New Star Trek has a title: Star Trek Discovery.

And here is the new Star Ship: Link is a tweet with the video in it.

Very cool. Looks like a pre production photo I saw somewhere when they were redesigning the Enterprise. Don’t remember if it was for the movie or when they were first making TNG. It’s like a cross between a Federation ship and a Klingon ship.

Interesting tone to it. The ship looks a bit more serious.

Any idea in what timeframe the new series will be? I assume the universe will be the TV series universe rather than the reboot movies. Or will it be a third ST universe?

Just realized the abbreviation with be STD. Okay, probably ST: D, but that gets you a smiley.

The asteroid base seems to imply something stealth, covert, black-ops, rogue about the setting.

Maybe we’re finally getting to the corner of the Federation that comes into play when Mr. Nice Guy gets his lights punched out.

I theorized it was a lost/construction abandoned TOS-era ship that has been refitted.

However the name of the ship I would think would be a little less placid in that situation…unless the Feds have become anti-exploration and the ship is being stolen by those who want to be less xenophobic.

Nothing concrete has been released but the two biggest rumors are that it’s set during the TOS Movie era or the 22nd/Early 23rd Century after Enterprise but before TOS in the early days of the Federation. They start filming in September so casts will be revealed next month so by then we will probably know for sure.

ETA: Also, and this is very important, it is looking like Fandom is settling on DSC as the official three letter abbreviation :slight_smile:

What it looks like is Ralph McQuarrie’s redesigned (but ultimately unused) Enterprise from Star Trek: Phase II, the new TV series that was turned into ST:TMP…

That was the exact image I vaguely remembered in the OP. Thank you!

Here’s their chance to make Trek good again. I have to go all the way back to DS9 to find Trek I like. This looks…promising.

Wow, that is some terrible CGI. It looks like they rendered it on an early 2000’s era computer. I miss the days of models and practical effects. You can’t put that starship in a museum, that’s for sure.

Ship’s registration number is NCC-1031. This would suggest that it’s earlier than Kirk’s NCC-1701, but quite a bit after Archer.

Or they’re just incorporating McQuarrie’s art beyond the ship itself.

I’m sorry, but that’s a horrible design. It looks like it was slapped together the day before the deadline by someone who’s just barely progressed beyond simple geometric shapes in 3ds Max.

Seriously, was this made with the intent of making the LEGO-tie in as easy to assemble as possible? What was the inspiration there, a run-over traffic cone?

I mean, what was the design process here? You got your basic saucer section, the nacelles—no surprises there. For the rest—well, why not a triangle? Triangles are nice. …And done!

The only explanation I can come up with is that they deliberately wanted to distance themselves from the new movie-Enterprise’s excessively styled all-curves design, but there’s gotta be some middle ground here…

It reminds me of early Klingon designs.

Looks like it might not be the final design:

So the reason it looks like it’s been thrown together on a tight deadline apparently is that it’s been thrown together on a tight deadline. That’s encouraging, but then again, that last sentence gives me pause again…

That’s really fugly. I hope the final design is very different.

BTW, as someone who doesn’t really know the details of ST tech lore, what is that thing below the saucer that looks like a combination of searchlight and jet intake? It seems to be in every design.

Do you mean the deflector?

Yeah, I guess so. I didn’t even know it had a name. So that’s what put up the shields? Was it a spherical shield?

Originally it created a deflector field forward to protect the ship as it moved at high speeds. Later it became your all-purpose device to channel any form of energy real or made up to do anything possible or impossible :wink: .

Ah, thanks for the detailed explanation. I)