StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Even though I voted on the Excelsior, I will admit the Connie refit is a nice looking ship. Very swan-like.
But the Excelsior class just has a meatier look to her. Like she can take more of a licking and keep on ticking.

I agree that I never particularly liked the Galaxy-class design. Way too top/front heavy. The saucer dwarfed the engineering hull and made it look clunky and underpowered. Sovereign was a much better take on the new flagship design.

Terralthra wrote:I agree that I never particularly liked the Galaxy-class design. Way too top/front heavy. The saucer dwarfed the engineering hull and made it look clunky and underpowered.

The short nacelles didn't help either; that always drove me crazy.

At least the Galaxy had a neck and the Primary Hull was at least vaguely circular. I absolutely positively fail to see what people see in the Sovereign. There's been uglier ships to be sure (at least one of them at least tentatively being an Enterprise thanks to ENT) but at least E-D maintained the classic Starfleet ship hull design principles. Yeah, she was top-heavy, and her constantly being pictured from angles that emphasized that didn't exactly help. But I'm taking her over a Sovereign any day.

JME2 wrote:

Terralthra wrote:I agree that I never particularly liked the Galaxy-class design. Way too top/front heavy. The saucer dwarfed the engineering hull and made it look clunky and underpowered.

The short nacelles didn't help either; that always drove me crazy.

They were originally going to be even shorter:

How exactly are those proportions similar to E-Nil? Even with the extension the Warp nacelles are noticeably shorter than the primary hull when with the original design they were noticeably longer.

Batman, I just posted the image to illustrate my remark that the original design called for them to be even shorter. There's no need to sperg out about fluff commentary in a promotional magazine.

If you didn't want people commenting on it maybe you shouldn't have posted that fluff commentary then.

The E-Nil had rather ample nacelles...if you'll pardon the Engineering parlance.

For that pun, we may need to order a tar-and-feathering reprisal.

And I think the lack of a clearly defined neck is what makes some people like the Sovereign so much. The Connie and other "clear neck" ships look fragile because of it, like you could snap the ship into two pieces very easily. The Sovereign looks more like one whole ship than two vessels attached by a tether hull.

Well yeah. Structurally Sovereign was trying to be different while at the same time, make some call backs to the Constitution refit design with the longer, swept back nacelles. I don't like Galaxy that much because of how it looks but something you have to keep in mind when criticizing the design is that it really is two ships you're talking about. Saucer separation with the Galaxy class was a big thing.

As I recall reading the original design for Sovereign was going to look *a lot* more like the Galaxy class. Enterprise J was also featured in some time traveling episode and I hope to god I can forget that shit sooner than later.

Steve wrote:And I think the lack of a clearly defined neck is what makes some people like the Sovereign so much. The Connie and other "clear neck" ships look fragile because of it, like you could snap the ship into two pieces very easily. The Sovereign looks more like one whole ship than two vessels attached by a tether hull.

That's a large part of why I like the Sovereign.

The thing I don't get is the 'Enteprise = Flagship' brainbug?

I mean the E-nil was never mentioned as being a Flagship, she was one of many sister Connies (which I'm guessing were the 'Generic Multi-role-arse-kicking-cruisers'..) then along comes the E-D which is a Flagship (understandable considering the fame Kirk brought to the name (and a nod to the 'Enterprise' shuttle).
Then Star Trek: Enterprise, and she's the flagship again (yes I know she's the first warp 5 starship and all but why did they have to name her 'Enterprise'? Why not something evocative of the inherent risks and dangers associated with early space travel like the 'Laika'? (first animal in orbit, if not the first in space).

Does anyone know where the 'Enterprise-must-be-Flagship' schtick came from; or is it basically 'Brand recognition' because everyone knows Kirk captained the Enterprise and that, therefore makes any successive Enterprise 'Awesome' by association?

It's not really a brainbug. Enterprise became truly famous in universe under the exploits of Kirk. Having a line of ships named after the original isn't surprising, real life navies do that all the time. Picard was the first to explicitly mention that Enterprise was the fleet flagship and that had a lot to do with the fact that it was a Galaxy class. The absolute state-of-the-art of Federation ship design.

Now that just always made me wonder why Enterprise didn't go everywhere with an escort or task force of smaller ships. /budget /drama

Oh, I get that the ship becomes the Fleet Flagship, later on and she is famous due to Kirk's exploits.
But why did Archer need to Captain an 'Enterprise'.

Out-Of-Universe, I know it's shuttle Naming convention.
Enterprise was the first shuttle, I get that. But In-Universe, I don't get why it had to be yet another 'Enterprise'. Why couldn't Archer Captain a Leonov or a Valentina? Both nice, proud names.

edaw1982 wrote:Oh, I get that the ship becomes the Fleet Flagship, later on and she is famous due to Kirk's exploits.
But why did Archer need to Captain an 'Enterprise'.

Out-Of-Universe, I know it's shuttle Naming convention.
Enterprise was the first shuttle, I get that. But In-Universe, I don't get why it had to be yet another 'Enterprise'. Why couldn't Archer Captain a Leonov or a Valentina? Both nice, proud names.

Well there was four other Enterprises (famous ones mind you, I don't count that sailing ship). The first carrier, the nuclear carrier, the shuttle, and some ST ship that I don't remember the class of. Of those only the ST one works if it was an explorer. If that was the case they would have used it's name for their newest explorer. If not...well I can't think of a genuine in-universe explanation. Though there are plenty of ones for outside ST.

edaw1982 wrote:Oh, I get that the ship becomes the Fleet Flagship, later on and she is famous due to Kirk's exploits.
But why did Archer need to Captain an 'Enterprise'.

Out-Of-Universe, I know it's shuttle Naming convention.
Enterprise was the first shuttle, I get that. But In-Universe, I don't get why it had to be yet another 'Enterprise'. Why couldn't Archer Captain a Leonov or a Valentina? Both nice, proud names.

He captained an Enterprise because that's what the writer's thought people expected. Because being Enterprise brings brand recognition. Because the writer's were idiots. Take your pick.

Maybe someone remembered E-E's visit and decided to name the ship after them.

Enigma wrote:Maybe someone remembered E-E's visit and decided to name the ship after them.

Now that would be hilarious. And I wouldn't put it past the proto-Feddies. That is ironically enough the explanation that makes the most sense from an in-universe standpoint. Assuming that Cochrane or whats-her-face actually told anyone about the Enterprise.

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:

Enigma wrote:Maybe someone remembered E-E's visit and decided to name the ship after them.

Now that would be hilarious. And I wouldn't put it past the proto-Feddies. That is ironically enough the explanation that makes the most sense from an in-universe standpoint. Assuming that Cochrane or whats-her-face actually told anyone about the Enterprise.

Or pushed the Warp 5 Project's forerunners to name the prototype ship Enterprise.

I've always thought the Sovereign was developed from the same style as the Excelsior which had a fairly hefty integrated neck compared to the Constellation class, any one else see what I'm thinking?

Also, when I think about it, I can't believe I forgot the D7/K'tinga.

Dear god I love that ship.

fordlltwm wrote:I've always thought the Sovereign was developed from the same style as the Excelsior which had a fairly hefty integrated neck compared to the Constellation class, any one else see what I'm thinking?

Yeah I've noticed that too. Personally the Sovereign looks more like an Excelsior successor to me than the Ambassador, which (somewhat naturally) looks like a proto-Galaxy. When you look at an Excelsior next to a Sovereign they have the same overall look (to me at least). Probably why I like the Sovereign, since the Excelsior is my favorite. And I'm going to assume you mean the Constitution class right? Since the Constellation was a saucer with four nacelles...no neck whatsoever.

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:Personally the Sovereign looks more like an Excelsior successor to me than the Ambassador, which (somewhat naturally) looks like a proto-Galaxy.

Yeah. The Ambassador-class is not one of my favorites, but I always liked how the design served as a bridge between the Excelsior-class and the Galaxy-class.

JME2 wrote:

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:Personally the Sovereign looks more like an Excelsior successor to me than the Ambassador, which (somewhat naturally) looks like a proto-Galaxy.

Yeah. The Ambassador-class is not one of my favorites, but I always liked how the design served as a bridge between the Excelsior-class and the Galaxy-class.

That's the thing though...it doesn't look like an Excelsior at all. I could understand it being the bridge design if it resembled the older one. But all it looks like is a primitive Galaxy. At least that's my opinion on it.