It feels like this video is a concatenation of one-minute TH-cam shorts, each dedicated to a single ship. That would explain the repetitive script. If you review the channel's main page, it switched from dinosaurs to SF spacecraft five months ago. I'm sensing they're the video equivalent to clickbait "listicles" from the pre-TH-cam era.
As far as I know when Gene Roddenberry designed the first Enterprise he thought of something that would look great but would also be practical: an even number of Nacelles (a rule which the alternate timeline Enterprise-D broke) creating the warp bubble, the saucer section with crew quarters and the bridge and the engineering section with the deflector dish in the front to push away dangerous objects With that in mind, what is the reason for detached parts of the ship? What ar the benefits of it? You need a force field or tractor beam or something similar to hold it close to the main hull, and in the case of a power outage have fun collecting your ship parts and reassemble them when you get the power back on A design doesn't have to be close realism like those RDA ships from the avatar movies but at least some thought behind it. Just because something is possible doesn't always mean it's a good idea
Some factions of mine have their parts linked through quantum entanglement. But the detatched hull is only generally used *for* cheap ships, though. Mass produced high-volume ship to minimize material usage. But they end up having a lot less of the wierd curviness. They're *basically* just whatever module you want-cargo, transport, etcetra-with engine nacelles (Or one) (Torodial lorenz engines) added on-which contain all the equipment except for a small generator in the main hull.
@@AenVegraparts linked through quantum entanglement would not be linked in that way. Motion is not a state of matter which is how that theory works. I swear to God people need to stop just taking scientific words that SOUND cool and slap them on things that don't work. Now, it could be used to transfer POWER from one location to another as being charged is a state of matter, heat dissipation or data transfer as those are states of matter, but motion is not a state of matter. And then let's also just take into account if that was how that worked. Those 2 objects are different shapes, so turning would be those objects PIVOTING on the parts that are quantum entangled. So turning left would cause your nacelle to crash into your saucer. Turning up would cause your ship to be going through space with the nacelles and saucer both turned at the same angle. The theory itself disproves that the tech could EVER work like you idiots think even if we accept your premise. Not to mention a TINY fraction of a millisecond variation in any part of your ship dropping out of warp and your literally ending up weeks of sublight impulse power away from the other parts of your ship stranding you in deep space with no means of interstellar propulsion. Please come up with theories that would at least work if we accept the premise they are based on.
@@dillionedmonds5736 No need to be such a stuck up little asshole to the guy, he writes sci fi he got a theory wrong big deal, scifi does = fiction. Plus would it hurt to have said, you have misunderstood the theory of quantum entanglement and said this is how it works in the real world. But nope, you just had to go on out there and be the asshole. Was it needed to call them a idiot? I am sure that attitude does you great on reddit.
There is no declared reason WHY the technology should take that direction. Given how war torn and "wild west" the galaxy became in the wake of the Federation's Fall, Ships with floating sections, something too extravagant, too delicate, too needlessly complex (for what are really military ships), just would not happen. For civilizations that have persisted for MANY millennia with uninterrupted periods of peace and innovation, this may be possible. But not one clinging to existence in and even less friendly neighborhood than in the 24th Century.
@@theonlyjacknicole perfect answer I would have figured the transporters would have made it unrealistic but some people can never be happy At one point everything was novel and new; change isn’t always easy or seamless. I work in a field that is an Innovator and i guess I have a unique persepctive on change and newness
The reason is the federation is a stitched together organization with what ever ships it could get, post burn. They aren't flushed with resources and members like they used to be.
They "stole" many things from other movies or series like jupiter ascending or dr. who. The ship design with flying parts like the warp nacelles, rooms inside bigger than outside etc
I feel like the floating necells are really pushing it for believability, also not very pleasing to the eye. The upgraded voyager with the future shielding seemed like an exciting evolution of star fleet, I recommend going with that direction
They probably did it to make them look cool. A possible Canon explanation I prefer, is that those sections are actually there but displaced in subspace either for shielding purposes or for scanning technology reasons. It's also why the Nacelles are not connected, they are just through subspace.
@@79visual I'd prefer to think that the hollowed out space is for a modular section to be placed inside. Then the ship can take on new profiles and different assignments. Otherwise it's just trying to be cool without considering function as part of it's form. Transporting everywhere just because they can is a daft idea as seen in STD when a perfectly good set of legs to move around are adequate one minute... And then they transport the next because the writing staff can't write a scene transition. The Discovery itself probably has the least amount of screen time of all ships because they don't do flyby transitions from one character scene to another.
The only way these detached strcutres make the sligthest sense would be if they are all slices of a higher dimensional structure. If these ships are actually build in multiple dimensions and so the various parts are actually part of a seamless whole you just normally can't see.
Or they exist is some sort of phased space or in subspace itself. Can't see why they have them detached when they have programmable matter that can alter it's structure easy.
@@thanqualthehighseer As much as I remember they merge back together when they need to go in warp speed. Detachment is just a way for safety and security.
Star Trek used to have the best looking ships with practical and grounded type design. Even that it was Sci-Fi it still felt like it could exist in the real world. The "new" Star Trek has ruined the sleek and elegant designs of some of the best looking ships within the Sci-Fi scene. From the Iconic Enterprise Refit design, the Excelsior and the Sovereign Class ties together a design that still stands the test of time. The new ships just look like something I drew up when I was in middle school without any soul or thought put into it.
Come on dude, 700 years between tng and discovery thsts a long time and for the time between these two eras the fact they kept it as close as they did I think is a tribute to original designs
@@Peaceforall20111 Kurtzman didnt even GET or evemn understood the emaning of Star Trek and designv of Star Trek, he didnt even get anyonme who had ANY knowledge in Star trek to make Discovery. He hired a whole buncha people who knew jack SHIT about Star Trek when Discovery was first aired.
Because in the 30th+ century we’re still using 23rd-24th century design language with a fleet that spreads across hundreds of species? It would Make zero sense that it wouldn’t evolve over time.
I agree that the design doesn’t make a lot of sense, sure it might look futuristic, but it’s not very practical, plus it looks more alien than star fleet, I’m assuming that it is using some kind of tractor beam technology, but what happens if the ship looses power in that area, how is it then going to be functional, there is a reason why the engines are attached to the main ship, and not just floating separately from it.
As a sci-fi writer, there's a race that uses detatched 'drive sections'. The drive sections are more like slightly more permanent tugboats, turning a modular habitation module into a spaceship-having entirely engineering sections/systems/FTL/sheilds/etc, except for one Primary Control Chamber. The main control comes from the hab module it's using. They also have monohull designs-which are used for High-Performance use. This is less material efficient and less versatile... however, it is higher efficiency for things such as, i dunno, *military use* and things of that nature.
What happens to the detached parts when the power goes out. And the power goes out often in the trek universe. The power that runs the fields holding the detached parts in place goes out, what then?
A clever writer/world-builder/science advisor would do this: When the power goes out and all the back-ups fail too, not everything immediately ceases to work. Why not? Well, because the systems are still all "charged up". They are able to adequately function for several more hours, if not even days in some instances, even after the main power source has been completely cut off. Just imagine it working like your phone, in a way. You re-charge it and then unplug it (meaning that you're "cutting off" its power source), but the device nonetheless keeps on working for an entire day.... or somewhat less.... or somewhat longer . . . . At least this is how it should work. The thing is that many writers would likely hate this, like they've, for example, despised the shows' Replicators and Transporters for decades, because it is prone to kill a LOT of means for potential dramatic situations.
Also the power going out was usually due to people messing about with experimental tech or unknown space. on whatever was called enterprise at the time. Maybe they found a captain who forced engineering to stick to the manual and didn't take a lone ship into strange places
"Captain, that last hit took out the power on decks six through 9!" "The nacelles?" "They're about 6000km away by now..." "Okay guess we're done, signal our surrender."
The only sensible reason for the floating parts is for better modularity. Meaning, you could swap out parts of a vessel with ease, or you could separate a vessel depending upon the mission parameters. Personally, I would have these vessels still be one, connected ship just for aesthetics reason. Regardless of my criticism, there are a few gems. My personal favorite is the USS Credence, USS Annan, USS Thant and USS Armstrong. Interesting designs, but, again, I wish that the parts of some of these ships were connected to their respective hulls.
These designs are catching up with modern concepts in science fiction whereas Star Trek has been adherent to 60s and 70s design for decades. I’m a fan. The tribute to classic Trek design is there. The 32nd century technology is imagined here as allowing designers to bring concept art into the physical world. The modules held in place by fields and the primary shapes are reminiscent of Iain M Banks Culture universe.
The Alcubierre-class starship has no warp nacelles what-so-ever. Instead it uses a temporal control device that funnels and controls the flow of chronons. As speed is distance over time, by altering the flow of chronons (time particles), the time necessary to travel a particular distance can be modified. Thus, traveling a certain distance would take exactly as much time as you desire. 10 lightyears would take only as long as you want it to take versus some small fraction of a year. This is up to and including 0 time at all. The Alcubierre-class can also be configured in any number of ways as it no longer requires accounting for inertia. The Alcubierre, the ship for which the class is named, is shaped like cigar. It is cylindrical along its central axis and rounded at both ends. It does not have obvious torpedo tubes or phaser banks. The Alcubierre has transphasic transporters which operate slightly out of phase with reality. This allows them to bypass shields of nearly any configuration. In order to maximize efficiency, the Alcubierre has a decentralized command deck with command areas near each major system and function. This design was borrowed from the Borg and has proven important to the Alcubierre's record of never being damaged in battle beyond reason. Primary weapons on the Alcubierre consist of traditional phasers banks routed through the transphasic transporters. This puts the weapons fire directly on the target area. Secondary weapons are transphasic photon torpedos and transphasic quantum torpedos. Utilizing the transphasic transporters, the phasers beams and torpedos are directly placed on and in, respectively, the target of attack. This allows weapons fire to completely circumvent nearly any shielding technology. Even adaptability such as the Borg have is rendered nearly useless. Boarding parties can also be placed directly on board a target ship or station. Transphasic shielding also negates the need for a deflector array which opens up more space inside the ship for other functions. AS the USS Alcubierre can manipulate time particles, it has a sort of timeless quality to it. Many observers have stated that upon seeing the Alcubierre, they find themselves calmed and comforted by its form. No one has yet to figure out what specifically it is about the Alcubierre that makes it so satisfying.
StarTrek was a great science fiction story. These ships come from a perversion of Startrek that deliberately ignores all the rules, tropes, intent and spirit of its creators (as almost all modern re-imaginings do).
Actually, in the ST universe, dilithium was inert to antimatter when its lattice structure was saturated with the EM field in the M/AM reaction chamber. A tech that would make it reactive in spite of the field would destroy the reactor.
I don't get all the hate against these designs. I actually like the super futuristic and out of this world designs on these. Its like people nowadays don't like change and want to only have the things they liked when they were young or something.
There was also a reason why the Warp Nacelles were so exposed in the past, as they emitted Radiation that could not be easily compensated, which is why they were placed on pylons far away from the hull, which, however, brought with it a major Problem, they represented a tempting Target for any Attacker, as simply destroying or even JUST damaging the Warp Nacelles could render a ship incapable of Warp! A Problem that seemed to be solved with the release of the Defiant-Class, so instead of shoving this important piece of Equipment in the Enemy's Face, Warp Nacelles should actually have disappeared completely into the Hull!
Sorry but I don't understand the "iconic" part. These were just a random designs that showed up in discovery (a very bad treck compared to the old ones) and have to bacground of history in start trek lore, they don't look good either.
Ultra future Federation starship design might not even need a warp nacelles. Nobody ever thought of that? It's like giving modern Battlecruisers triple cannon turrets.
@joeldelica8706 Warp nacelles has been considered as mini types due to advancing Warp core and secondary transmitter, moreover, battlecruisers consoles requires connon, phaser, laser beam, and torpedo, as main weaponary devices to heavy vessel carrier networks.
@@linz8291 Ah, i see. Still, at some point in the future. The warp nacelles will be abandoned for a more advance system. And the saucer hull, engineering hull and warp nacelles will either change or completely disappear. Michael Okuda talked briefly about that in the old USS Enterprise D Technical Manual.
I always imagined future Star Trek Ships like the USS Relativity which didn't have visible nacelles anymore and the design was almost organic. I admit I'm sad we didn't see something in that direction or the 31st Century Ships from Star Trek Online
A few thoughts... 1)I just can't keep wondering where the Angelou Class ship has its warp nacelles. 2) I can imagine the 32nd Century Enterprise belonging to the Constitution/ Kirk Class. 3) The U.S.S Credence has six nacelles? Does that mean it has 3 warp cores? 4) The U.S.S Nog and U.S.S Jubayr are the most alien-looking Federation ships. 5) Most of them are gigantic in size dwarfing the Galaxy Class quite easily. 6) Never thought the Starfleet Headquarters was actually a starship able to convert to a space station. Cool! Plus, you forgot the U.S.S. Andares.
1. Probably underneath it like the Mayflower or Miranda so we cant see them from that camera angle 2. Yes 3. The Constellation had four nacelles and one warp core, so why would that be needed 4. YES! I love that federation ships are actually being designed by people who aren't humans 5. Yup 6. That reveal was one of the coolest scenes of the show.
These designs do not excite me. The detached warp nacelles didn't make sense during an attack they can be independently targeted. Then there's one ship with no neck not attached to the body at all. Not feeling the designs at all. 😕
They could be independently targeted even if they were attached. Targeting subsections of a ship has been a thing since TNG. I think the lack of VERY THIN neck and pylons means there's less vulnerable things for the enemy to shoot.
im with you on that, you can tell these are federation ships, but evolved. it makes sense that they look a bit alien to us because its over a thousand years into the future. For example, to the vikings a thousand years ago, our ships now might look really alien to them, why can't it be the same for us, but in the future.
Why does the uss credence have 6 nacelles? Surely after u add to many it becomes redundant bcus even the voyager has 2 nacelles and goes like 9.99 warp no?
Why the detached nacelles? They wouldn't function at all. The entire quantum entanglement bs that people try to use to claim pushing 1 atom entangled with another atom would push both is so incredibly false that its incredible ANYONE would believe it. That theory states that quantum entanglement makes both atoms share a state, a state is not motion. So moving one wouldn't have ANY effect on another. It would mean that if you heat 1 of them up the other would be heated as that is a change in state, or if you damage 1, the other would recieve the same damage, or you could transfer power that way as electrifying one would electrify the other, but drawing power from either would cause the power to drop in both. The only way detached warp nacelles would POSSIBLY work would be tractor beam tech, but that would also create a massive structural problem with sheering forces and navigation as the nacelles would rotate at a different speed than the rest of the ship. Just please stop with this junk fraudulent science crap...
Matt Jeffries' core concept for the Enterprise was something that you couldn't build out of modern materials. The nacelles are intentionally spindly for that reason. He probably would have done exactly this had he been able to.
From what I recall from the one time I watched it - they crystals that’s used for Slipstream drive are extremely rare , 🤷🏼♂️ ( discovery writers ) even though in the 24th/25th century ~2380-2415 ( including Star Trek online all ships have a slipstream burst drive for 30 minutes (150 LY) with a cooldown of 12 hours ) up to maximum 2 hours (600 lightyears ) cooldown of 2-3 days .
@@lasarith2 Star Trek Online (STO) is a mere 'Beta Canon', which basically means "not a canon". A definition of Star Trek IP's Beta Canon is, "all officially licensed NON-canonical works". So at the end of the day, STO does not matter at all. Otherwise, the thing about the "crystals" being "rare" does not come from "discovery writers", as you've stated above. In-universe, Slipstream Drive is being regulated mostly (but not exclusively) by Benamite crystals which are the best known means for this kind of a job, are naturally occurring, but unfortunately very rare. Even rarer than Dilithium. On top of that, Benamite is extremely difficult to synthesize (Dilithium cannot be synthesized nor replicated at all); in the late 24th century, the UFP's available technology needed north of one year to synthesize one crystal thereof. All of this was established on ST: VOY in the late 1990s where the given Drive was first introduced. This only shows that DIS writers do know and do follow ST's Alpha Canon and continuity. Well, at least sometimes.
@@subraxas quote from Trekyards when asked , - Booker states that the ( crystals) are extremely rare and he can’t get any - as to why he isn’t using them for slipstream drive , or any other starship for that matter Series 3 discovery, also they are using a form of slipstream in Prodigy with the Protowarp drive and the Voyager A is equipped with a basic form of it , - so we’re both right and wrong .
I like some and don't like others. I appreciate what ST: DSC was trying to do. There are characters I really liked such as: Suru, Lorka, Reno, Detmer, Dr. Culber, Georgiou, their version of Spock & Pike etc., etc. And for all of you who didn't like the show remember the "it doesn't feel like Star Trek" was also said about ST: TNG first three seasons before some people came around. I liked ST: DSC because it pushed ST further and no matter what some fans say, it gave us ST: SNW. And for those of you who were around, by the end of ST: ENT people were tired of Star Trek. I know the show had it's fans (I also liked it), it's ratings were way down and the studio could not save it. I'm happy to see any ST because like Leonard Nimoy once said "Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say. Where does ST want to take me now". Love it! Take care.
Finally someone in the comment section who doesnt complain about how "this is what happens when you let DEI hires design your starships", thank you very much good sir
an "iconic future starships" Video which doesn't have any of the ships from the pre NU era? where is the relativity, the time capsule from Enterprise and the other actually iconic ships?
I realy dont like all the cutouts, floating segments and that starfleet seems to have no consistent designelements... some ships looks okay but most don't look like star fleet vessels
I personally don't consider Star Dreck: STD canon...It was DemoNUT Dreck created by persons who didn't know jack about ST! Same type of persons that Ruined SW, Dr.Who, LOTRs, etc...Most of these cut and paste ships had very little to do with the iconic ST TOS, TMP, TWOK, UDC, or the TNG era....
@@GAR_news_network@ "Star Trek in name ONLY, and written/produced by people who don't understand Trek, or care... Reduced to something palatable to Gen Z /Gen x types with TDS on the brain 🧠...."
These star ship doesn't feel like star ship at all. The enterprise J was a cool design holding try to federation fundamentals. these ship design is some one who put it in a AI generator and pooped it out. Detached parts of the ships makes no sense, they even said that some ships has programable matter, holographic and other crap that makes it sound "advance" but space is dangerous, plenty of anomalies that can disrupt the ship. Imagine walking in the corridor suddenly the programable matter/ holographic walls disappear or you just lost your nacelles xD And if you check the Kelvin time line, their ships are so mushy (basically made by apple) I dont wanna live on those type of ships. Btw in the discovery turbolift scene which is same size as a borg cube... imagine how big it is in those star ships xD
I never was the biggest fan of the Star Trek aesthetic to begin with, I don't much like the super sleek and curved aesthetics you get in Star Trek or Mass Effect and prefer the more rough and rugged style you'd see in Star Wars, Babylon 5, Halo, Homeworld... I already had a major issue with the JJ Abrams movies where they tuned the sleek and curvy style up a notch, I dislike the aesthetic of those movies... And this is just the movies turned up to 11 I hate it. I really hate it. XD Definitely not my idea for "cool looking spaceships"
หลายเดือนก่อน +1
I just do not understand the overboard architecture of these vessels.. In a vacuum aerodynamics is irrelevant and compactness is king.. Colony ships would want to maximize cargo volume so a large spherical hull with 4 warp nacelles and 2 warp reactors for redundancy would seem the most utilitarian shape.. Even a Borg cube seems like a more plausible design over these depictions..
The same applies to every other ship in star trek history except the borg sphere.
หลายเดือนก่อน
@@liamscienceguy8153 I read somewhere that the Enterprise J saucer section is supposed to be 2 miles wide?. This would increase the strain on internal logistics by adding unnecessary miles of power infrastructure let alone traveling from one area to another by thousands of people all the time.. A 1/2 mile diameter sphere would be the same volume and far more practical, but this was lost in the sauce of fantasy.. If someone argues that they want to keep parts of the ship away from passengers and crew berths then why would impulse engines and weapons be a part of the saucer sections on all the Starfleet ships?? Should we worry that common sense is even worse in the future??
Franchise Killer Jar Jar Abrams and Klutzman don't understand a thing about true Star Trek. But if the abominations that they made, didn't have the name Star Trek in it, they would have collapsed very quickly.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Take a shot every time they mention the discovery being displaced in time.
or that a ship appeared in Discovery, season three.
It feels like this video is a concatenation of one-minute TH-cam shorts, each dedicated to a single ship. That would explain the repetitive script. If you review the channel's main page, it switched from dinosaurs to SF spacecraft five months ago. I'm sensing they're the video equivalent to clickbait "listicles" from the pre-TH-cam era.
@@phillipthorne8363 Partially true, It is just TH-cam AI BullSh!t.
As far as I know when Gene Roddenberry designed the first Enterprise he thought of something that would look great but would also be practical: an even number of Nacelles (a rule which the alternate timeline Enterprise-D broke) creating the warp bubble, the saucer section with crew quarters and the bridge and the engineering section with the deflector dish in the front to push away dangerous objects
With that in mind, what is the reason for detached parts of the ship? What ar the benefits of it?
You need a force field or tractor beam or something similar to hold it close to the main hull, and in the case of a power outage have fun collecting your ship parts and reassemble them when you get the power back on
A design doesn't have to be close realism like those RDA ships from the avatar movies but at least some thought behind it. Just because something is possible doesn't always mean it's a good idea
Some factions of mine have their parts linked through quantum entanglement.
But the detatched hull is only generally used *for* cheap ships, though. Mass produced high-volume ship to minimize material usage. But they end up having a lot less of the wierd curviness. They're *basically* just whatever module you want-cargo, transport, etcetra-with engine nacelles (Or one) (Torodial lorenz engines) added on-which contain all the equipment except for a small generator in the main hull.
@@AenVegraparts linked through quantum entanglement would not be linked in that way. Motion is not a state of matter which is how that theory works. I swear to God people need to stop just taking scientific words that SOUND cool and slap them on things that don't work.
Now, it could be used to transfer POWER from one location to another as being charged is a state of matter, heat dissipation or data transfer as those are states of matter, but motion is not a state of matter.
And then let's also just take into account if that was how that worked. Those 2 objects are different shapes, so turning would be those objects PIVOTING on the parts that are quantum entangled. So turning left would cause your nacelle to crash into your saucer. Turning up would cause your ship to be going through space with the nacelles and saucer both turned at the same angle. The theory itself disproves that the tech could EVER work like you idiots think even if we accept your premise. Not to mention a TINY fraction of a millisecond variation in any part of your ship dropping out of warp and your literally ending up weeks of sublight impulse power away from the other parts of your ship stranding you in deep space with no means of interstellar propulsion.
Please come up with theories that would at least work if we accept the premise they are based on.
@@dillionedmonds5736 No need to be such a stuck up little asshole to the guy, he writes sci fi he got a theory wrong big deal, scifi does = fiction. Plus would it hurt to have said, you have misunderstood the theory of quantum entanglement and said this is how it works in the real world. But nope, you just had to go on out there and be the asshole. Was it needed to call them a idiot? I am sure that attitude does you great on reddit.
The floating necells as a new "normal" is really 5 steps gone too far.
stupid
that's not the only thing that went 5 steps too far.
"this imaginary future doesn't fit my imaginary future"
It’s for influencers looking to flex, like the girls who refused life jackets because the would ruin selfies. Guess what happened?
There is no declared reason WHY the technology should take that direction. Given how war torn and "wild west" the galaxy became in the wake of the Federation's Fall, Ships with floating sections, something too extravagant, too delicate, too needlessly complex (for what are really military ships), just would not happen. For civilizations that have persisted for MANY millennia with uninterrupted periods of peace and innovation, this may be possible. But not one clinging to existence in and even less friendly neighborhood than in the 24th Century.
The detached ships would only make sense if they were modular and break off into smaller ships which had their own power sources/weapons.
I see a couple of house slippers and 3 specialized toilet seats.
You haven't seen kriptonian fleet yet
And you add a pizza cutter (the discovery) to the mix you got yourself a crappy fleet
@@OutPost_NerdThe cushy earth-themed one does fit...
...after a trip to Taco Bell and you get "the burn".
@@jimjam51075 HAHAHAHA. You win the internet today Jim
Yeezy for Cheesy
All these ships would look better if they didn't employ the floating nacelle/ hull design. Just add bits that connect the shjp together.
@@deez8993 So they look "realistic"?
It's science fiction! 🙃
@@theonlyjacknicole perfect answer
I would have figured the transporters would have made it unrealistic but some people can never be happy
At one point everything was novel and new; change isn’t always easy or seamless.
I work in a field that is an Innovator and i guess I have a unique persepctive on change and newness
Those are the dumbest starships I have ever seen. How to people go back and forth between the non-attached parts?
@@CSW652 maybe if u listen to how they explained it u would get it
Let me guess, u were the kid who was never satisfied
@@Peaceforall20111 Whatever, I stand by what I said. Stupid and unrealistic looking ships. None of them look Starfleet to me.
Boy can you tell whoever designed these didn't give a crap about star trek, kinda like everyone involved in discovery
It looks more like Forerunner tech than Starfleet.
I still can't understand why every trek fans want star trek to be still 80s show forever
discovery is not canon.
That is all.
@@carlh-thehermitwithwi-fi679 All of them are ugly as shit with the warp thingys detached , so stupid as shit, UGLY ships right ??
@@carlh-thehermitwithwi-fi679 yeah it is, die mad about it
the post modern star fleet. Boy these ships have no rime or reason
Agreed.
no rhyme either
The reason is the federation is a stitched together organization with what ever ships it could get, post burn. They aren't flushed with resources and members like they used to be.
Just like STD in general.
A reason? The federation have many different species members with various biology, yet all ship is human-cenetric
why does the USS Annan look like a crappy ripoff of the Ori battle cruisers from stargate?
@@tanichiro It truly is, without the white orb in the middle.
Because it is.
I live in Annan SW Scotland. Why name a Star ship after a small market town?.
@@JamesGlass-b1l
I'd believe that the ship was rather named after Kofi Annan.
They "stole" many things from other movies or series like jupiter ascending or dr. who. The ship design with flying parts like the warp nacelles, rooms inside bigger than outside etc
I feel like the floating necells are really pushing it for believability, also not very pleasing to the eye. The upgraded voyager with the future shielding seemed like an exciting evolution of star fleet, I recommend going with that direction
What's even more unbelievable is the explanation that they are modular and can be changed, yet every class has it's own custom detached naucelle.
@@kennethgreen79 thats not even accurate lol, we see the Merian class nacelles on like three different ships
The amount of hollowed out space in these ships makes no sense. How do you get from one part of the ship to another quickly and efficiently?
They probably did it to make them look cool. A possible Canon explanation I prefer, is that those sections are actually there but displaced in subspace either for shielding purposes or for scanning technology reasons. It's also why the Nacelles are not connected, they are just through subspace.
@@79visual Sight to sight transporters became everyday
@JeremyBolanos site to site*
Good try though
Aren't they use personal transporter?
@@79visual I'd prefer to think that the hollowed out space is for a modular section to be placed inside. Then the ship can take on new profiles and different assignments. Otherwise it's just trying to be cool without considering function as part of it's form.
Transporting everywhere just because they can is a daft idea as seen in STD when a perfectly good set of legs to move around are adequate one minute... And then they transport the next because the writing staff can't write a scene transition. The Discovery itself probably has the least amount of screen time of all ships because they don't do flyby transitions from one character scene to another.
The only way these detached strcutres make the sligthest sense would be if they are all slices of a higher dimensional structure. If these ships are actually build in multiple dimensions and so the various parts are actually part of a seamless whole you just normally can't see.
🤔 That would be awesome! 👏🏽
Or they exist is some sort of phased space or in subspace itself. Can't see why they have them detached when they have programmable matter that can alter it's structure easy.
@@thanqualthehighseer As much as I remember they merge back together when they need to go in warp speed. Detachment is just a way for safety and security.
@@ercanunsalerturk6138 How is that safe or secure in any way?! That seems like it would be LESS secure and LESS safe.
@@protoborg easy warp nacelle detachment in the case of a possible explosion, etc
SNW Enterprise is absolutely gorgeous and what it would look like if tech now was in 60's.
Star Trek used to have the best looking ships with practical and grounded type design. Even that it was Sci-Fi it still felt like it could exist in the real world. The "new" Star Trek has ruined the sleek and elegant designs of some of the best looking ships within the Sci-Fi scene. From the Iconic Enterprise Refit design, the Excelsior and the Sovereign Class ties together a design that still stands the test of time. The new ships just look like something I drew up when I was in middle school without any soul or thought put into it.
I agree. I also can't stand when they change well established designs like they did with the original Enterprise in Strange New Worlds.
Come on dude, 700 years between tng and discovery thsts a long time and for the time between these two eras the fact they kept it as close as they did I think is a tribute to original designs
yep. you pretty much nailed it. Kurtzman never understood trek. He never will.
@@SinbadNaiver that I can agree with
Mkirtzman destroyed Star Trek and he will forever be remeberee for it
But he is a narc and doesn’t care
@@Peaceforall20111 Kurtzman didnt even GET or evemn understood the emaning of Star Trek and designv of Star Trek, he didnt even get anyonme who had ANY knowledge in Star trek to make Discovery. He hired a whole buncha people who knew jack SHIT about Star Trek when Discovery was first aired.
USS MAATHAI looks like a colonization ship for new colonies on the other side of the galaxy or even in neighboring ones. He made me remember Macross.
The detached structures has to be the stupidest idea ever created in Star Trek. I cant hate it enough.
Why? Every futuristic ship use detached structures, why living in 80s
@@_martian101 Because it looks stupid and doesn't make sense
@@anothermancalleddave it looks futuristic, every scifi using it so deal with it
Because in the 30th+ century we’re still using 23rd-24th century design language with a fleet that spreads across hundreds of species? It would
Make zero sense that it wouldn’t evolve over time.
I agree that the design doesn’t make a lot of sense, sure it might look futuristic, but it’s not very practical, plus it looks more alien than star fleet, I’m assuming that it is using some kind of tractor beam technology, but what happens if the ship looses power in that area, how is it then going to be functional, there is a reason why the engines are attached to the main ship, and not just floating separately from it.
As a sci-fi writer, there's a race that uses detatched 'drive sections'. The drive sections are more like slightly more permanent tugboats, turning a modular habitation module into a spaceship-having entirely engineering sections/systems/FTL/sheilds/etc, except for one Primary Control Chamber. The main control comes from the hab module it's using.
They also have monohull designs-which are used for High-Performance use. This is less material efficient and less versatile... however, it is higher efficiency for things such as, i dunno, *military use* and things of that nature.
What happens to the detached parts when the power goes out.
And the power goes out often in the trek universe.
The power that runs the fields holding the detached parts in place goes out, what then?
A clever writer/world-builder/science advisor would do this:
When the power goes out and all the back-ups fail too, not everything immediately ceases to work.
Why not?
Well, because the systems are still all "charged up". They are able to adequately function for several more hours, if not even days in some instances, even after the main power source has been completely cut off.
Just imagine it working like your phone, in a way. You re-charge it and then unplug it (meaning that you're "cutting off" its power source), but the device nonetheless keeps on working for an entire day.... or somewhat less.... or somewhat longer . . . .
At least this is how it should work. The thing is that many writers would likely hate this, like they've, for example, despised the shows' Replicators and Transporters for decades, because it is prone to kill a LOT of means for potential dramatic situations.
Ya gotta get out and push.😅
Also the power going out was usually due to people messing about with experimental tech or unknown space. on whatever was called enterprise at the time. Maybe they found a captain who forced engineering to stick to the manual and didn't take a lone ship into strange places
"Captain, that last hit took out the power on decks six through 9!"
"The nacelles?"
"They're about 6000km away by now..."
"Okay guess we're done, signal our surrender."
Probably, they have a safe fail system that re-attaches the nacelles when the power reaches critical levels.
The only sensible reason for the floating parts is for better modularity. Meaning, you could swap out parts of a vessel with ease, or you could separate a vessel depending upon the mission parameters. Personally, I would have these vessels still be one, connected ship just for aesthetics reason.
Regardless of my criticism, there are a few gems. My personal favorite is the USS Credence, USS Annan, USS Thant and USS Armstrong. Interesting designs, but, again, I wish that the parts of some of these ships were connected to their respective hulls.
They really managed to make the Univers- class shine in comparison ...
These designs are catching up with modern concepts in science fiction whereas Star Trek has been adherent to 60s and 70s design for decades. I’m a fan. The tribute to classic Trek design is there. The 32nd century technology is imagined here as allowing designers to bring concept art into the physical world. The modules held in place by fields and the primary shapes are reminiscent of Iain M Banks Culture universe.
The Alcubierre-class starship has no warp nacelles what-so-ever. Instead it uses a temporal control device that funnels and controls the flow of chronons. As speed is distance over time, by altering the flow of chronons (time particles), the time necessary to travel a particular distance can be modified. Thus, traveling a certain distance would take exactly as much time as you desire. 10 lightyears would take only as long as you want it to take versus some small fraction of a year. This is up to and including 0 time at all. The Alcubierre-class can also be configured in any number of ways as it no longer requires accounting for inertia.
The Alcubierre, the ship for which the class is named, is shaped like cigar. It is cylindrical along its central axis and rounded at both ends. It does not have obvious torpedo tubes or phaser banks. The Alcubierre has transphasic transporters which operate slightly out of phase with reality. This allows them to bypass shields of nearly any configuration. In order to maximize efficiency, the Alcubierre has a decentralized command deck with command areas near each major system and function. This design was borrowed from the Borg and has proven important to the Alcubierre's record of never being damaged in battle beyond reason.
Primary weapons on the Alcubierre consist of traditional phasers banks routed through the transphasic transporters. This puts the weapons fire directly on the target area. Secondary weapons are transphasic photon torpedos and transphasic quantum torpedos. Utilizing the transphasic transporters, the phasers beams and torpedos are directly placed on and in, respectively, the target of attack. This allows weapons fire to completely circumvent nearly any shielding technology. Even adaptability such as the Borg have is rendered nearly useless. Boarding parties can also be placed directly on board a target ship or station. Transphasic shielding also negates the need for a deflector array which opens up more space inside the ship for other functions.
AS the USS Alcubierre can manipulate time particles, it has a sort of timeless quality to it. Many observers have stated that upon seeing the Alcubierre, they find themselves calmed and comforted by its form. No one has yet to figure out what specifically it is about the Alcubierre that makes it so satisfying.
Tell me, was the USS discovery "displaced in time"? 😅
StarTrek was a great science fiction story. These ships come from a perversion of Startrek that deliberately ignores all the rules, tropes, intent and spirit of its creators (as almost all modern re-imaginings do).
Actually, in the ST universe, dilithium was inert to antimatter when its lattice structure was saturated with the EM field in the M/AM reaction chamber. A tech that would make it reactive in spite of the field would destroy the reactor.
I did not know that the Curie was that big, such a cool design. I'd have to say the mars class scouts are my favourite future design though.
I don't get all the hate against these designs. I actually like the super futuristic and out of this world designs on these. Its like people nowadays don't like change and want to only have the things they liked when they were young or something.
At 3:27; and its sister ships the "Clearwater" and "Revival". ;-)
If you get this joke you're old LMAO.
@@glennwoden528 I'm only 40 and I know the band. 🙂
Mr. Sulu... I see a bad moon...it's there on the ...!
There was also a reason why the Warp Nacelles were so exposed in the past, as they emitted Radiation that could not be easily compensated, which is why they were placed on pylons far away from the hull, which, however, brought with it a major Problem, they represented a tempting Target for any Attacker, as simply destroying or even JUST damaging the Warp Nacelles could render a ship incapable of Warp!
A Problem that seemed to be solved with the release of the Defiant-Class, so instead of shoving this important piece of Equipment in the Enemy's Face, Warp Nacelles should actually have disappeared completely into the Hull!
Sorry but I don't understand the "iconic" part. These were just a random designs that showed up in discovery (a very bad treck compared to the old ones) and have to bacground of history in start trek lore, they don't look good either.
I'm with u on that one
The show topped everything that came before!
@@subraxas you are clearly on crack
@@subraxasnow that is high trolling there.
Nothing from godawful KurtzmanTrek is even remotely close to being “iconic.”
Ultra future Federation starship design might not even need a warp nacelles. Nobody ever thought of that? It's like giving modern Battlecruisers triple cannon turrets.
@joeldelica8706 Warp nacelles has been considered as mini types due to advancing Warp core and secondary transmitter, moreover, battlecruisers consoles requires connon, phaser, laser beam, and torpedo, as main weaponary devices to heavy vessel carrier networks.
@@linz8291 What you mean "as mini types?"
I mean they're smaller than average.
@@linz8291 Ah, i see. Still, at some point in the future. The warp nacelles will be abandoned for a more advance system. And the saucer hull, engineering hull and warp nacelles will either change or completely disappear. Michael Okuda talked briefly about that in the old USS Enterprise D Technical Manual.
I always imagined future Star Trek Ships like the USS Relativity which didn't have visible nacelles anymore and the design was almost organic. I admit I'm sad we didn't see something in that direction or the 31st Century Ships from Star Trek Online
I HATE with a passion the floating nacelles. I hope someday all of this will be declared non canon or part of some alternate universe
How on earth can a 32nd century ship have a maximum speed of only warp 9.975 when 24th century ones are faster?!
Bad writing 😄
I feel like a nerd knowing that, but the given warp speed on the first ship is from the original uss voyager.
USS vengeance is the most beautiful ship in starfleet imo
Nice! Love the designs!
A few thoughts...
1)I just can't keep wondering where the Angelou Class ship has its warp nacelles.
2) I can imagine the 32nd Century Enterprise belonging to the Constitution/ Kirk Class.
3) The U.S.S Credence has six nacelles? Does that mean it has 3 warp cores?
4) The U.S.S Nog and U.S.S Jubayr are the most alien-looking Federation ships.
5) Most of them are gigantic in size dwarfing the Galaxy Class quite easily.
6) Never thought the Starfleet Headquarters was actually a starship able to convert to a space station. Cool!
Plus, you forgot the U.S.S. Andares.
1. Probably underneath it like the Mayflower or Miranda so we cant see them from that camera angle
2. Yes
3. The Constellation had four nacelles and one warp core, so why would that be needed
4. YES! I love that federation ships are actually being designed by people who aren't humans
5. Yup
6. That reveal was one of the coolest scenes of the show.
some of this ships dates back before the burn so, so most of this ship designed are outdated, but the only updated on some of them are their systems.
They'll look like items you can find in the toilet. :x
one look like a shower head, toilet bowl, hair dryer, shampoo bottle, drying cap etc etc...
I know the Constitution class. The Constitution class was a friend of mine. The Armstrong is not a Connie.
Voyager J and kirk class are the best ones there.
You forgot the uss falcon , 1920 meters long falcon class egg shape sor section warp 9.9975 crew 1600 captain Morgan build 2455
An Oberth class, on its worst day, is 10 times more appealing to me than all these new ships combined, on their best day.
Uhhh...and how exactly do most of these ships warp without nacelles? What am I missing...
What about the USS Mitchell. It was mentioned several times in Star Trek Discovery.
I still hate the federation hasn't moved on from dilithium in all those centuries, when through out each series other ways were mentioned
Where is the successor to the Enterprise j?
Everything has to end one day......
Voyager was the flag ship in the time line this time
blown up
If that's the future of Star Trek I don't want to see it.
Like the writing of Discovery, they all feel ai generated
"hidden federation headquarters space station"
These designs do not excite me. The detached warp nacelles didn't make sense during an attack they can be independently targeted. Then there's one ship with no neck not attached to the body at all. Not feeling the designs at all. 😕
They could be independently targeted even if they were attached. Targeting subsections of a ship has been a thing since TNG. I think the lack of VERY THIN neck and pylons means there's less vulnerable things for the enemy to shoot.
When you are right you are right Stacy! 😢
i stopped watching STD after season 1, i am glad i did, seems like they beat that going in time bullshit to death
What the hell is the point of having an entire starship be a jungle surrounded by glass?
I love these designs, this era feels fresh and different, not all are my favs, but I appreciate they tried something new 🫡
im with you on that, you can tell these are federation ships, but evolved. it makes sense that they look a bit alien to us because its over a thousand years into the future. For example, to the vikings a thousand years ago, our ships now might look really alien to them, why can't it be the same for us, but in the future.
Why does the uss credence have 6 nacelles? Surely after u add to many it becomes redundant bcus even the voyager has 2 nacelles and goes like 9.99 warp no?
As fas as I'm concerned none of these ships are canon.
i kinda like number 7 apart from that the others look fake in the sense they seem to be made to look cool.
I really think your off on the ship sizes ?
its A.I
There official size from the Star Trek encyclopaedia 2293 -
That's NO starship, it's a space station! Nice tribute to Aron "Nog" Eisenberg, though.
#11, that's no ring, that's a donut!!
Why the detached nacelles? They wouldn't function at all. The entire quantum entanglement bs that people try to use to claim pushing 1 atom entangled with another atom would push both is so incredibly false that its incredible ANYONE would believe it. That theory states that quantum entanglement makes both atoms share a state, a state is not motion. So moving one wouldn't have ANY effect on another. It would mean that if you heat 1 of them up the other would be heated as that is a change in state, or if you damage 1, the other would recieve the same damage, or you could transfer power that way as electrifying one would electrify the other, but drawing power from either would cause the power to drop in both. The only way detached warp nacelles would POSSIBLY work would be tractor beam tech, but that would also create a massive structural problem with sheering forces and navigation as the nacelles would rotate at a different speed than the rest of the ship. Just please stop with this junk fraudulent science crap...
The detached nacelles look hilariously bad.
The ships in this series were designed by children suffering from fever dreams and over use of cough syrup
Are we sure the Discovery was the time-displaced ship? Can you repeat it again, please? I forgot which one it was.
Is this Forerunner, or Federation tech?
USS Armstrong only decent looking ship. The Maathai looks like a wintergreen Lifesaver.
Did they name the second starship listed in this video after the author of The Three Body Problem series?
Cixin Liu? yeah
@@liamscienceguy8153 - That's awesome.
Somewhere Matt Jeffries is spinning in his grave.
Matt Jeffries' core concept for the Enterprise was something that you couldn't build out of modern materials. The nacelles are intentionally spindly for that reason. He probably would have done exactly this had he been able to.
The Armstrong was the only decent looking ship there.
These star ships won't look like any star trek previous ships, there design totally different completely different from others
Where is 32nd century Enterprise?
How is this future to be avoided?
Make models please
No im sure the new intrepid class can go faster than 9.975 Janeway could go 9.975 and the titan could do warp 9.99
The detached Ship parts are maximal unpractical... proofs the non-canon of DSC.
Discovery and all the associated black and gay people are canon. Die mad about it.
@@liamscienceguy8153 Why should blacks and gays be the problem? They have always been canon. Keep your hate to yourself, redneck.
I'm not a huge fan of these designs, the negative space takes something away
Hold on here what about SlipStream drive?
From what I recall from the one time I watched it - they crystals that’s used for Slipstream drive are extremely rare , 🤷🏼♂️ ( discovery writers )
even though in the 24th/25th century ~2380-2415 ( including Star Trek online all ships have a slipstream burst drive for 30 minutes (150 LY) with a cooldown of 12 hours ) up to maximum 2 hours (600 lightyears ) cooldown of 2-3 days .
Load of bullshit and not to be considered as Star Trek canon along with that STD Discovery.
@@lasarith2 Star Trek Online (STO) is a mere 'Beta Canon', which basically means "not a canon". A definition of Star Trek IP's Beta Canon is, "all officially licensed NON-canonical works". So at the end of the day, STO does not matter at all.
Otherwise, the thing about the "crystals" being "rare" does not come from "discovery writers", as you've stated above.
In-universe, Slipstream Drive is being regulated mostly (but not exclusively) by Benamite crystals which are the best known means for this kind of a job, are naturally occurring, but unfortunately very rare. Even rarer than Dilithium. On top of that, Benamite is extremely difficult to synthesize (Dilithium cannot be synthesized nor replicated at all); in the late 24th century, the UFP's available technology needed north of one year to synthesize one crystal thereof.
All of this was established on ST: VOY in the late 1990s where the given Drive was first introduced. This only shows that DIS writers do know and do follow ST's Alpha Canon and continuity. Well, at least sometimes.
@@subraxas quote from Trekyards when asked , - Booker states that the ( crystals) are extremely rare and he can’t get any - as to why he isn’t using them for slipstream drive , or any other starship for that matter Series 3 discovery, also they are using a form of slipstream in Prodigy with the Protowarp drive and the Voyager A is equipped with a basic form of it , - so we’re both right and wrong .
@@subraxas ps: and if anyone would know it would be Trekyards .
Ok...these are the dumbest looking ships ever. No form, no soul, no art. Please tell me that you can do better than this
Some are interesting, but its like when you ask AI to make ships from Star Trek.
I like some and don't like others. I appreciate what ST: DSC was trying to do. There are characters I really liked such as: Suru, Lorka, Reno, Detmer, Dr. Culber, Georgiou, their version of Spock & Pike etc., etc. And for all of you who didn't like the show remember the "it doesn't feel like Star Trek" was also said about ST: TNG first three seasons before some people came around. I liked ST: DSC because it pushed ST further and no matter what some fans say, it gave us ST: SNW. And for those of you who were around, by the end of ST: ENT people were tired of Star Trek. I know the show had it's fans (I also liked it), it's ratings were way down and the studio could not save it. I'm happy to see any ST because like Leonard Nimoy once said "Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say. Where does ST want to take me now". Love it! Take care.
Finally someone in the comment section who doesnt complain about how "this is what happens when you let DEI hires design your starships", thank you very much good sir
an "iconic future starships" Video which doesn't have any of the ships from the pre NU era? where is the relativity, the time capsule from Enterprise and the other actually iconic ships?
Just looking at your "thumbnail" for this video (and concentrating on the future ships only, so not the Ent-D)...
No. No. No. Maybe. No. No.
No thought into the kurtzman trek ships and it shows boy did it show they look like clowns designed them oh wait they did😂😂😂😂😂😂
I realy dont like all the cutouts, floating segments and that starfleet seems to have no consistent designelements... some ships looks okay but most don't look like star fleet vessels
I personally don't consider Star Dreck: STD canon...It was DemoNUT Dreck created by persons who didn't know jack about ST! Same type of persons that Ruined SW, Dr.Who, LOTRs, etc...Most of these cut and paste ships had very little to do with the iconic ST TOS, TMP, TWOK, UDC, or the TNG era....
so you consider strange new worlds not cannon aswell and then also lower decks?
@@GAR_news_network@ "Star Trek in name ONLY, and written/produced by people who don't understand Trek, or care... Reduced to something palatable to Gen Z /Gen x types with TDS on the brain 🧠...."
These star ship doesn't feel like star ship at all.
The enterprise J was a cool design holding try to federation fundamentals.
these ship design is some one who put it in a AI generator and pooped it out. Detached parts of the ships makes no sense, they even said that some ships has programable matter, holographic and other crap that makes it sound "advance" but space is dangerous, plenty of anomalies that can disrupt the ship. Imagine walking in the corridor suddenly the programable matter/ holographic walls disappear or you just lost your nacelles xD
And if you check the Kelvin time line, their ships are so mushy (basically made by apple) I dont wanna live on those type of ships.
Btw in the discovery turbolift scene which is same size as a borg cube... imagine how big it is in those star ships xD
Is this even a star trek anymore
I never was the biggest fan of the Star Trek aesthetic to begin with, I don't much like the super sleek and curved aesthetics you get in Star Trek or Mass Effect and prefer the more rough and rugged style you'd see in Star Wars, Babylon 5, Halo, Homeworld...
I already had a major issue with the JJ Abrams movies where they tuned the sleek and curvy style up a notch, I dislike the aesthetic of those movies...
And this is just the movies turned up to 11
I hate it. I really hate it. XD
Definitely not my idea for "cool looking spaceships"
I just do not understand the overboard architecture of these vessels.. In a vacuum aerodynamics is irrelevant and compactness is king.. Colony ships would want to maximize cargo volume so a large spherical hull with 4 warp nacelles and 2 warp reactors for redundancy would seem the most utilitarian shape.. Even a Borg cube seems like a more plausible design over these depictions..
The same applies to every other ship in star trek history except the borg sphere.
@@liamscienceguy8153 I read somewhere that the Enterprise J saucer section is supposed to be 2 miles wide?. This would increase the strain on internal logistics by adding unnecessary miles of power infrastructure let alone traveling from one area to another by thousands of people all the time.. A 1/2 mile diameter sphere would be the same volume and far more practical, but this was lost in the sauce of fantasy.. If someone argues that they want to keep parts of the ship away from passengers and crew berths then why would impulse engines and weapons be a part of the saucer sections on all the Starfleet ships?? Should we worry that common sense is even worse in the future??
Which is why we were introduced to the Enterprise-F in the same episode in which it was slated for decommissioning.
Odyssey class beam is 371m. Where did you read it was 2 miles wide?
@@IMayOrMayNotBeNoelG Maybe they have it confused with the J, which is just an offensively ridicuous design
They all look terrible
No one asked for your opinion !
They look like they belong in the halo universe
How would you design them
They look awesome!
lol😅
STD needs to be wiped from the timeline. That garbage has to go!
Not a fan of separated nacelles.
WTF is this floating separate parts? This is NOT Star Trek.
Nothing from Kurzed Trek is canon.
Franchise Killer Jar Jar Abrams and Klutzman don't understand a thing about true Star Trek. But if the abominations that they made, didn't have the name Star Trek in it, they would have collapsed very quickly.
ok look i love trek as much as any nerd, but the new ships with the foating detached nacelles is just stupid.
I don't think you know what 'iconic' means.
Is the Kirk Class, the one that looks like an Enterprise, the 1701-X in the 32nd century???
is that the axiom from wall-e?
The disconnected ships look dumb AF
These ships suck mega donkey dong