We reported a few weeks ago that Eaglemoss was launching its special Star Trek: Discovery line of ships for release in 2018, and this week in New York City, almost-finalized versions of those forthcoming models debuted at New York Comic Con.

Both the USS Shenzhou and USS Discovery arrived at the con today, giving fans their first close-up look at the ships; please note that each model’s paint detailing is not finalized and are expected to be tweaked before the official 2018 releases debut.

USS Shenzhou (NCC-1227)

USS Discovery (NCC-1031)

Special thanks to early convention attendee Benson Yee of BWTF.com who shared the above photos with us; also thanks to Nils Walter Khan for these additional shots:

The team from the Priority One Podcast also got a close look at the ship:

Be on the lookout for a large gallery of Eaglemoss’s fleet of ships — including more views of the Discovery and Shenzhou models, as well as the XL-sized USS Voyager and Enterprise NX-01 models, upcoming shuttle sets, and more when our team hits NYCC later this week.

  • Thomas Elkins

    I still think the Shenzhou’s markings should have been blue, but she’s still good looking.

    • Jamie Thomas

      The red hull markings make me think the ships are from the mirror universe.
      In fact, what if Discovery is set in the mirror universe?
      This would allow for the many aesthetic changes
      Just an hypothesis.

      • Mykeprime

        I just assumed it was for fleet operation groupings. Would be nice to get the official word though.

      • GhostLoveScore

        It’s been said a million times that this is prime universe.

        • Jamie Thomas

          Like I said, it was just an hypothesis.

      • DuckDAWorld

        If #Discovery was set in the #MirrorUniverse Cpt Georgiou should have killed Mickael on the Shenzou bridge. Thus no more show. Period


      • Joseph

        If it was set in the Mirror Universe it be the Terran Empire instead of United Federation of Planets / Starfleet.

      • candelarius

        I’ve been thinking the same thing. Discovery seems to be a Mirror Universe or an another parallel. Yes yes yes, I know the creators have stated it is in the so-called Prime Universe (how unfortunate we even have to call it thus), but the visual reboot and continuity issues defy that claim.

        • DC Forever

          What is a a recovering from us and evil. What time dis fly to be completely honest, I was in a land of member, I am going out of hate and evil. I think Mitch. Yes much more of a troll.

      • Nope, prime timeline. The Mirror universe makes zero sense from anything we have seen.

  • Kudos to Eaglemoss. They created an awesome model of the horribly anachronistic Shenzhou. The Shenzhou is a decent late 24th century ship that will look good when placed next to the Enterprise-D in the showcase (although I don’t mind the silly racing stripes).

    The Discovery, on the other hand, may be a fitting design for the era. But it just doesn’t look good, neither on screen nor as a model. Eaglemoss should have toned down the intensity of the golden color, even if the “real” Discovery on screen is exactly this color. The color gives it an air of being “cheap attempt at retro design”.

    But the biggest letdown is: The Shenzhou is an old ship, the Discovery brand new. SERIOUSLY!?! The paradoxical looks of the Shenzhou and the Discovery exemplify what is fundamentally wrong about the visuals of Discovery. No one cares how everything fits together. Single (selfish?) artists create whatever they think would look great. They work on getting their personal retconning visions into the series (Fuller’s Klingons), they include “tips of the hat” to alleged fan favorites (USS Discovery) or they just create “the same as always” (Eaves’s 24th century angular-nacelles and streamlined saucer designs). The sets of Disovery are acceptable and the handheld devices wonderfully retro, and these details prove that it would have been possible to include fitting ship designs too (not to mention fitting Klingons).

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      If you say it again, I’ll dance to it. 🙂

      • Some folks like to ignore ENT. I know ya guys haye it, but its clear as day ships on DSC are design with the NX, and other earthfleet ships, as the start point.

        I would like to see the walker next to an NX

      • Should I rather reiterate how awesome everything Discovery is? Like most people around here? Would that make you happy?

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          I was joking — I actually agree with you on this, as you should already know from my previous posts.

          Dude, you seem a little tightly wound, no offense.

          • It isn’t always obvious to me. My bad.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No problemo!

      • DuckDAWorld

        I’m daaancing … o/ …

        #quaaack #LLAP #STO #DSC =/=

    • James

      I have to agree with you regarding the Shenzhou, it’s screams John Eaves and doesn’t fit te era. Though, I think it fits as a successor to the NX01 – it’s a natural evolution from that IMHO. The TOS ship looks older than both!

      Have to disagree on the Discovery though, the more I look at it the more I love it. From certain angles, it looks great – by which I mean it has presence. With the long nacelles, it’s kinda elegant.

      But then, I love the Probert designed Ent-D, which gets a lot of flak from some quarters.

      • I would have liked to see the original Discovery design (no gaps in the saucer, not quite as angular and shorter nacelles, not golden). Still not a great ship design but fitting for the era.

        • James

          I think / hope we will be given a reason for the gaps in the saucer. The angularity is kinda the whole raison d’etre of the design, which is quite bold and striking. Creating a new design is tricky as there are only so many combinations of saucer / nacelles that you can come up with.

          I actually think that it’s great that the design is polarising. Better to elicit a strong opinion in someone, rather than a ‘meh’. I think that’s what art is about. I’m pleased to see that your reviews aren’t slamming the show, because I love EAS and have been a quiet follower for many years!

          • Thanks for following EAS. I overall try to be fair and objective, which doesn’t always look like that when I comment on single issues.

          • Locutus

            I like your observation about art. Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise both too often elicited a “meh” reaction. I enjoy the fact that Discovery has taken a few risks!

          • Keith Melton

            Best line of thought I have seen so far for the separated saucer sections has been tied to Saru’s line about “300 simultaneous experiments” aboard the ship. With that many different labs running you would need some physical separation between certain experiments.

          • James

            There are those out there who think the saucer might spin, which would be interesting.

          • Keith Melton

            As long as there is a plausible explanation as to why it needs to spin I am down with that.

          • Eric Cheung

            Well, since it’s experimental drive is based on biology, maybe the saucer is like a medical centrifuge!

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            …Especially to be able to cut off sections of the ship from others in an emergency.

      • Mike C.

        Shouldn’t the Discovery have an NX registry since it is an experimental ship?

        • AmiRami

          Is it an experemental ship or is it a ship with experemental tech on board? I’m not sure which. Case and point, IIRC the USS Pegasus had an experimental cloack on board but the ship itself wasn’t experemental or an NX registry.

        • Keith Melton

          Is it though? It is a science vessel, but a new class. Being the second ship of its class (with the Glenn the first) there is no reason it would still be an NX.

          • Crossfield was the first. It is not an unknown class to the crew. They are not designed gor this project, just assigned to it.

          • Keith Melton

            Well, until we see some reference to an actual USS Crossfield ship, we can only conjecture off of the two we have seen. Class name does not always mean there is a ship of the same name (usually, but not always)
            We do know the Discovery (and probably the Glenn) are brand new ships. Any other of the same class (lower of higher registry numbers) are probably out there.
            I merely theorized the Glenn was the first by applying an equivalency between its registry number and what we know of the Constitution Class (1030-1700 vs 1031-1701)

          • I think the Glenn was first based off the fact it was farther along in its experiment run. The discovery was just starting to really get its up and running.

            Don’t forget the Constitution class also gave use 1017 😀

          • Keith Melton

            I had forgot about the Constellation’s registry. (damn lazy fx guys messing up my continuity)

          • Yeah , it gets worse. You have the Oberth class from the 2280’s. It goes from NCC-602 to the Grissoms NCC-638. Which is already crzy with number right? well the same class gives us the SS Vico NAR-18834 and everyone’s fave ( we screwed up) The USS Freaking Pagasus NCC-53847

            Anyone trying to make sense of the numbers are setting themselves up for a headache.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            It was always messed up:

            USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
            USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
            USS Eagle (NCC-956)
            USS Endeavour (NCC-1895)
            USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
            USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A)
            USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
            USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
            USS Hood (NCC-1703)
            USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
            USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
            USS Potemkin (NCC-1659)

            All those are Constitution-class and now have all been seen onscreen.

          • Brian Thorn

            Where was the USS Eagle seen?

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            On an Okudagram in Star Trek 6.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Also, when the Enterprise was (will be) testing the M-5 computer, why wasn’t it given an NX-1701 registry?

          • Not that I know of.

        • James

          Well, registry numbers in Star Trek make no sense! But I think it’s not an NX class, after all, we see it’s sister ship destroyed in Context is for Kings.

          • AmiRami

            Keep in mind, NX Class != NX Registry number post ENT. NX is the designation for experimental ships whereas the NX CLass was simply the ship style of StarFleets first warp 5 ships. The Excelsior for example was not NX class, it was Excelsior class.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Both Discovery and Glenn are confirmed as Crossfield-class ships, so the USS Crossfield presumably is the NX prototype until, like Excelsior, it is eventually declared a success and operational or a failure.

          • Most classes would not have an NX version. The NX was for the excslsiors failed warp drive. Just as the Defiants NX was for the crap to of experimental tech it was built to test.

            Neither ship was ever planned to be a class.

        • Its not an experimental ship. Its a science ship.

    • Eric Cheung

      Placed chronologically after the NX-01, the saucer kind of makes sense. Even before ENT, when it was assumed that the Daedalus-class was dominant in that period, that style of saucer seems like a missing link between a sphere and the Constitution-class saucer.

      We’ve seen a lot of Trek ships in more recent Trek operate in atmospheres, suggesting that streamlined design is more practical for that mode of travel. The ships with the TOS style saucers do travel in atmosphere, but they might rely on a more advanced anti-gravity technology that would have been revolutionary compared to the NX or Daedalus-classes. By the 24th century, they may have wanted a streamlined look purely for aesthetic reasons.

      The one place where I think they probably could have made it look more period appropriate was with the engines. But even there, such a design would have been arguably more for artistic license than realism. Given how many different ship classes there are, and how many hundreds of teams of engineers there must have been in the two centuries since Zefram Cochrane, it strains credulity that there hasn’t been more diversity in engine design between 2063 and 2270, especially since collaboration with alien species increased dramatically in that time, particularly since Archer’s time, when he normalized relations between the various powers that formed the UFP.

      • Keith Melton

        To me the nacelles of the Discovery look like an acceptable go between of the original Constitution class and the refit. Which would make sense since the Enterprise is older at this point.

        • Eric Cheung

          I’m pretty sure the Shenzhou is older than the Enterprise. She was already an old ship, with lateral vector transporters, when Burnham first came aboard circa 2249 (seven years before the Battle at the Binary Stars). The NCC-1701 launched in 2245.

          • Keith Melton

            I was only comparing the Discovery to the Constitution class.

            A simple fix would be showing us a Conny somewhere in the current timeline. Allow them to update it to look like it fits yet still retains the classic look and we have nothing to worry about. I think overall people need to not place such hard unbreakable love to the 1960s design and special effect work. It has to look more modern now than it did then.

          • Eric Cheung

            Well, I would guess the class itself is pretty new by 2245 anyway. There was a minor upgrade between 2254 and 2265 when they removed the front tips to the nacelles and upgraded to a smaller deflector dish. That makes me think the Enterprise tech isn’t that old at the time of the upgrade, if the changes are so minor.

            But regarding updating the design, there were already baby steps toward that in ENT, when they lit the Defiant sets more in the style of ENT for “In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II.”

          • The connie only had 13 ships in 2266 and it was at lest 20 year old. It may well be likely the class was old and Enterprise was one of the last because it sure as heck was not mass produced.

            The ENT design was not updated, not even slightly. They slapped a texture on it and it still looked older and more antiqued then the NX. It simply no longer fits in the timeline.

          • Keith Melton

            So, what exactly should the enterprise or any Constitution ship look like in Discorvery’s time to not change anything continuity wise before its refit in TMP?

          • Looks are not canon, TMP totally redesigned the ship. Lets all be honest here, that was not the same ship or a refit.

            I would start with the TMP ship as the base. What they will do, I do not know. But it must fit post ENT with the 8 or 9 designs we have seen.

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            That we know of. Maybe the Constitutions actually are much older than we think. The Enterprise might’ve been launched in 2245, but the Constitution herself might be ten years older for all we know and there could’ve been 20 or more ships built, but by the time of 2266-7, some of them have been lost.

          • It may well be older, but we know by 2266 only 13 are still around. I think they peg its age by its computer core IIRC. Making the ship a 2240s design.

          • Yeah she looks late 22nd century

        • The TOS ship design does not work in anything after ENT. That design just does not fit anywhere after the NX or the Earthfleet.

          • Keith Melton

            Sure it can. The conny basics (secondary hull, nacelle location, saucer) can be the change in ship design (that then feeds into the future) away from the the NX/Earthfleet basics (as we see in the Shenzou)
            Discovery itself seems to be an amalgam of both to my eye.

          • No, the shspes just do not work. TMP one might, but the TOS shapes are more dated and primative then pre NX earth designs

          • Keith Melton

            I wouldn’t sail that ship just yet. If the original TOS design is so outdated to your eye, then why didnt they redesign it for the Defiant in the Dark Universe ENT episodes? There is plenty of room to keep the classic look yet have it belong to modern design aesthetic.

            By your logic, even in Trials and Tribulations we should not have seen the big E as she was.

          • Eric Cheung

            In space, due to the lack of an aerodynamic necessity, if the designs satisfy the functional needs of the project, they could theoretically have much more aesthetic freedom. And therefore, it’s impossible to know what will be aesthetically pleasing in the 23rd century. That’s certainly different from what will look good to a 2010s/2020s television audience, but I would imagine there’s no reason a look like in TOS couldn’t exist in the 2240s, at least for the exteriors.

            I’m not necessarily justifying that for this show, just suggesting it’s not impossible. For example, the texturing for the IXS Enterprise designed as a theoretical real-world Alcubierre drive ship, doesn’t look far off from the smooth texturing of the TOS era ships.

          • Yeah, its like sayings a 66 impala was built after the 2004 version, but before the 2017 version. It simply does not fit.

          • Eric Cheung

            What I’m saying is more like how the fifth generation Ford Mustang mimicked the lines of the second generation pretty closely, even though the stuff on the inside changed.

            I’m just saying that when design could be anything for ships that stay in space, styles could be much more cyclical than they are with say aircraft.

          • This is not a 5th gen mimic. This is a clear older ship, far older than the NX.

          • Brian Thorn

            “That design just does not fit anywhere after the NX or the Earthfleet.”

            So Starfleet can’t experiment with unusual ship designs? Why, exactly? We have unusual looking ships in Navies around the world today, such as the US Zumwalt-class or the Lockheed “Sea Shadow”.

          • We are not talking navel ships, trying to link it to real world naval ships will always fail. Star Trek Ship designs are like cars, they are built to be viewed the same way and you can peg one by its look and design forms.

            It is a 66 impala. It does not belong between a 2004 and a 2017 impala. The design forms are juts that. Trying to put it after the NX and walker but before the Crossfire class is saying the 66 was made after 2004 but before 2017.

          • Brian Thorn

            I ask again, why can’t Starfleet toy with unusual designs? “Because they never did before” is not an answer, especially when we have already seen lots of odd-looking starships, especially in DS9 and the TNG-era movies.

            And in tonight’s episode, we have now seen why Discovery (and Glenn) are different.

          • Its not an “unusual design” its outright dated and screams 1960s. Once more, this is claiming a 66 impala was built between the 2004 and 1017 versions.

        • DC Forever

          What time did not respond when you can do is a great way of hate bigotry the enlightenment. Yes much for letting you can get out the enlightenment. What time were in your text. What is a troll not, and all of us around the new Klingon.

  • Damn do I love the Shenzhou.

    • GIBBS v2

      I really like them both for completely different reasons.

      • Heh, we will dissgree on the discovery

      • DC Forever

        I am sorry to hear it is a troll not whether you and Star Trek show that is typical.

    • DC Forever

      What is your favourite. What is your favourite. Yes, I mean it like that

  • Joseph

    Really beautiful ships.

    I admit, the USS Discovery has really grown on me. She as well as the Shenzhou are fantastic.

    Now here is the Irony. It’s documented that Shenzhou is an old ship while the Discovery is newer, top of the line vessel.

    However Shenzhou is NCC-1227 and Discovery is NCC-1031 which would imply Shenzhou is newer.

    • Registration numbers never fit in any logical order. You had two ships of the same class with numbers of 1017 and 1701. You also had ships built in the 2380s with numbers in the 600s.

    • A_Warrior_of_Marley

      This is pretty much confirming that the registry numbers are not perfectly chronological, at least at this point in Starfleet’s history. As Shannon Smith pointed out, there are numerous examples of ships in TOS that don’t match up, such as the Constellation and Enterprise.

      This means that potentially there could be thousands of Starfleet vessels out there, maybe tens of thousands because the registry numbers only for certain spans of time follow a chronological order.

    • DC Forever

      What does tanto to be in trouble for her I wouldn’t tell him that is typical for the enlightenment.

  • Trent

    Still not liking Discovery.
    Shenzhou much better turned over

    • DC Forever

      I am sorry to be completely honest, I mean it like that you get along well as text me the discover card number? This isn’t Chris and left it in your text. I love this! Musical instruments of hate speech, I was to her to be civil rights reserved.

  • AmiRami

    I didn’t like the design of Discovery when I first saw it but it’s def growing on me. In the end tho, nothing will ever beat good ole 1701.

    • Shadowknight1

      It is growing on me too. But the Shenzhou was one I loved the moment I first saw her burst through the clouds. I think it has to do with the fact that she resembles the USS Centaur, which I always thought was pretty cool.

      • AmiRami

        The Shenzhou actually reminds me a lot of the fan made USS Titan! I LOVE the design but IMO it looks more advanced than the 1701 Enterprise. I’m not complaining but in my book it gets points knocked off for that.

        • Anything made after TOS looks more advancef. She fits after the NX, which forever killed the TOS design.

          • AmiRami

            She def fits after the NX-01. But I would argue that Discovery doesn’t look more advanced than the 1701. The 1701’s design is perfect. The only issue with the actual model is that it was built in the 1960’s.

          • No, hell no. The TOS ship design does not fit anytime after the NX.

          • AmiRami

            The TOS design has more logic to it than any ship that came before or after. It had logic behind it.

            The saucer section is where the crew works and lives, the engineering hull is where the warp core is housed, and the nacelles are as far away from both as possible. This wasn’t a random decision. The idea was to keep the crew as far away from the radiation of the warp core as possible and as far away from the warm field the nacelles generate as possible.

            The 1701-D stook to this design but hot-roded it for no very good reason. Ships like the reliant, Defiant and Voyager threw the idea out all together. The Shenzhou falls much more into the later catagory than the former.

            1701 is the perfect design for how a Star Trek ship should operate.

          • That has zero to do with the fact it no longer fits. TMP version almost fits, but the TOS ship does not fit. It was used only in TOS and later ships use the TMP ship and not the TOS ship for design ques.

            In the current line up, established by ENT and now discovery, it just has no place. We have The Earthforce ships, the NX, the Walker, 9 or so other designs we do not have a name for yet and then the crossfire. The TOS design, as is, just can not and does not fit.

            Its like bringing out a 66 Impala and placing it between an 2004 and a 2017 Impala and claiming it was built after the 04 but before the 2017 versions. It just does not work.

          • AmiRami

            At the end of the day, the exterior design of the NX-01 was a HUGE huge mistake. It was an akira class starship flipped upside down. And no offense to Capatin Archer and his crew but the aesthetics of TOS will always hold more canon to me over ENT.

            Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say that sets should be built out of cardboard and jelly beans anymore. But damn, they F’ed up hard with the NX-01’s design. ESP when you consider Star TRek the Motion picture already showed us what previous Trek ships looked like prior to the 23rd century.

            I would much rather a prequel show to TOS follow TOS canon design than ENT design. TOS is exponentially more important to Trek canon than ENT is.

          • It does not matter if it was a mistake or not, it is what they used. And its clear DSC uses it as the base for the visual style, including ships. Every ship we saw took ques from the ENT ship direction. Star Trek ditched the TOS look in 1979, no star trek ship takes any ques from the exterior of the TOS connie, they all use the TMP version as the base.

            The issue is, the TOS ship was the first. And she looks it, you can’t hide it. Like I said, she is a 66 Impala, Lovely in her way but will always be what it is. Which is why it no longer fits, hell we all know it was goofy in 89. Hell they knew it was goofy in 79 and rebooted the look.

            And after all the heck the Kelvin movies got, that ship has sailed.

          • AmiRami

            “And its clear DSC uses it as the base for the visual style”

            I don’t think that’s true in the slightest. Discovery is decidedly retro. Saucer section. Neck between the saucer and engineering hull. Space between the nacelles and the engineering hull. In fact the design was directly ripped off from the design for Star Trek Planet of the Titans. There is NO REASON Shenzhou couldn’t do the same.

            Minus the deflector dish, the ship simply looks way too modern for its time. It just does.

            I frankly don’t care what ENT did. ENT does not define Star Trek the way “STAR TREK” does! This is a prequel to Star Trek, not a sequel to ENT, despite when in time it tales place. No one cares about ENT in context. It was a failed UPN show, not a show that launched a franchise. In the real world, it is TOS and TNG that matters to the general public. ENT means nothing.

            To follow the design aesthetics of ENT instead of TOS when trying to launch your own streaming service is frankly moronic.

          • Yeah man its true. The Shenzhou is a walker class, it is 22nd Century and has clear NX linage. We see a few ships like this in the battle, ones that have a clear link to the NX.

            And yes, ENT defined modern startrek, so much Kelvin took some ques from it. Like it or not, it gave Trek a modern look and its not going back.

          • AmiRami

            Regarding Kelvin trek.. Its starships followed much more of a TOS style than it did an ENT style. Don’t get me wrong… JJ “hot rod’ed” the Enterprise. but the design fundamentals stayed the same. Kelvin Trek might have given us some ENT easter eggs but it wasn’t influenced by it in the slightest.

            Here is an example.

            This is the USS Kelvin


            NOTE: Saucer and Nacelle separation. Old style saucer. Kelvin Trek does WAY more to honor the feel of TOS than DIS does. Right down to the uniforms.

          • Indeed, Kelvin did go more TOS style, not as much as earily designs though. The issue is, people HATED the kelvin looks. And its clear from looking at it, they still took ques from enterprise, but not as much,. They tried to merge the two styles.

            That ship will not work with DSC without a rework, the nacells, textures and deflectors are wrong.

          • AmiRami

            But Shannon… The Shenzhou was a ship that only existed in the first 2 eps on DIS. Why is its futuristic design that important? The Design of Discovery is MUCH more important, and, to CBS’ credit they got that one right!

          • Because it fits with the NX. The design fits all the others we have seen. The Crossfield is at lest 5 decades newer and it shows.

          • AmiRami

            Ya I get that… But at the end of the day, IMO, the exterior design onf the NX-01 conflicts with the exterior design of the 1701 (an inheret problem wiht prequels I grant you). But when you are addressing the overall star trek fan base, TOS design canon is WAY more important than ENT design canon. And quick reminder, I mean starship design, not bridge or interior set designs. Kelvin trek proved you can do both. I get ppl were mad about Kelvin trek designs but you can’t make everyone happy. But at least Kelvin Trek tried by putting it in a different universe and giving us colorful uniforms that were frankly designed because TOS was designed to show off color TV when it first came out.

          • The 1701 is the issue, it is a design that clashes with EVERYTHING else. It was 3 years out of 51 and they tossed it. Nothing from TOS really made it out of TOS. They used TMP for styles and such going forward and not TOS.

          • AmiRami

            “They used TMP for styles and such going forward and not TOS.”

            TMP held the same visual style of TOS. Saucer. Engineering Hull. Separated nacelles from the rest of the ship.

            As I stated earlier, the design of the 1701 in the 1960’s suffered from the technology of the time. But the 1701 refit and 1701 A held the design principals while adhering to the design ethic.

          • Nah, man. Design wise its nothing alike. Its the same very vague shape, like a 1930’s Pick up and a 2017 pick up have the same basic shape

          • AmiRami

            Hi Shannon, I need to go out tonight.. Its Saturday night afterall haha… I’m sorry we couldn’t agree on stuff tonight. But for what its worth, I love having discussions with ppl like you that love Trek as much as I do! Even if we disagree at times. I hope you have an awesome weekend!!!

          • People disagree, its all good. And fans never agree on everything LOL. You have a good time.

          • Brian Thorn

            AmiRami… “But damn, they F’ed up hard with the NX-01’s design. ESP when you consider Star TRek the Motion picture already showed us what previous Trek ships looked like prior to the 23rd century.”

            Not ships, ship (singular). We only saw one pre-1701 ship in TMP, that ring-shaped ship “XCV-330”, and we don’t know how far back that was. There is a nearly 300 year period between the Space Shuttle Enterprise and NCC-1701 in that display. It could easily be a ship from 50 or 75 years before NX-01.

          • DC Forever

            Yes much better than the new Klingon.

          • DC Forever

            What is a nice vacation. I s numbers of the Galaxy’s vision for a while, but you for the invitation to get it at least one will be fine if you for your advice on how much I mean this is your first.

          • DC Forever

            What are we doing for asking though I feel bad because they were just down here already have the new ones, I mean platonic and evil. Yes, and evil. I think Steve and all that matters, the cynical view of sales hasn’t been a reference to be civil war documentaries the new faces, and evil. Yes much better than I am not sure if you don’t feel comfortable in sick of it yesterday. Yes but wouldn’t you are the spammer. What is your favourite. I am not sure if we could meet you for your advice.

  • candelarius

    I agree, they are both lovely ship designs, but like so many others have said, they simply don’t fit this time frame. In 2256 the Constitution Class was going strong and were the most advanced ships of the fleet. The Shenzhou looks like it should have been placed 10 years AFTER Voyager and the Discovery (God, those nacelles…) possibly could work in this timeframe, but I would have imagined her around 2273, shortly before the Oberth and Excelsior Classes. The thing that kills me is all of these continuity errors could easily have been avoided if they hadn’t placed this series in the timeframe they did. Why not 2390? They could have done so much more without worrying about bulldozing over canon/continuity. I get it that the new crowd of Trek fans, and some of the old guard for that matter, don’t give a stitch for continuity, but many, many fans do. I’ll continue watching Discovery but in my mind the show is a pre-boot of the Abramsverse, and not truly a part of the established continuity. Your mileage may vary, of course. Live long and prosper.

    • James

      Well, the Discovery is newer than the Enterprise, even though the series is set 10 years previous. So it’s allowed to look a *bit* newer.

      • People yend to forget the enterprise was 20 years old in TOS

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          I would be curious too see your thoughts on my response above to James on the numbering difference, which seems to counter to the idea that the Enterprise is older than the Discovery?

          • A_Warrior_of_Marley

            Shannon noted correctly that the registries don’t always follow chronologically, hence two Constitution-class starships that should be in the 1700s are 1701 and 1017 respecitively (Enterprise and Constellation). This appears to be backed up by the 2006 remastered TOS special effects which show ships like the Lexington, Excalibur, Potemkin, Hood, Exeter, and Intrepid with numbers all over the place as well.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OK, I can buy that. Thanks

          • I’ll look. But the numbers never make sense. You have a constitution class ship with 1017 anf a 2280 design with 600

          • DC Forever

            Yes much. I am sorry I think entitlement programs, the response of yours? This isn’t a troll but a good. What time did you go? This is a great senator. I think entitlement. Yes but wouldn’t you for asking me to be civil rights reserved a Klingon. Yes but I am sorry for any cleaning up you can do is a great day at work.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        I agree with this on the face of it, but that doesn’t explain to me why the number of the DSC (1031) is 670 slots below the Enterprise (1701)?

        • The Constellation was a constitution class with 1017. The Oberth class are from the 2280s and they start at 600, yet the Oberth USS Pegasus was 53847!

        • Shadowknight1

          It’s 1031 cause the person who picked it out loves Halloween. It’s like the Frankin’s registry being 326 because Leonard Nimoy’s birthday is March 26th. Registry numbers make no sense.

        • DC Forever

          What is a s. Yes but wouldn’t be civil and Star wars of hate speech and evil regimes like a recovering addict. What do you for your consideration to do with the fact, and evil to get along here for your advice on what ever told me you for your help on it even

    • Both ships are based off the ENT designs moved forward a 100 years. Also, nothing said the connie was the most advanced ship in the fleet.

      • A_Warrior_of_Marley

        Indeed, by this point in time, the Enterprise would be at least 6 years old, maybe more like 11 years, assuming the 2245 launch date is correct and the USS Constitution would be older still.

        • The 2244/2245 is canon so its at lest 11 years old.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Welcome! You just joined Disqus 17 hours ago…did you have a previous ID here?

    • DC Forever

      I am a recovering well, but you for your advice. What is your favourite. Yes, and evil regimes. What is your opinion, I am new here for the movie was in the door, and evil. Yes much for your advice. I love her to stop by sending it will always miss the national debt ceiling and evil regimes, I mean it like a Klingon. I am sorry for saying, I mean platonic. I am a recovering from him and Star trek discovery prime minister and all the actors, why was that the new Klingon looks good on you, I mean it up. I am sorry to be completely altered and Star trek, I am new and Star Trek show that is for a Klingon after hours, but what about it like a recovering addict. I love her to tell me the story of member I will always

    • Walter Kovacs

      it’s not the Prime Universe. when will people finally accept that?

      i don’t understand people who are willing to ignore all the CANON (on-screen) evidence that clearly shows us that this is NOT set in the Prime Universe, just so they can stick to the NON-CANON statements from the producers that say it is set in the Prime Universe.

      to me, canon matters more than statements made in interviews. and that means: what is on screen tells us whether this is set in the Prime Universe or not.

      and don’t get me wrong: i LOVE the series. i don’t care what universe it’s set in. i just don’t understand people who ignore all the canon evidence that tells us it’s not Prime.

  • Fiery Little One

    For models that still need their paintjobs tweaked, these look pretty darn close to final and pretty good too.

  • DC Forever

    Yes but if I think Steve, and all of member I will change it to Provo the national institute for you to great glory of member I will always be on top shelf life is a nice day, I mean it is profitable not whether or Amber is here for the movie it’s not whether you for the enlightenment, and all that you think meetings, and gun control. Yes, but your factual the enlightenment and evil regimes, the above is she in a land where you for asking me if you don’t feel good thank.