SpaceShip design . . . . Old versus New

[gpdesigner]

Some would say that the designs of the newer ships in todays Sci-Fi are less than interesting, (not all . . . . but some). I myself would beg to differ, I think that more creativity and thought are going into todays designs than designs of old. The newer vessels are more intriquite and have way more detail that entice you to imagine more and expect more interms of sets, scenery, to the actors performances. Not that the older designs had any les creativity, however like anything else time breeds advancement.

I will admit that some designs of today are based on the originals from the past, But this is more to keep the audience grounded in a continuing series format. Surely the production designer could come up with new and original version of ships but this would take people awy from what they deem as familar. Beside without change and an introduction of new ideas in some way, you would just be rehashing the old, and how tired would that be . . .

Though one could just say that liking or disliking any particular design is a matter of preference would be a valid statement, . . . . which would end the debate. But this would just would be fostering stagnation.

So my question would be:
If you like the newer designs of today Why?

If you hate Newr designs of today . . . . Why?

There's the thread.
gp

I would have to say that I prefer older designes. The Original Enterprise, The Original Galactica, the Millenium Falcon and other ships of the past have a stronger draw on my emotions than the newer designs. The Gino Galactica looks like a dinky toy to me. Enterprise NX 01 looks like a reboot of the akira class starships. The Serenity, while part of a great show, is really ugly in my eyes. While CGI has allowed creators to unleash their imaginations, I feel the new types of spaceship designs have lost the undefineable quality that made ships from the 60s and 70s so great.

[ernie90125]

I think most people who grew up with older designs will prefer them over newer designs, because they a sentimentially attached to them. I would certainly take the Enterprise A over the NX anyday.

I think part of the arguement is indeed CGI vs modelmaking. CGI allows people to make anything their mind can visualise. Small think supports to huge heavy spaceship sections, without fear that the model will fall apart, and any colouring and texturing.

But modelmaking lead to lots of little details. Look how hard it is to CGI model the original Galactica.....but the new Galactica was always designed in that format. Personally I prefer the older ships is every example I can think of.

But this does not mean I nessesarily prefer the oldest ship. I prefer the Enterprise A over the original series Enterprise...same with the Klingon ships. I prefer the TNG Romulan Warbirds over the TOS Romulan Warbirds.

But the 90s/00s era ships have lost something.......the classics are the best.

[Gemini1999]

I wouldn't say that I prefer older designs to newer ones. There are a lot of new ship designs that I like and others I don't.

Two modern ship designs that never really grew on me are the Andromeda Ascendant from Andromeda and Moya from Farscape. It's not that they are CGI designs, just not interesting or practical ones. Yes, I know that an alien culture is probably responsible for either in the story, but current day human beings actually created them.

As for Trek, I liked the original Enterprise, I liked the refit version from TMP and the other films quite a bit and I even liked the Enterprise D enough to build a model of it and keep it on my desk at work for a number of years. I'm not all that keen on the Enterprise E, though. Yes, I know it's sleek and cool, just not as interesting to look at compared to the older designs. I even liked Voyager's compact sleek design, but when you apply it to a larger ship like the Enterprise, it just doesn't work for me.

When you go back to the late 60's and 70's, look at the "kitbash" ships that are all over the place. Starting with 2001 and Silent Running to Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica. Considering how those ships were put together, they are very striking and still hold up very well. I know in the case of Star Wars, the last 3 films didn't make me run to the hobby store looking for models of them.

Today's starships and fighters are very stylized and very cool, but just not as inspiring as those from days of yore...

Bryan

[Darrell Lawrence]

First, gonna move this to "All About Models"

Second, the question is pretty much aimed at me cuz I said I didn't like the new "Pegasus" design in a WIP thread.

The reason I don't like it, or the new "Galactica" design in addition to the new "Enterprise" design, is because they're trying to be "new and different" while taking design elements from something else, instead of trying to be totally unique. This makes them NOT "new and different" to me.

For that reason, I *do* like the Firefly design. And it's a "new" design of the 2K's

When I see something based off something else, I would rather see it as a part of that original's "family", ala the Ent-A being a part of the original E's family, and so on.

The new "Galactica" and new "Pegasus", along with the new "Enterprise", attempt to "rewrite" the history of those original ships.

[Darrell Lawrence]

Come to think of it... old model designs remind me of old car designs, and new models designs remind me of newer cars.

Let's take the Mustang for example.

The 60's version was one of the HOTTEST designs around. Then Ford redesigned it, and it totally sucked. It eventually didn't feel or look like a Mustang. Rather, it looked like any other new car design.

Admit it... you can spot an old Mustang on the road from quite a distance and recognize it for what it is. But a newer one? Blends in with all the other cars on the road.

It wasn't until the NEW Mustang Special that *truely* paid tribute to the original design that the Mustang became unique again.

The Dodge Challenger is now doing a similar thing. I recognized the NEW Challenger as just that when I saw a pick of it.

The "Pegasus", "Galactica" and "Enterprise" of today are like the Mustang remake- They just don't fit in, lend to tribute or feel unique.

All of this, of course, is just my worthless opinion

[gpdesigner]

I started this thread in order to find out why people liked or disliked the designs of "Star Ships" past and present. Although I cannot gripe against anyone's personal feelings for their preferences, I was hoping for a bit more technically generated responses. I can totally appriceate the "attachment" people have to a particular design of a vessel . . . I too am a fan of the old style "Constitution Class", however, this is not what I had in mind.

I am going to need specifics in this debate/conversation . . This sounds a lot like the conversations I use to have with my dad in the 70's about music . . . "Glenn Miller, now that was music . . the stuff you kids listen to these days is garbage"
This sort of response is not going to fly with me . . . . I'm Bias proof.

Ok let's deal with this one right away so it is out of the way. . .
The Columbia/Nova Class Battlestar is a good design no doubt but in doing a redesign I am sure they saw room for improvement. The original was very angular very square from the modeling point of view. The details on the vessel were very generic, squares, tubes, generic cutouts, greebles for the sake of greebles. The ship size was 610 meters long has 16 launch bays and has 2 engine drives.

The newer Ship is almost 2x the size as the original coming in at 1,371 meters. The size alone would dictate a change in details. The style is a bit more intricate sleeker, not as boxy The details of the ship are more defined, have purpose, Plating, smaller tubing, thrusters, gun batteries displaced through out the entire hull, armor plating . . . . lighting. the ship has 20 launch bays with 2 tubes per bay, which will enable it to put many more Vipers in space at a single shot than the older version, and it has 6 engine drives.

Originally Posted by Bijou88

I would have to say that I prefer older designes. The Original Enterprise, The Original Galactica, the Millenium Falcon and other ships of the past have a stronger draw on my emotions than the newer designs. The Gino Galactica looks like a dinky toy to me. Enterprise NX 01 looks like a reboot of the akira class starships. The Serenity, while part of a great show, is really ugly in my eyes. While CGI has allowed creators to unleash their imaginations, I feel the new types of spaceship designs have lost the undefineable quality that made ships from the 60s and 70s so great.

Again design and improvement . . .

The Constitution Class Enterprise is a lot smaller than it's newer versions coming in at 289 meters, heck . . it's smaller than U.S.S. Voyager. The Galaxy Class from TNG is 643 meters, can you image how clunky the Constitution Class would look at that size. The speed, Weaponry, and Shields of the Constitution Class are way inferior to newer versions.

Originally Posted by Bijou88

"Enterprise NX 01 looks like a reboot of the akira class starships. "

I don't see it, the NX Class at 225 meters, has engines mounted above the main hull the cel support structure is more like the Constitution II Class and the main hull is shapped more like the Constitution Class than the Hull shape of the Akira Class. if you look at the NX you will see it is more grittier and primal than the ships that come after it.

The Akira Class 406 meters has thinner Cels mounted below the main hull which is not shaped like the typical "Federation" saucer style, but more like an inverted scope.

I can see where you are saying it is a reboot because the way the tip of the hull is shaped with the inset section, but the other parts that resemble the Akira are typical of a Federation design. The super structure above and between the nes cels are common to a few classes, The Nebula Class, The Miranda Class, The Excelsior Class . . ect. And the way that the nes cels are connected to extension extruding from the main hull is common to the New Orleans Class, The Norway Class,

Originally Posted by Bijou88

While CGI has allowed creators to unleash their imaginations, I feel the new types of spaceship designs have lost the undefineable quality that made ships from the 60s and 70s so great.

In the Star Trek Universe this is not so . . . the ships always have kept a common thread. No matter what you can always tell a federation ship from any other type of vessel.

Originally Posted by Bijou88

The Serenity, while part of a great show, is really ugly in my eyes.

This is the point of it . . . I can't challenge or dispute this fact if you wind it up by saying in my eyes without offering any tech data to prove it, then the debate is over. you win.


I want proof . . . . I am totally open minded . . . show me.

Originally Posted by ernie90125

I think most people who grew up with older designs will prefer them over newer designs, because they a sentimentially attached to them. I would certainly take the Enterprise A over the NX anyday.

can't fault you on that . . . . . I like the A version myself . . . and chronologically . . the A version is an improvement on the NX

Originally Posted by ernie90125

But modelmaking lead to lots of little details. Look how hard it is to CGI model the original Galactica.....but the new Galactica was always designed in that format.

Ummmm I never tried the original Galactica but I can tell you the Nu Galactica is a MONSTER to build trust me on that one.

Originally Posted by ernie90125

But this does not mean I nessesarily prefer the oldest ship. I prefer the Enterprise A over the original series Enterprise...same with the Klingon ships. I prefer the TNG Romulan Warbirds over the TOS Romulan Warbirds.

But the 90s/00s era ships have lost something.......the classics are the best.

I know I dig those new Romulan Warbirds myself it just looked like so much more was going on on the ship than the TOS versions. The new Warbirds were very organic in nature glowing green smooth flowing in some areas and sharp cuts on the bow to resemble the beak of a bird . . . awesome stuff

Originally Posted by Warrior

The reason I don't like it, or the new "Galactica" design in addition to the new "Enterprise" design, is because they're trying to be "new and different" while taking design elements from something else, instead of trying to be totally unique. This makes them NOT "new and different" to me.

When I see something based off something else, I would rather see it as a part of that original's "family", ala the Ent-A being a part of the original E's family, and so on.

The new "Galactica" and new "Pegasus", along with the new "Enterprise", attempt to "rewrite" the history of those original ships.

I can't fault you for seeing that I wouldn't even try . . . .
What I think is that If they wanted to, They could have come up with totally different designs if that were the goal. In fact to say that they couldn't come up with something totally unique is to sell the model builders imaginations short. If they came up with a radically new design for the Enterprise, it really wouldn't be Star Trek anymore would it, same with BSG . . . .

The Mustang comparison is your exact conversation but in reverse. "It's only when the took elements from the original design did it become recognizable."

Warrior it is totally cool, . . . I have no leg to stand on if someone says they don't like a design because they feel, or it reminds them of . . . . this is a basic human right . . .

Me I want someone to show me why . . . like if you say that ( I read this somewhere) Militarily the original design of the Galactica was unsound because they designed the main part of the ships defenses ( hanger) extended from the main body of the ship.
Direct hits to any of the struts would possibly separate the hangers from the ship . . . .

Where as on the Nu Galactica the Hangers can be retracted for extra added support . . . . .
This is the type of rebuttal I am looking for . . . this is tangible pros and cons . . . . the other stuff is well . . . we know what it is.
gp

[Darrell Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Santee

Ok let's deal with this one right away so it is out of the way. . .
The Columbia/Nova Class Battlestar is a good design no doubt but in doing a redesign I am sure they saw room for improvement. The original was very angular very square from the modeling point of view. The details on the vessel were very generic, squares, tubes, generic cutouts, greebles for the sake of greebles. The ship size was 610 meters long has 16 launch bays and has 2 engine drives.

First, the class was NEVER given
Second, uh uh. It was NOT a case of "finding room for improvement". It was a case of "we don't want to use the original because we don't want ties to the original show like that".
Thirdly, the original was more realistic in it's design. The fastest way to build/add sections and parts is by having the LEAST difficult design to add to.
Fourthly, again, the size, like the class, was NEVER given

Now... I didn't add the quote piece about the retractables on the new design, but... can anyone say "USS Voyager-ish" design? In fact, both the new "G" and new "Pegasus" remind me way too much of Star Trek and NOT Battlestar Galactica

As for my Mustang analogy being the opposite, it's not. Re-read it all a bit closer

[ernie90125]

I don't know if this is what you're looking for. But I was watching a ST documentary and they described the reasons why the Warp Engines needed to be placed away from the ship. Some techie thing. But they broke that rule with the Defiant and Grissom(science ship destroyed in STIII) by building them in.

It seems to me odd that after the Grissom was destroyed by one shot to her engines, which destroyed the whole ship unlike when one of the Reliant's engines was hit....they would repeat this error with a modern ship like Defiant.

I don't think the Galactica would lose a hanger to a shot to a support....she has 3, with one built in to her underside.

Another one would be the roof of the Enterprise D's bridge....as we see in Generations the glass roof broke. Not too sure why the bridge was so easy to target in most starship designs. Yet the battle bridge is well and truly hidden.

The 1st Death Star features many blast doors....but not any on the route in to the central core ? This is how the rebels exploited this 'hole' to destroy the Death Star. And after the first one was destroyed, they increased this design error so a whole freightor could fit in !?! So whilst it is very dumb not to learn from mistakes, the first death was harder to destory.

Dunno if this was what you were looking for, but hope it helps......

[gpdesigner]

Originally Posted by Warrior

It was a case of "we don't want to use the original because we don't want ties to the original show like that".

no no . . . . staying away from that battle . . . . that one is pointless . . .
The task at hand is design . . stay with it please.

As far as I know, ( I am no expert on BSG ) there wasn't that much depth to the story, The Class Nova/Columbia . . . whatever, was the only style around it was 610 meters. Any improvement to a Vessel of Battle is Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Carry more Individual deployement capabilities . . . Structurally I think they achieved that.

Originally Posted by Warrior

The fastest way to build/add sections and parts is by having the LEAST difficult design to add to.

I don't know if this is directly possible, everything looks good on paper but once you actually start to BUILD things always come out not as planned, but you have to explain to me what was harder or more difficult to do.

Originally Posted by Warrior

Now... I didn't add the quote piece about the retractables on the new design, but... can anyone say "USS Voyager-ish" design?

I read this article a while back about the retractable hangers when I was starting to build my mesh, I forgot from whence it came but it stuck in my mind as a cool advancement in the design of the newer G. However I will give it to you and say that it is Voyager-ish, tho retractable structures on Flight Craft is not new . . the space shuttle has a retractable are that can be deployed from behind the baydoors and the F!$ has wings that retract in flight, the harrier has adjustable nozzels that control flight direction . . so this sort of stuff is not new. . . . good try tho'

Originally Posted by Warrior

In fact, both the new "G" and new "Pegasus" remind me way too much of Star Trek and NOT Battlestar Galactica

Sorry man . . you have to prove it . The ships are different sizes different shapes, different colors, the fuel is different even the mode of lightspeed isn't the same, there mission in space isn't the same.
***** that's a big 'ol blanket you through out there.*****

but if you tell me you don't like it for personal reasons . . . i will say fine.
anything less than that requires proof

Originally Posted by Warrior

As for my Mustang analogy being the opposite, it's not. Re-read it all a bit closer

Originally Posted by Warrior

It wasn't until the NEW Mustang Special that *truely* paid tribute to the original design that the Mustang became unique again.

sounds like it to me
maybe it's me . . . . i did a lot of substance abuse when I was younger . . . I definately waisted some brain cells

your still my Fav Warrior . . . .

gp

[Darrell Lawrence]

The reason I don't like it, or the new "Galactica" design in addition to the new "Enterprise" design, is because they're trying to be "new and different" while taking design elements from something else,

To explain- Mustang got away from Mustang, then used Mustang. nuGalactica used something else, not old Galactica. I also said nuGalactica reminded me of Trek. So that should tll you where that "something else" came from

[Darrell Lawrence]

As for os"G" ship size/class, that was fan specualtion. It was never ever mentioned in any eps.

[gpdesigner]

Originally Posted by ernie90125

I don't know if this is what you're looking for. But I was watching a ST documentary and they described the reasons why the Warp Engines needed to be placed away from the ship. Some techie thing. But they broke that rule with the Defiant and Grissom(science ship destroyed in STIII) by building them in.

I think it may have had something to do with the warp field that is being generated. I think that is is somewhat unstable to have an object in the midst of this field other than the nes cells themslves. Not sure about that but I remember something along this line.

Originally Posted by ernie90125

It seems to me odd that after the Grissom was destroyed by one shot to her engines, which destroyed the whole ship unlike when one of the Reliant's engines was hit....they would repeat this error with a modern ship like Defiant.

Trivia . . did you know that the Defiant was originally a Constitution Class ship.
But yeah the one they used on DS9 was a design flaw big time . . . .Militarily especially after losing the Grissom. Theoretically the Defiant from DS9 was suppose to be more powerful than most star fleet vessels in firepower speed and armor so they may have forgone the standard rule, however that is just my theory

Originally Posted by ernie90125

I don't think the Galactica would lose a hanger to a shot to a support....she has 3, with one built in to her underside.

Dunno if this was what you were looking for, but hope it helps......

I don't think the Galactica would drop a hanger if that were the case myself, I could see it if it were a concentrated attack, but I can see her fending off cylons before it got to that point.

gp

[gpdesigner]

Originally Posted by Warrior

To explain- Mustang got away from Mustang, then used Mustang. nuGalactica used something else, not old Galactica. I also said nuGalactica reminded me of Trek. So that should tll you where that "something else" came from

Of course they used concepts from the old galactica the ship is riddled with it, but tell me what stuff from Star Trek did they use? Don't say retractable . . I brought that in after the fact . . . . beside as I said this is not new technology. The Antenna on my car retracts.

As my dady once said everything has been done before, nothing is new . . . Galactica came about as a result of Star Wars . . Fighters being launch from a base ship and all that . . .
gp

[df0awg]

i like more the old one of bsg, but the new one has got more logical points in my opinion.

[Xenophanes]

The New ones, seems more "realistic", well the cylon ships at least.

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by ernie90125

I don't think the Galactica would lose a hanger to a shot to a support....she has 3, with one built in to her underside.

It would probably take either a direct hit from a mega-pulsar close in, or a collision to take out those pylons. Redundancy.

Originally Posted by ernie90125

The 1st Death Star features many blast doors....but not any on the route in to the central core ? This is how the rebels exploited this 'hole' to destroy the Death Star. And after the first one was destroyed, they increased this design error so a whole freightor could fit in !?! So whilst it is very dumb not to learn from mistakes, the first death was harder to destory.

I don't think it was so much an increase in the design flaw, so much as the fact that the DSII was not finished. No doubt such safety features were not fully installed yet.
Also, since no crew from DSI survived to tell exactly what happened, the builders might not know the exact cause of it's loss. After all, Vader was busy elsewhere.

[gpdesigner]

You know what was odd I thought when watching SW eps III was, at the end when Vadar finally dons the suit and stands beside the emperior, the 1st Death Star was being built, 19 years later when Luck finally destroys it, it was not yet finished.
If it took 20 years to build the first DS, Just how long did it take them to build the second DS? As we know DSII shows up in eps VI in roughly the same state as DSI, construction on the DSII had to begin roughly the same time as DSI . . . Hmmmm
gp

[ernie90125]

You're right, I hadn't realised how long it seemed to take to build it ? Hmmmm.......

I'm a little lost on your comments about DS2. DS2 was a very long way from being finished. I always thought DS2 was bigger than DS1, so one might say it would have taken longer to build.

And don't even get me started on the design flaw that allowed Luke to destroy DS1......being repeated and enlarged on DS2 so a whole Freightor could fit in it !!!!!!!!!!!!

[gpdesigner]

You're right, the DSII was 160km and DSI was 120km.
What I was saying iss that it was strange that it would have taken DSI almost 20 years to build. We saw it's conception in eps III, (stage 1). By the time frame of eps IV, 19 years later, DSI wasn't entirely completed . . . so it took 19 years and it wasn't done when Luke destroyed it. Yet . . . in the time frame from eps IV to eps VI . . was what 6 years maybe . . 4 years . . . we see DSII which appeared to be 75% complete.
My thinking is that maybe the construction of the 2 DS's began at the same time . .
You can't take 20 years to build one and 4 years to build an even larger version . .


But back to topic . . . .
and this is just my opinion, . . . I think the ship designs of today are a bit more advanced than the ships of yesteryear, Just because advancement dictates it. . . . "as you learn more you build better".
This is not a far out theory it is just normal. I know a bit more now about ship modeling, thanI did when I started bulding the Galactica on this forum. And when I get back to building it, . . . the techniques I am going to use will almost make the engine section an entirely different ship. This is normal . . .

But if you like the design of older ships for personal or nastalgic reasons, then that is what that is, and not because someone dropped the ball or is lacking in imagination.

[Nelzie]

Personally, some designs "speak" to me and others... just don't.

Serenity from Firefly, along with its story, "speaks" to me.

NX-01 Enterprise, with the original promise from that series, was very nifty. The series tarnished that quite a bit through its tossing out of the promise. That promise being that stuff wouldn't work as well as Kirk's Enterprise, that giant technology answers to challenges wouldn't be par for the course. I still love the ship design and what they showed in some of the firs season of episodes with that ship.

The new and old Galactica designs are both quite awesome, regardless of the issues with both versions of the show.

I like the new Mark II Vipers, from styling to onscreen performance characteristics, compared against the old Starhound Vipers.

I dislike ships along the lineage of Andromeda from the show of the same name. That includes the ship from Farscape as well as the Shadow ships from Babylon 5.

I disliked most of the ships from Babylon 5, although the human starfighters were rather nifty.

Anyway, I suppose I am a bit in the middle. I enjoy modern and not modern starship designs.

[Raptor]

Well, I personally like just about everything. Oh I quibble on certain details, such as the arrangement of the engines on SG-1's Prometheus, but by and large I like everything.

Enterprise NX-1 however I don't. It would fit better in a TNG/DS9 setting, not pre TOS. If I had designed it, it would have been a continuation of the Phoenix.

And I found the TOS Enterprise to be rather... tacky (I grew up with the TMP version)

Lexx: never seen, so can't comment. Same with Buck Rogers (the series)

NuBSG: Nothing from here at all. Did have some fun though during the first few eps when I spotted ships used in the original reused in the 'new' fleet!

Ship design is a very personal aspect, as they say 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' One man's work of art is another man's piece of junk.