If you assume that there are rules governing the design of starships and pretend that these are actual vehicles designed for actual purposes, then it follows that everything visible in a starship design exists in its form for a specific reason.

Take starship design as an algebraic graph. Given the E-nil, we are given one point on the line. From this single point, we know nothing about the line. It can extend in any direction and have any number of values. But add in another value, the Reliant, and we have a basic Algebra II line. Add in a multitude of other points (Galaxy, Excelsior, Nebula, Akira, Intrepid, Sovereign, Ambassador, Constellation, Pheonix) and we eventually get a curved graph. With all these starships as points on a graph, we can make reasonable extrapolations ad infinitum in either direction as to how starships should look. Of course, we set a domain as a starting point (Pheonix) and ending point (the end of human civilization - Enterprise Z), but between those two points the graph is valid.

The problem is that NX-01 does not fit onto this graph in any sense. If this were real science, we would have to explain this discrpency somehow. But if it were real science, there would be an explanation.

Buh? That makes no sense at all.

With all these starships as points on a graph, we can make reasonable extrapolations ad infinitum in either direction as to how starships should look. Of course, we set a domain as a starting point (Pheonix) and ending point (the end of human civilization - Enterprise Z), but between those two points the graph is valid.

Zah?

I couldn't predict what the E-F will look like based on avaiable information. Pseudogeometry. Aesthetics is not a science. Further, did it ever occur to you that there may be differences in the way the E-NX looks and the way the E-Nil looks because they served different purposes? Perhaps the advent of actual shielding technology required a change in looks for a while.

The problem is that NX-01 does not fit onto this graph in any sense.

Nor does anything else.

There is none for the Akiraprize.

There are any number of explainaions. Maybe the starship designers simply decided they didn't like tapering hulls. Then the next generation decided that they did. This is a matter of aesthetics. If you don't like the way it looks, fine, but just say you don't like it. Don't pretend to have some rational explaination for it when there is none.

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]

quote:

---

There is none for the Akiraprize

---

I liked it. Its a Star Trek series. Its a new beginning. That�s how its advertised. a N-E-W beginning. I'll accept anything they put up in Enterprise over the existing Original Series plots. Wanna cry about it? Go for it, but don�t you have something better to do then continue to whine about a series you do not like, its theme song, or how new its ship looks?

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

time traveling hero, and a crew that's trying to save the universe from the elemental forces of darkness. Star Trek: The Next Generation had an unoriginal premise: fly around the galaxy in a starship, with no connecting threads between the episodes. Exactly like TOS. Both are good shows.

quote:

---

God fucking damn it. Some of you are fucking acting like you HAVE to watch it. If you hate Enterprise enough to spend half an hour posting on how you hate it, guess what! YOU DONT HAVE TO FUCKING WATCH IT.

I liked it. Its a Star Trek series. Its a new beginning. That’s how its advertised. a N-E-W beginning. I'll accept anything they put up in Enterprise over the existing Original Series plots. Wanna cry about it? Go for it, but don’t you have something better to do then continue to whine about a series you do not like, its theme song, or how new its ship looks?

---

Uh yeah. This place is really cool when everybody agrees on something.

On the rare occasion that almost everyone likes an episode (or whatever) the following happens:

1. One person starts a new thread and writes a detailed post that pretty much sums up why everyone likes the episode/event.

2. A couple more people write short posts which usually don't exceed one sentence and consist of things like "me too" or "right on."

3. The thread, not more than a day old, dies.

Now lets see what happens when someone writes something controversial.

1. The person starts a thread containing various elements that other members of this forum don't agree with.

It doesn't matter if this post is long or short. It can be well thought out or the all caps (all lowercase) ramblings of a third grade drop out who thinks byg xplowzions r kewl.

2. Within a few minutes there are half a dozen replies to the post.

Some of these replies may not be very constructive. They often consist of profanity laden tirades about how the poster should only be concerned with the same minute details they are.

For every one of these types of posts, there are well thought out challenges to the ideas contained in previous posts. These posters cite their sources and generally aimed at using facts to convince the other side that they are in error.

4. Heavy artillery including videos, DVDs and the Encyclopedia are brought out in an effort to win the debate.

Blood and fur fly.

The thread lasts for days (weeks...months...) racking up several pages.

Now I am not telling you that you should prefer threads that resemble the latter example.
That's your business.

I am telling the people you aimed your post to ignore it.

Obi Juan says keep on bitching brother.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stingray:
Take starship design as an algebraic graph. Given the E-nil, we are given one point on the line. From this single point, we know nothing about the line. It can extend in any direction and have any number of values. But add in another value, the Reliant, and we have a basic Algebra II line. Add in a multitude of other points (Galaxy, Excelsior, Nebula, Akira, Intrepid, Sovereign, Ambassador, Constellation, Pheonix) and we eventually get a curved graph. With all these starships as points on a graph, we can make reasonable extrapolations ad infinitum in either direction as to how starships should look. Of course, we set a domain as a starting point (Pheonix) and ending point (the end of human civilization - Enterprise Z), but between those two points the graph is valid.

The problem is that NX-01 does not fit onto this graph in any sense. If this were real science, we would have to explain this discrpency somehow. But if it were real science, there would be an explanation.

---

The Olympic doesn't fit your hypothetical graph in any sense. Neither does the Constellation, nor the Steamrunner, nor the Akira herself. Back to the Olympic, I can hear a response: "The Olympic takes cues from the Daedalus." If that's the case, then why can't the Akira take cues from Enterprise? Or does it only work when we see the chronologically-first ship first?

Now...

Defiant didn't follow the so-called 'curve.'

If you base the curve on the Apollo, NONE of the ships besides the Phoenix follow the curve, including the real-life space shuttle. And who moved the bridge from the extreme fore to the mid-saucer, hm?

'Design lineage' is something made up by the effects guys so you'd be able to tell the ships of the different races apart.

I also take issue with

quote:

---

The Archer/T'Pol dynamic (Human Captain and Vulcan XO don't like each other but eventually learn to respect one another) HAS been done before.

---

Yeah... but it was done LONG before TOS. In fact, pairing two ethnically different guys who first are at odds and end up respecting each other is as old as the Epic of GILGAMESH.

Our 'original' poster has made the fatal error of assuming that TOS was 'original' in the first place. It wasn't. What it was was SUCCESSFUL, much as Shakespeare's adaptations of Play that were NOT his, originally, were successful, despite not being that new.

Don't you remember the oft-stated original concept for TOS? "'WAGON TRAIN' to the Stars!" Is THAT original, basing a show concept on another show?

Starships weren't original, not to SF.
A future in which we all get along wasn't original.
Several of the TOS episodes were based upon previously existing non-trek stories, most famously 'Arena.' They weren't original.
Time-travel wasn't original.
Non-interference in other cultures wasn't original.
Humans and aliens crewing a ship together wasn't original.
A 'Federation' wasn't original.

So you're not left with much of an argument, are you?

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

I just dont want to see any more gel shower scenes and i sure as hell dont want to see a man getting pregnant.

I think the 'starship evolution curve' is bullshit. While NX-01 doesnt fit our history, I think it is likely that a hot rod prototype will be sleeker than a large military cruiser like NCC-1701. However, i wholeheartedly object to the creative decision to use the Akira in such a manner based on an internet poll (!).

Enterprise is unoriginal if they end up writing T'Pol like Seven of Nine and continue offering gratuitous cat-suitness and gratuitous 'look im shooting two guns at once'ness because then they are trying to be one of those other action shows that Star Trek should be set apart from in my opinion.

quote:

---

However, i wholeheartedly object to the creative decision to use the Akira in such a manner based on an internet poll (!).

---

quote:

---

Tolerance, tolerance. You've all got to accept the other guy's opinions as equally valid. The guys in the flameboard say so.

---

"The Olympic doesn't fit your hypothetical graph in any sense. Neither does the Constellation, nor the Steamrunner, nor the Akira herself. Back to the Olympic, I can hear a response: "The Olympic takes cues from the Daedalus." If that's the case, then why can't the Akira take cues from Enterprise? Or does it only work when we see the chronologically-first ship first?

Enterprise violates almost everyone's preconceived idea of what a 2150s starship should look like, including my own. It doesn't violate any canonical description of that era, and has a direct parallel in the Daedalus/Olympic lineage. Maybe Starfleet went with a retro theme in the 2350s, and built the Olympic and Akira in homage to the Daedalus and Enterprise. Maybe there have historically been analogues that haven't made it on screen. We don't know."

Something I neglected to point out in my original post was the concept of averages in the graph. Similar to what I said about the Akiraprize being WAY OFF the graph, not everything is perfectly lined up. The graph, scientifically, is actually an average of all the data points (starships). In my example, ships that hit the average to start with are Enterprise ships (Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy, Sovereign, Ambassador). However, there are points that are slightly off the graph. This happens all the time in real science. Different designs would fall either just below or just above the curve. To illustrate, Miranda/Neb types would fall just above the curve, and Constelation/Cheyenne would fall just below the curve. I also take it that the Akira is the Miranda/Neb of the Sovereign family and falls accordingly on the graph. Please remember that this is only an illustration. Engineering is actually separate from science, I'm just applying scientific concepts to an engineering concept.

BUT ABOVE ALL:

Starship designing is not automotive engineering. It's more akin to some combination between aerospace and maritime engineering. And aircraft and ships look the ways they do because they serve specific functions.

To use aircraft as an example. Aircraft exist in the forms they do because (A) they have to fulfill certain functions and requirements and (B) have to do so while dealing with aerodynamics. Aerodynamics, in tandem with functional requirements, largely dictates what the shape of a plane looks like. We know a lot about aerodynamics these days. Give my five years and I'll tell you everythng you ever wanted to know about it. But it is this knowledge, gained through what we have done before, that we are able to build F-22 Raptors. Imagine an F-22 Raptor with canvas wings and fuesalage and hand dropped bombs during WWI. It would be very non sequitor.

To carry the analogy: starships also have to deal with traveling through a medium, subspace. For the purposes of this discussion, we call the principles of moving through subspace hyperdynamics. Unfortunately, we know nothing about how hyperdynamics works nor any of the principles or equations that describe it. We can only guess and make sweeping inferences based upon what we have seen. But inferences are still valid. I won't type out my entire treatise on starship design here, but Dan should have it and hopefully will be posting it on Star Trek Minutaie soon. The rules that I've come up with though, can be applied to satisfactorily explain all starships we've seen, EXCEPT for the Akiraprize. And believe me when I say I've tried to find an explanation, I really have. But I cannot.

But in brief, there must be some logic and rationale behind starship design. Starfleet doesn't go retro. Starfleet isn't trying to get anybody to buy their starships. They are engineers and scientists dealing with a scientific environment and dealing with an engineering problem. There is a goal they need to accomplish, they must accomplish this goal under certain conditions, and they endeavor to do this by the best (read: simplest and most effective) means possible.

[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]