|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Feb 17, 2023 18:59:06 GMT
I hate the design of the Enterprise-F. Its ugly. Its too darn Ugly to be a successor to the Enterprise-E. I could see the fanmade Excalibur class being the Enterprise-F before the Odyssey Class.
Also unpopular opinion - The Enterprise-E should still be in service. Does Starfleet not build ships to last more than 15 years anymore? The TOS Enterprise was 40+ years old when she blew up in orbit of Genesis. The Aircraft carrier CVN-65 was in service for 60+ years. As ships get newer, do they not last as long. Does the Enterprise-J actually have a 2 Year life span?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Feb 17, 2023 20:32:57 GMT
I just never understood that to begin with. "We feel her day is over."
You gutted and rebuilt the ship TEN MONTHS AGO. (TMP is 74-- III is 82--) Do you REALLY have so many resources that you can waste them rebuilding a ship just to mothball it in a year?
Honestly, in Picard's time, there should still be Connie refits in active service. The original TNG tech manual has the Galaxy projected to have full refits ever 20 years with a service life of 100. And the ships would probably still be in use after that, even if not for front-line service.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Feb 18, 2023 1:18:06 GMT
I just never understood that to begin with. "We feel her day is over." You gutted and rebuilt the ship TEN MONTHS AGO. (TMP is 74-- III is 82--) Do you REALLY have so many resources that you can waste them rebuilding a ship just to mothball it in a year? Honestly, in Picard's time, there should still be Connie refits in active service. The original TNG tech manual has the Galaxy projected to have full refits ever 20 years with a service life of 100. And the ships would probably still be in use after that, even if not for front-line service. The International Space Station has been up for 20-odd years now, and is expected to be de-orbited by 2030 or so. And that thing is a cobbled-together collection of tin cans compared to Starfleet's luxury liners. Those things should be in space for a century or more; hell, it'd be MUCH easier to refit them than build new ones every few years. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Feb 18, 2023 2:53:52 GMT
I just never understood that to begin with. "We feel her day is over." You gutted and rebuilt the ship TEN MONTHS AGO. (TMP is 74-- III is 82--) Do you REALLY have so many resources that you can waste them rebuilding a ship just to mothball it in a year? Honestly, in Picard's time, there should still be Connie refits in active service. The original TNG tech manual has the Galaxy projected to have full refits ever 20 years with a service life of 100. And the ships would probably still be in use after that, even if not for front-line service. The International Space Station has been up for 20-odd years now, and is expected to be de-orbited by 2030 or so. And that thing is a cobbled-together collection of tin cans compared to Starfleet's luxury liners. Those things should be in space for a century or more; hell, it'd be MUCH easier to refit them than build new ones every few years. Just makes me wonder if the tech is so advanced by TNG that they can really basically afford to just scrap whatever and build new. If so, that's just boring. |
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Feb 18, 2023 5:28:11 GMT
The International Space Station has been up for 20-odd years now, and is expected to be de-orbited by 2030 or so. And that thing is a cobbled-together collection of tin cans compared to Starfleet's luxury liners. Those things should be in space for a century or more; hell, it'd be MUCH easier to refit them than build new ones every few years. Just makes me wonder if the tech is so advanced by TNG that they can really basically afford to just scrap whatever and build new. If so, that's just boring. Waste of time and resources, too; even if your resources are near-infinite, why squander them on ships when its not necessary? |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Feb 18, 2023 6:11:14 GMT
Just makes me wonder if the tech is so advanced by TNG that they can really basically afford to just scrap whatever and build new. If so, that's just boring. Waste of time and resources, too; even if your resources are near-infinite, why squander them on ships when its not necessary? Hell, those Galaxy-class ships alone could retrofit to outstanding science and research ships. They'd even be great as colony ships. I can see that design going well past the century mark. |
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Feb 19, 2023 5:26:51 GMT
Waste of time and resources, too; even if your resources are near-infinite, why squander them on ships when its not necessary? Hell, those Galaxy-class ships alone could retrofit to outstanding science and research ships. They'd even be great as colony ships. I can see that design going well past the century mark. Like the Excelsior-class, which was apparently run into the 24th century, as was the Oberth-class. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Feb 22, 2023 2:19:48 GMT
Spoiler::: Rumour is, they're retiring the F in Picard. WHAT THE F...  !!! ( Pun intended) Do we retire ships every 15 years now? |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Feb 22, 2023 4:29:56 GMT
Spoiler::: Rumour is, they're retiring the F in Picard. WHAT THE F... !!! ( Pun intended) Do we retire ships every 15 years now? Again, the Galaxy was supposed to be fully refit every 20 years and then retired at 100. The only reason to retire what I'm assuming is the flagship after 20 years is that it does something so incredible that it's, "We're stopping here. All the F can do is fail by comparison after this. I don't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Feb 23, 2023 18:18:06 GMT
Waste of time and resources, too; even if your resources are near-infinite, why squander them on ships when its not necessary? Hell, those Galaxy-class ships alone could retrofit to outstanding science and research ships. They'd even be great as colony ships. I can see that design going well past the century mark. In the technical manual (yes, I'm sorry, I possess it) it's actually confirmed that the Galaxy-class ships are built with the expectancy of an operational life of up to 100 years. They took 20 years to design, so that would make sense. It's never stated onscreen though, so I guess it isn't canon. ... I don't mind the Ent-F. It seems like more of a logical design evolution from the E than the E does from the D. The F, if I'm not mistaken, was designed by games designers for Star Trek Online (some of whom I met once). Their whole design credo seemed more conscious of Starfleet design history than their counterparts in the design departments over in the TV design department. Well, actually, the blame for some awful modern Starfleet designs really rests with the producers. Designers are employed to come up with ideas and possible design directions, but producers cohere all of those in terms of suitability for the story and what's shown on TV. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Feb 24, 2023 17:02:48 GMT
Hell, those Galaxy-class ships alone could retrofit to outstanding science and research ships. They'd even be great as colony ships. I can see that design going well past the century mark. In the technical manual (yes, I'm sorry, I possess it) it's actually confirmed that the Galaxy-class ships are built with the expectancy of an operational life of up to 100 years. They took 20 years to design, so that would make sense. It's never stated onscreen though, so I guess it isn't canon. ... I don't mind the Ent-F. It seems like more of a logical design evolution from the E than the E does from the D. The F, if I'm not mistaken, was designed by games designers for Star Trek Online (some of whom I met once). Their whole design credo seemed more conscious of Starfleet design history than their counterparts in the design departments over in the TV design department. Well, actually, the blame for some awful modern Starfleet designs really rests with the producers. Designers are employed to come up with ideas and possible design directions, but producers cohere all of those in terms of suitability for the story and what's shown on TV. I'm a big fan of the Enterprise-E. It feels more like a Starship than the D (But I also like the D, but in a different way) But if it weren't for Producers rejecting John Eaves' early designs, the Enterprise E would have ended up looking like a Stuffed Turkey. Also, IF you can figure out the stardate system in "Booby Trap" you can figure out what year the warp drive to the galaxy class was in development, which I think was from a decade or so before. Evidence throughout the series suggest they spent a couple of decades designing the galaxy class. Might explain why it took 20 years to have a successor the the Enterprise-C. |
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Mar 4, 2023 14:44:08 GMT
In the technical manual (yes, I'm sorry, I possess it) it's actually confirmed that the Galaxy-class ships are built with the expectancy of an operational life of up to 100 years. They took 20 years to design, so that would make sense. It's never stated onscreen though, so I guess it isn't canon. ... I don't mind the Ent-F. It seems like more of a logical design evolution from the E than the E does from the D. The F, if I'm not mistaken, was designed by games designers for Star Trek Online (some of whom I met once). Their whole design credo seemed more conscious of Starfleet design history than their counterparts in the design departments over in the TV design department. Well, actually, the blame for some awful modern Starfleet designs really rests with the producers. Designers are employed to come up with ideas and possible design directions, but producers cohere all of those in terms of suitability for the story and what's shown on TV. I'm a big fan of the Enterprise-E. It feels more like a Starship than the D (But I also like the D, but in a different way) But if it weren't for Producers rejecting John Eaves' early designs, the Enterprise E would have ended up looking like a Stuffed Turkey. Also, IF you can figure out the stardate system in "Booby Trap" you can figure out what year the warp drive to the galaxy class was in development, which I think was from a decade or so before. Evidence throughout the series suggest they spent a couple of decades designing the galaxy class. Might explain why it took 20 years to have a successor the the Enterprise-C. I think the Berman era was good at refining the looks of starships and keeping an overall design sensibility that give consistency to the Trek universe. With what it looked like before the Berman era. The Kurtzman era has mostly failed in that respect, or at least is always playing catch-up. I actually think that Star Trek Online did a much better job in maintaining a consistency of design with what had gone before. |
|
|
|
Post by The Founder on Mar 9, 2023 16:47:51 GMT
I originally felt the same way about the Odyssey-class, but it has kind of grown on me. I think I have more issues with the Titan-A. It really should be shoved back into the 23rd century where it belongs. Funny enough, I find the Shangri-La class to look better than the Neo-Constitution.
Regarding the short shelf life of starships, the out of universe reason is they simply want to create new ships each show. The old shows had strict budgetary restrictions which forced them to constantly reuse old models from the TOS era (namely the Excelsior-class and Miranda-class). I feel like because of that, they kind of "after the fact" explained that Starfleet ships last 100 + years. Which makes sense in a post-scarcity society.
It's the same issue with uniform changes every 1.2 years. haha. With the higher budget, they want to keep switching up the uniforms every dang season. It's really jarring.
I don't mind new classes being added (I really like that ships from STO are getting some love) but it's ridiculous that a ship's shelf life is less than 10 years now. It's really silly and they need to tone that down a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashleytinger on Mar 10, 2023 19:04:42 GMT
Part of the life expectancy of a starship is the universe you're dumping them into. When you're in the middle of a non-existence cold war with foreign powers that barely talk to you while they deal with their own issues, you can build a massive explorer ship with a 100 year expected life span.
Then war happens and you find out your big explorer ship is good at exploring, but while you've been exploring, the bad guys have been ramping up their weapons and poking through your defences. Now you need to overhaul your fleet and design philosophy. Things are going to creep up when you flip that on its head. Sometimes you'll get designs that are winners and work wonders for you. Sometimes you'll get designs that work great in the short term but just don't work with your refit options as new technology comes out.
Then you hit the drawing board hard again and spit out something new.
If we look at the Navy, we had a massive overhaul in ship design at the turn of the century that went rapid paced through WWII. There was some more when we went nuclear and massive runs in submarines, but for the most part the designs held up for a long while. Now, out of the cold war we're seeing the US toy with design work again and ship and plane designs are going this way and that. Some are sticking around, some are just too damned expensive and are overkill for the situation the world is in, etc.
There's a lot going on with Starfleet we really never get to see the inner workings of, because well it'd be boring for most people I'd imagine. There's a lot to consider there.
|
|
!!! ( Pun intended) Do we retire ships every 15 years now? 
I am so sorry...