Galaxy-class design

[tnpir4002]

Fans have long heralded the design of the USS Enterprise-D as a feat of engineering, a design that builts on Andrew Probert's original concept for the new century. However, there's some folks out there (including the post-production team for Star Trek Generations) that say the D is awkward to photograph because its design is so overbalanced (the big saucer with the small drive section).

I wanted to engage the folks here, who've worked with photographing the D, and see what you guys and gals think: elegant, awesome design, or a bit overbalanced?

(my two cents: overbalanced and it IS awkward to photograph; I think the refitted version from AGT solved that problem with the 3rd nacelle and just looked terrific besides; compared to that, the "basic" 1701-D always looked a little barren)

[cooloneinca 2224]

my two cents: overbalanced and it IS awkward to photograph; I think the refitted version from AGT solved that problem with the 3rd nacelle and just looked terrific besides; compared to that, the "basic" 1701-D always looked a little barren correct

[Nadesico]

You know the kind of power it has, it's aft section reminds me of a tiger or a large cat curling up ready to lunge and strike. I dont think it's overbalanced at all.

[Eoraptor]

I once saw the enterprise D's star-drive described as "...the cobra-headed star-drive section" And thought it was a perfect description. It was in one of the earlier trade-paperbacks, 'Vendetta' I think.

I happen to like the Galaxy class, and think it is an elegant design, and more fittingly captures the perspective of the exploration and science roles of the Starship Enterprise (have we ALL forgotten to "...explore strange new worlds..."?). Much moreso than the battle-cruiser Sovereign class of the Dominion War era.

I too would like to see more greebles and surface details, but not the ugly kitbashing of the AGT Galaxy-X. The over-all shape and layout reflects seventy-five years of evolution, using smaller more effecient power-plants to move the same amount of ship. (the warp-core in the D is about the same as in kirks, but obviously drives 75% more ship)

You have to remember that when the design was created, it was intended to be an extension of Jeffrie's original minimalist design of the sixties... all the surface detailing designs didn't come until later on in the series, and especially into DS9 and voyager.

and if you think the Galaxy is top-heavy now, read FSD: Starship Concept Art - Designing the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D over at LCARSCOM.net, about how the proportions were originally to be. It gives a lot of insight into the thought process of the creators of the 1701-D in the late 1980's.

[Cyba_storm]

I personally think it looks crap. Not as bad as the Excelsior, or that pile of horse crap Pegasus from BSG, but just a horrible design. The 1701-A I loved. The proportion on that were about as good as it gets.

[Freak]

I think it a great design, who care if it top heavy, there is no gravity to pull it down, so it fine as it is.

[The_Maestro]

Awww. I love the Pegasus from BSG.

And the Galaxy from TNG!

And oddly I can't stand the 1701-A. *shrugs*

[Nadesico]

To tell you the truth, i dont have problems with any classes of trek ship, except for maybe the Daedalus and Pasteur, bubble boy saucers just dont cut it in the future me thinks, it's like a holdover from the 60s.

[Freak]

^ Same here I also don't like ship with no necks, althrough the Ent-E I do like and the Defiant is just a scaucer with engines. so they are fine. I also like the akira but sort has a neck.

[farcry]

I think the Galaxy class is a great design. It looks like a ship of exploration, while it holds a powerfull presence too.