J, Franklin type, NX class) to round (Kelvin type, Armstrong type, Mayflower type, etc.) to round (Eavesprise) to square (DSC season 1 ships), then back to round (TOS)?

 

[Airmandan]

So they went from round (Phoenix, Valiant) to round (Emmette type, Warp Delta type, Intrepid type, Y, J, Franklin type, NX class) to round (Kelvin type, Armstrong type, Mayflower type, etc.) to round (Eavesprise) to square (DSC season 1 ships), then back to round (TOS)?

People are always trying to improve things, and some designs just work. I just try to think of justification for what we see on screen.

 

[David cgc]

The problem with this is the Discovery itself. Stated to be a brand-new ship, yet she has the older style nacelles.

“Brand new” can mean a lot of things, especially since it was a random convict making the observation and not someone who’d know about ships. I’d bet that if that guy came on to the Enterprise in TMP, he wouldn’t clock it as a nearly-thirty-year-old junker.

Besides, from the caps, I always thought the “square” nacelles were hot-rodded round ones. Like those cars that have the modded engines stick up through the hood. Not the same kind of revolutionary change as the post-TMP engines.

 

[Airmandan]

“Brand new” can mean a lot of things, especially since it was a random convict making the observation and not someone who’d know about ships. I’d bet that if that guy came on to the Enterprise in TMP, he wouldn’t clock it as a nearly-thirty-year-old junker.

Besides, from the caps, I always thought the “square” nacelles were hot-rodded round ones. Like those cars that have the modded engines stick up through the hood. Not the same kind of revolutionary change as the post-TMP engines.

That does make sense, but once the war ends and we get SNW, all the new ships we see are back to round ones. So whatever justification they had for the previous design didn't work out.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Discovery may have been a brand new ship, packed full of science labs and spore drive tech, but the Crossfield-class could predate the Constitution-class. They just didn't see a point in updating the look.

My personal take on nacelles, is that they're basically tubes containing warp coils with a Bussard collector on the front, so as long as they're big enough they can look like whatever the designer wants. The original Constitution-class didn't look right with the boxy nacelles of the era so they went with classic round ones instead. Strong, straightforward and practical, just what you want on an explorer ship designed to weather the unknowns of space for years at a time. When the refit came around Starfleet had switched to a more standardised art deco-inspired style, so it got a makeover with elaborate new tubes for its warp coils, but round ones would've continued to do just fine.