# A Small J.J. Enterprise Photo Survey OT?



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

I know this is a modeling forum so if this has to me moved or deleted I understand. 

When the first picture of the "New" TOS Enterprise came out I, like most people thought.... ehh, it aint what I'm used to. I didn't hate it though, didn't love it either. 

I love the old show and the old ship even more, grew up on it and in a couple of threads I show some handy work of building up AMT's version. http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=251863 I used to collect everything Trek but some years ago most of my collection with a couple of build ups I did was stolen, like call the police stolen. I don't collect so much anymore but I do love the ships and when I heard this was available I went to Toys R Us to get one. 

I'll hold my opinion on the movie 'til after I see it. But, my humble opinion is that after seeing and holding this ship, posing it different ways and seeing it at different angles, even in a not so hot toy, I'd really like a good model of it. It would be a fun build and it would look sharp. I snapped a few pics of the Playmates JJ Enterprise as I call it to share with the group.


----------



## miraclefan (Apr 11, 2009)

Nice!


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Nice pics- warming up to the new design.
Horrible toy, though , compared to Art Asylum stuff. 
A new model of it would be welcome!
Gary:hat:


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

Not that I'm a fan of the new ship, but I think it would be a great idea for someone to release a reasonably accurate 18" kit. 
It would pair really well with the original AMT Enterprise that Round 2 has reissued.


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

I like the ship and I like the toy.


----------



## miraclefan (Apr 11, 2009)

Trekkie75 said:


> Not that I'm a fan of the new ship, but I think it would be a great idea for someone to release a reasonably accurate 18" kit.
> It would pair really well with the original AMT Enterprise that Round 2 has reissued.


Nah! I'd prefer a 1/1000 scale ship so it would be in scale to my others!:thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

miraclefan said:


> Nah! I'd prefer a 1/1000 scale ship so it would be in scale to my others!:thumbsup:


Then 1/1000 it is.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I also bought this toy, and was considering completely disassembling it, and rebuilding it as a model. How would you guys suggest getting the pieces apart?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Unscrewing them?  Looks like there are some big screws in there. The closeups do show that there are some fiddly details from the ship that are reproduced on the toy--I definitely want to pick one up...


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

If any of the previous Playmates Trek ships are anything to go by, you just can't unscrew them.. the ship I attempted to take apart (a thrift store Ent-D with no engines) was also solidly glued together. I didn't try too hard to take it apart but unless I missed something, this ship is also quite probably glued as well having the screws.

When I find one, I'll give it a go myself!


----------



## dan1701d (Jun 9, 2004)

I also bought the toy ship. I find I like it more and more I look at it and play with it, LOL. Reminded me I am a Toys r Us kid when i went to go get this toy, LOL. As for deatials, Playmates has always not had the best details in ships, they are meant as toys. Where art asylum seems to be meant more as replicas.
Either way I am happy to be able to buy some new Trek stuff again in the store.:wave:


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Until now I didn't realize how much of an organic look/feel it has about it. But I still like it.


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

So who actually designed this ship? We keep talking abut it as if JJ drew it up himself. Was it John Eaves?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I picked one up this weekend as well.

I'd like to get it apart and do some decent light blocking on it. way too much light spill. Other than that , I'm digging it!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I'm digging it!


Me too! It really grew on me after having it out of the box for a few days. I think once my brain gave up on mentally comparing the dimensions/placements of its components to previous incarnations, and I just allowed the design to be what it was, I really started to enjoy it. Even the angles that I originally hated (underneath, 3/4 view, facing forward - for example) now look fine.

And, most importantly, it looks really, really good in "woosh" mode. 

I need a proper model kit of this sucker. Stat. I think 1/1000 would be an excellent scale to start with.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

bigdaddydaveh said:


> So who actually designed this ship? We keep talking abut it as if JJ drew it up himself. Was it John Eaves?


Ryan Church.

http://www.ryanchurch.com/


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> How would you guys suggest getting the pieces apart?


*CROWBAR comes to mind!*:devil:
-Jim


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*A few more pics*

It's funny how the thing grows on ya. If Polar Lights would make one of these, I'd snap it up in heartbeat.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

I agree with Fury3, This thing is starting to grow on
me. The movie trailers have been pretty good also.
the only thing that can kill this are the actors and
writers now.

fortress


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I'd still swap out orange LED's for the bussard collectors:tongue:

if anybody has seen the some of the esurance print ads, they have orange nacelle fronts. I wonder if their art dept. has some old school trekkers in there


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I have one of these too. The toy itself I would give a 5 out of ten as the quality is not near the Art Asylum/DST type. However, a model around this size would be nice to build as there is much that can be done with it. I would actually consider getting a model version (though not 1/350 scale) as the design is growing on me as well.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It takes serious love for a 1/350 kit. A 1/1000 kit would be fine.

.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The only way in which this ship might be "growing on me" is resignation to the fact that it's not going away anytime soon.

Doesn't change my assessment that it's a butt-ugly design directed by people that don't have a technical thought in their heads and, despite all the happy talk, don't seem to have a whole lot of respect for the prior designs and those who did them. What continues to gall me to no end are the snarky comments I keep seeing in interviews about how the original bridge looked like a couple of shoeboxes crammed together (resulting in this month's issue of Star Trek magazine being the first one I refused to buy), or how they think they're making things look "more real" while giving us designs that look like Galaxy Quest rejects, or how Geoffery Mandel was sent packing because he was "too attached to the original design." For those attitudes alone, this thing deserves to crash and burn, but unfortunately, there are enough mouth breathers who like to see things blow up that it'll probably get the massive opening weekend everyone's expecting.

God help us.


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*On occasion, I breath from my mouth...*



Captain April said:


> The only way in which this ship might be "growing on me" is resignation to the fact that it's not going away anytime soon.
> 
> Doesn't change my assessment that it's a butt-ugly design directed by people that don't have a technical thought in their heads and, despite all the happy talk, don't seem to have a whole lot of respect for the prior designs and those who did them. What continues to gall me to no end are the snarky comments I keep seeing in interviews about how the original bridge looked like a couple of shoeboxes crammed together (resulting in this month's issue of Star Trek magazine being the first one I refused to buy), or how they think they're making things look "more real" while giving us designs that look like Galaxy Quest rejects, or how Geoffery Mandel was sent packing because he was "too attached to the original design." For those attitudes alone, this thing deserves to crash and burn, but unfortunately, there are enough mouth breathers who like to see things blow up that it'll probably get the massive opening weekend everyone's expecting.
> 
> God help us.


I know from your comments your weren't really taking aim at anyone in particular, well at least here in the forum but I figured I'd voice my opinion anyway. I've got alot of respect for the old show and as I've said before, I love the original ship, enough to build a model of it and do it some kind of justice, well at least try anyway. The new ship as you said, isn't going away anytime soon but that's not what made me enjoy it rather than steadfast hate it, it's just not I was used to, now it's not so bad, at least to me.

As a kid, I enjoyed Star Trek for the ships and the action. Now I find one of my favorite episodes "Concience of the King". A morality play if ever you've seen one. But stuff blowin' up is fun too and if this movie is good enough for Nimoy to get involved and even if it wasn't, I'd still watch it because it's new and fresh. I've already got the DVD's for all three seasons and all six movies with the original cast and I can quote some of them verbotin. As for the bridge being shoeboxes crammed together I take offense to that. But lets be realistic here, the TOS had a very limited budget and used whatever they could with the technology they had, but heck I loved that bridge too, enough, again, to build a model of it.

As for the new designs, well, it is about 40 plus years later, technology has changed but it seems, the basics are there. So before I pass judgement, I want to see them in action and really, just enjoy something new and fun. And it's got the "Enterprise" going into battle, should be pretty good stuff from the trailers. I hope it does well, because if it does, they'll make more and hopefully some good model kits will come out of it.

Now before this thread gets closed, Hey, Polar Lights... can you make a model kit of this ship please??!!

And everyone else, check out my very OLD model of the The Bridge!


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

Captain April said:


> The only way in which this ship might be "growing on me" is resignation to the fact that it's not going away anytime soon.
> 
> Doesn't change my assessment that it's a butt-ugly design directed by people that don't have a technical thought in their heads and, despite all the happy talk, don't seem to have a whole lot of respect for the prior designs and those who did them. What continues to gall me to no end are the snarky comments I keep seeing in interviews about how the original bridge looked like a couple of shoeboxes crammed together (resulting in this month's issue of Star Trek magazine being the first one I refused to buy), or how they think they're making things look "more real" while giving us designs that look like Galaxy Quest rejects, or how Geoffery Mandel was sent packing because he was "too attached to the original design." For those attitudes alone, this thing deserves to crash and burn, but unfortunately, there are enough mouth breathers who like to see things blow up that it'll probably get the massive opening weekend everyone's expecting.
> 
> God help us.


I don't know if I would put it in such strong terms, but there is alot of truth in what you say imo. Personally I have divorced this ship from the established continuity of Star Trek starship design of the last 43 years, and am trying to look at it from an entirely clean slate. As yet the design isn't exactly growing on me, but I won't pass judgement until I see it in action on screen.

In any case this ship is and will probably always be my fav:

http://squaremodels.netfirms.com/images/ef16.jpg


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*That model it awesome!*



Trekkie75 said:


> I don't know if I would put it in such strong terms, but there is alot of truth in what you say imo. Personally I have divorced this ship from the established continuity of Star Trek starship design of the last 43 years, and am trying to look at it from an entirely clean slate. As yet the design isn't exactly growing on me, but I won't pass judgement until I see it in action on screen.
> 
> In any case this ship is and will probably always be my fav:
> 
> http://squaremodels.netfirms.com/images/ef16.jpg


What scale is that thing? It's beautiful!


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

Fury3 said:


> What scale is that thing? It's beautiful!


I think its the Master Replicas version, which is roughly 1/350...


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Captain April said:


> For those attitudes alone, this thing deserves to crash and burn, but unfortunately, there are enough mouth breathers who like to see things blow up that it'll probably get the massive opening weekend everyone's expecting.
> 
> God help us.


Well gee, I'm planning to go opening weekend, along with my wife and maybe my kid. I'm sure they would appreciate your comment immensely.

Huzz


----------



## gojira61 (May 21, 2008)

Here's some other views of the the new Enterprise. This is the 34" model that QMx did as a special project for Paramount and Bad Robot.

http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek.html


----------



## miraclefan (Apr 11, 2009)

Krako said:


> Me too! It really grew on me after having it out of the box for a few days. I think once my brain gave up on mentally comparing the dimensions/placements of its components to previous incarnations, and I just allowed the design to be what it was, I really started to enjoy it. Even the angles that I originally hated (underneath, 3/4 view, facing forward - for example) now look fine.
> 
> And, most importantly, it looks really, really good in "woosh" mode.
> 
> I need a proper model kit of this sucker. Stat. I think 1/1000 would be an excellent scale to start with.


I AGREE %100 we need one in 1/1000 NOW!


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

I can only give you my final opinion on the ship after I've built one.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Fury3 said:


> I know from your comments your weren't really taking aim at anyone in particular, well at least here in the forum but I figured I voice my opinion anyway. I've got alot of respect for the old show and as I've said before, I love the original ship, enough to build a model of it and do it some kind of justice, well at least try anyway. The new ship as you said, isn't going away anytime soon but that's not what made me enjoy it rather than steadfast hate it, it's just not I was used to, now it's not so bad, at least to me.
> 
> As a kid, I enjoyed Star Trek for the ships and the action. Now I find one of my favorite episodes "Concience of the King". A morality play if ever you've seen one. But stuff blowin' up is fun too and if this movie is good enough for Nimoy to get involved and even if it wasn't, I'd still watch it because it's new and fresh. I've already got the DVD's for all three seasons and all six movies with the original cast and I can quote some of them verbotin. As for the bridge being shoeboxes crammed together I take offense to that. But lets be realistic here, the TOS had a very limited budget and used whatever they could with the technology they had, but heck I loved that bridge too, enough, again, to build a model of it.
> 
> ...


Beautiful work! looks like the real bridge.:thumbsup:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I love the old ships. I'm starting to like this new one. There are a lot of little things that are a tip of the hat to the previous versions, but this is still a radical redesign. 
I'm starting to like it on its own terms.
Just my humble opinion.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Just bought the Playmates ship and found an oddity when compared to the pix on the QMX site: the saucer, engineering hull and engines are NOT aligned along the same horizontal line! The saucer is angled upwards from the neck with respect the secondary hull. The engines are similarly angled with a tail up direction. It gives the impression of being distorted. Makes me want to cut the saucer and engines off and remount them properly.

Has anyone else seen if this is the case with their Playmates JJPrise?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

charonjr said:


> Has anyone else seen if this is the case with their Playmates JJPrise?


The saucer on mine is angled at the wrong degree too. Not a big deal. Just gives me more of a desire to build a kit of it...


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

*Re: new Enterprise model*

Can I say RC2 here? Tom Lowe over _there_ is currently trying to get license from Paramount to produce a styrene model of the new Enterprise, but Paramount is at the moment keeping a very tight reign on it's franchise. Tom hopes to have one out sometime next year if negotiations go well.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Just did a little apples and oranges comparison of the nu1701 vs the AA nx, ncc, refit. The Art Asylum Enterprises are all to scale with each other, or so close as to make no difference. 

The nu1701 Playmates has a saucer equal to the diameter of the nx, larger than ncc and smaller than refit. The engines are a bit shorter than the refit engines. The saucer edge thickness is about 1/3 thicker than the refit and a 1/4 thicker than the ncc. Overall length IF nu1701 were the same scale as ncc, would appear to be about 900 feet with a saucer diameter about 450 feet.

Of course this is all apples and oranges.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Fury3 said:


> What scale is that thing? It's beautiful!


Fury,
that my friend, is the glorious 66" version that is made by custom replicas.

Sean Sides built one of these beauties.
please go here to see more
http://squaremodels.com/66enterprise.htm


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Fury,
> that my friend, is the glorious 66" version that is made by custom replicas.
> 
> Sean Sides built one of these beauties.
> ...


So around 1/175th then, and I thought the Deboer Hulls Refit at 46" was pushing things.


----------



## nakira2ca (Jan 25, 2006)

I HATED the new Galactica when it was first intoroduced but as the series progressed I grew to like it. I am not a fan of this new Enterprise design but I am hoping once I see it in action, I won't be so distracted by... well, the things I don't like about it. :/


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*Wow...*



Lou Dalmaso said:


> Fury,
> that my friend, is the glorious 66" version that is made by custom replicas.
> 
> Sean Sides built one of these beauties.
> ...


This model is absolutely stunning. It looks closer to the 11 footer and Greg Jein's version of it. Unfortunately I'm not rich enough or smart enough to utilize the $8000.00 dollar patterns for sale. Still, it's a beautiful creation.

Brian


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Captain April said:


> The only way in which this ship might be "growing on me" is resignation to the fact that it's not going away anytime soon.
> 
> Doesn't change my assessment that it's a butt-ugly design directed by people that don't have a technical thought in their heads and, despite all the happy talk, don't seem to have a whole lot of respect for the prior designs and those who did them. What continues to gall me to no end are the snarky comments I keep seeing in interviews about how the original bridge looked like a couple of shoeboxes crammed together (resulting in this month's issue of Star Trek magazine being the first one I refused to buy), or how they think they're making things look "more real" while giving us designs that look like Galaxy Quest rejects, or how Geoffery Mandel was sent packing because he was "too attached to the original design." For those attitudes alone, this thing deserves to crash and burn, but unfortunately, there are enough mouth breathers who like to see things blow up that it'll probably get the massive opening weekend everyone's expecting.
> 
> God help us.


Sweet Zombie Jesus there are some nasty, negative people on this board. 

I have been a contributing member (you know, pay money to support this board), but not again. I will not support this kind of hostility and churlishness with my cash money.


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*Thank you for the Bridge comment.*



spocks beard said:


> Beautiful work! looks like the real bridge.:thumbsup:


I did a little write up on it on a new thread:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=2798295#post2798295


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*Let's not let things get more negative*



Jodet said:


> Sweet Zombie Jesus there are some nasty, negative people on this board.
> 
> I have been a contributing member (you know, pay money to support this board), but not again. I will not support this kind of hostility and churlishness with my cash money.


I posted the pics of the new ship because I thought it was interesting, I knew that some people hated it and admittingly, at first I didn't exactly love it but like I've said, it grew on me and I'd like a kit from it, not everyone feels the same. 

I'm not a contributer, money wise, but I'd like to know how I could be to help keep the board going, until lately, I've just lurked in the background trying to learn stuff. Because I like visiting this board I won't let anyone, with just words on a screen take away from the enjoyment I get from reading posts, looking at great models and gathering advice here. I'm not one to tell anyone what to do either but, yes there was a but, please don't let anyone do those things to you. 

Brian Kuzma "Fury3"


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

Jodet said:


> Sweet Zombie Jesus there are some nasty, negative people on this board.
> 
> I have been a contributing member (you know, pay money to support this board), but not again. I will not support this kind of hostility and churlishness with my cash money.


Jodet, I think that is something to let Carson Dyle know about. 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/member.php?u=13349

And I apologize for your offense.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

To quote Captain Kirk, "People can be very afraid of change."

Sadly, there are too many people who have failed to learn the core lessons of Star Trek. Change, progress, new ideas, interpretations, and open mind... THESE are what mattered to Gene Roddenberry. IDIC. Star Trek itself must adapt or die. There will always be some who just can't cope with that.

Me, I'm all kinds of excited about the new movie, and I don't feel for one moment that it is detracting from my love of the original series. Hey, look! I can like them BOTH!


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

The new movie could be cool - and there are things I like about the new ship, but, like a lot of people have said, the pieces just don't seem like they belong together. Change can be good, but not always. However, even if I don't like the ship, I guess others do. And I'm not going to hate a movie just because Ryan Church didn't create something I like... But would I buy a model of it? Definitely not in 1/350, maybe, just maybe in 1/1000.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Is there any official figure on the size of the NU1701?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Roguepink said:


> To quote Captain Kirk, "People can be very afraid of change."
> 
> Sadly, there are too many people who have failed to learn the core lessons of Star Trek. Change, progress, new ideas, interpretations, and open mind... THESE are what mattered to Gene Roddenberry. IDIC. Star Trek itself must adapt or die. There will always be some who just can't cope with that.
> 
> Me, I'm all kinds of excited about the new movie, and I don't feel for one moment that it is detracting from my love of the original series. Hey, look! I can like them BOTH!



I disagree... change is embraced by all trek fans, especially if its change for a REASON and with a purpose that furthers a laudable goal. But change for its own sake, or in this instance, to rake the last dollars out of a dead franchise is not worth embracing.

The movie, seems interesting and I wll go see it with the lowest of expectations. Sure, it will make good money, and for all the reasons that have been said before good and bad. Anyone who argues that really horrible movies cant make loads of cash is out of touch. That doesn't follow that this will be a good movie, or worthy of the original series its supposedly "rebooting" Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We'll see.

As a designer and artist for my entire life I will say that the design of this ship plain sucks. Its by far the worst Federation ship design ever. It looks terrible from every angle, in every form I've seen. in stills and in motion, in drawings, in models and as a toy.... it sucks. I too went through a brief period with every new ship that came along, Excelsior, 1701-D, 1701-E, Voyager, Nebula class, Nova class... at first glance they all look weird to me. Yet every one within a few minutes to perhaps a few episodes grew on me and I accepted them all... yes even the 1701-E which I think is grossly out of scale with itself.

But this ship, I cant get over... and I may never.

Its good for the franchise that there are enough people who will like it to offset the costs of producing it... and by common standards that's considered a success. But it doesn't hold a dim candle to what Star Trek accomplished through the original series and I dare say it never ever will.

Anyway, enjoy your new Trek toys! Its good to see them still being cranked out, and through this new vehicle interest in all the previous incarnations has been revived that may hopefully allow us all to enjoy a for real 1/350 TOS Enterprise.... the holy grail!


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I disagree... change is embraced by all trek fans, especially if its change for a REASON and with a purpose that furthers a laudable goal. But change for its own sake, or in this instance, to rake the last dollars out of a dead franchise is not worth embracing.
> 
> The movie, seems interesting and I wll go see it with the lowest of expectations. Sure, it will make good money, and for all the reasons that have been said before good and bad. Anyone who argues that really horrible movies cant make loads of cash is out of touch. That doesn't follow that this will be a good movie, or worthy of the original series its supposedly "rebooting" Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We'll see.
> 
> ...


I love the new ship. That's my opinion as a professional artist, painter, and designer with original product designs in stores. Its also my opinion as a long-time art student.

Anyway, its the TMP Refit / 1701-A for me any day. I love the original, sure, but the Refit is where they really got it looking PERFECT.


----------



## Trekkie75 (Mar 29, 2009)

Roguepink said:


> I love the new ship. That's my opinion as a professional artist, painter, and designer with original product designs in stores. Its also my opinion as a long-time art student.
> 
> Anyway, its the TMP Refit / 1701-A for me any day. I love the original, sure, but the Refit is where they really got it looking PERFECT.


Actually last night I made a visit to Wal-Mart's toy department, and with curiosity getting the better of me I picked up one of those Playmates Enterprises, took it up to a cashier and coughed up my 30 plus clams then went out the door with it in bag. Now as I look at it in hand on its own terms, I have to admit its beginning to not look as atrocious as I once thought and others continue to.

And I agree the Refit/1701-A is probably still the best looking Enterprise there ever was (even compared to TNG era). But the TOS ship remains my favorite largely for nostalgia and the fact it was the first, though I must say it looks pretty darn good in its simple lines.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The original also has the advantage of looking _functional._ The new one looks like it should fly apart if you even _look_ at the warp drive.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

The old one? Functional? I think you are letting nostalgia get in the way of a clear head. The design of EITHER NCC-1701 is patently ridiculous! There may be no atmosphere or gravity in open space, but linear thrust and center of gravity are still completely relevant. The 1701-D with its main impulse port at/near the thrust line of the ship is the most likely of all we have seen so far.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

So far this movie is getting great reviews--probably some of the best any entries in the movie series have gotten. I'm hoping to hear the last of the grudging "well this piece of CRAP will probably earn a lot of money" sour grapes soon. Anyway I see it tonight so I can finally argue and know what I'm talking about...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I was comparing the nu1701 Playmates and the 1701A Art Asylum ships. Something interesting in trying to figure out the size of the nu1701: the airlocks on the secondary hull are quite differently sized. NU1701's airlock is 30% the diameter of the 1701A's airlock. This suggests that the nu1701 is 2/3rds larger than 1701A, presuming the airlocks are supposed to be the same diameter. That would make the new ship over twice the length of the refit....


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Roguepink, you're confusing the warp drive of the TOS NCC-1701 with the TNG NCC-1701D. The TOS Enterprise's warp drive provided no thrust. The nacelles generated the warp field that put the ship into the level of subspace that would allow the warp speed desired and the impulse engines moved the ship. The NCC-1701D's warp drive works a bit differently. The impulse engines are not used to move the ship at warp. The warp field is pulsed from the front to the back of the ship, causing movement thru the desired subspace domain. (Pulsing it from back to front allows the ship to move in reverse while in warp.) In both ships, the impulse engines are located at or near the ships' center of gravity.

Larry


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Qualification: I have designed rockets for Estes.

No, I was not confused. What you say is correct, but you did not understand me clearly. The 1701 (fictionally), whether in warp or standard space, is still propelled by thrust from the impulse engines. The 1701 impulse engines are to the back of the saucer along the same plane. This is NOT along the center thrust line of the ships mass. Adding force off the center of thrust will cause the object to ROTATE AROUND the center of gravity. For example, the Apollo space ship used quad thruster packs on the service module. The thrust of these quads rotated the Apollo CSM around the center of gravity and allowed the CSM to roll, pitch, and yaw. Note that the main engine is directly in line with the center of the ship's mass. The ONLY Star Trek 1701 variation that came close to thinking about this was the 1701-D with the main impulse port at the lower center of the neck.

Estes produced a rocket powered version of the original 1701. The main rocket tube was set well below the plane of the saucer to get a correct flight pattern.

My point is that to use PROBABLE FUNCTIONALITY as a comparison point against the new 1701 in favor of the classic 1701 is wrong. Note that I am not defending one design over the other in this case, I am in fact saying BOTH are completely implausible for the SAME REASONS because they are both so much alike.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Roguepink said:


> I love the new ship. That's my opinion as a professional artist, painter, and designer with original product designs in stores. Its also my opinion as a long-time art student.
> 
> Anyway, its the TMP Refit / 1701-A for me any day. I love the original, sure, but the Refit is where they really got it looking PERFECT.


I agree with you Roguepink. As far as I'm concerned, favorites-wise, the Refit is #1, OS Enterprise is #2, 1701-E is #3, and the D is #4.

As far as things go, my big beefs with the...U.S.S. Abrams... are the too-futuristic, somewhat discombobulated design (IMHO), and the fact that they're calling it "Enterprise", for some reason.:tongue: It ISN'T a bad design...It just cries out for another name and registry number. (U.S.S. Abrams...NCC-2009, maybe?)

There ARE a few elements of the new design that I DO like...the nav def support area and the three surrounding...sensor packages(?) That seems to work more smoothly than the one on the OS Enterprise, and to my eyes, seems cleaner.

That said, I could see myself building a 1/1000th scale of it...only as long as I have the decals to name it something else.

Be safe & well, all.

Greg:wave:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

My beef with the reift/A version was that it was the only incarnation not to include the bussard collectors, and as a consequence the warp engines never looked "alive"

oddly enough, my only gripe about the new Enterprise is that those collecors are blue instead of the proper orange/red.

do you think I have issues?:freak:


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> do you think I have issues?:freak:


 We all do!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Bussard Collectors?! There were never such on the TOS Enterprise, nor was there ever a specification that the impulse engines pushed the ship through warped space. The Bussard Collector was a TNG designation for the 1701D, though why they would call it that is unreasonable. The notion that the ship would need to collect gas presumes the use of hydrogen for fusion engines, by design in-line and providing the primary thrust of the ship. That is what a Bussard engine does, it uses magnetic fields to gather interstellar hydrogen and fuse it to drive the ship almost to the speed of light. It is an archaic technology that has no place on 22nd century Starfleet ships (using the original calendar established in Space Seed).

The earliest designation suggested was on Franz Joseph's blueprints, calling them out as Matter/Energy Sinks. While not canon through the mid 70's, the fact that ST:TMP adapted and included this as a verbal callout canonized this nomenclature for the Refit, and presumably, by reverse extension, the TOS Enterprise itself. 

The use of the impulse engine to push the Enterprise during warp, would be a colossal waste of fuel that would be in extremely limited supply on a ship that size. Impulse was only meant for limited sub-light travel. Warp engines were described as warping space so the ship could surf on this wave of warped space-time, while being at rest in it's relative local frame of reference. The warped space would be pushed on by the space-time surrounding it, causing it and the ship that rode it to travel at ftl speeds.

While it is true that normal, current day construction methods would create a ship subject to the normal forces of inertia and momentum, therefore making the designs seen totally unstable, that doesn't necessarily mean that future tech is equally vulnerable. In fact, to allow for the explosive acceleration of impulse drive or maneuvers at warp, plus the use of artificial gravity, imply an ability to control inertia and the accompanying momentum in order to protect the crew against these accelerations. This would allow for the design of unbalanced Starfleet vessels such as we know and love. Having a center of gravity and the need to apply thrust along this center only applies if control of these forces doesn't exist. Travel and manuevering would be correspondingly slow to protect the crew and the structure of the ship.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Wow. Well, all I have to go on is my primitive, backward, uneducated understanding of humble and limited 21st century physics. You know, things that really work and science that is founded in FACT.

My point, and I labor to make this point again at the risk of becoming tiresome, is that for one to argue the new 1701 looks "less functional" than the old 1701 is a lame attempt to justify a simple dislike with a fallacious application of some pretext of a rationale.

Being a fan of simplicity of design, I do prefer the classic 1701 over the new one on artistic considerations alone. I like the new one, but the old Connie can never be truly replaced in my heart. Look at it from the rear with one eye closed and the open eye looking right along the right warp engine, maybe just a little under. Wow. Beautiful. The original was designed to look good from every angle, but this one the most.

The most reasonable, rational, and well designed ships I have seen recently were those of Babylon 5. The Starfury is brilliant. I would take a wing of 'Furies into a fair fight any day of the week, twice on Sunday. I can even see flying one RIGHT NOW, the physics behind the design is that darn good.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

The whole ship is just too plain. It needs the red and yellow stripe on the nacells.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Roguepink, I agree with everything you just said. The TOS Enterprise is the most beautifully designed to me also. Your point about 21st Century physics is quite true, it's all we've got for now.

The new design is kind of growing on me, but it does need color. I agree about the lack of red and yellow pennants. It needs these colors instead of the gray. It's certainly not like Starfleet needs camouflage colors on it's ships.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Bussard Collectors/Matter sinks - po-tay-to/ po-tah-to

the big orange swirly things on the fronts of the long cylindir(sp) things

You knew what I meant

geeze. gtl:freak:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hehehehe, Lou, you've got me giggling....LOL (not <Manly> the other way).... You're right. Maybe I should just give in and go with the times. I like big orange swirly thingies.... At least they don't look like a vixen's breasts like the nu1701!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

no harm, no foul...

I'm not a big fan of the Nacelle Nipples (TM) either, but then I wasn't a big fan of the "Pike Spikes" to begin with.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I'm a fan of nipples, don't get me wrong. But not necessarily on a starship, CERTAINLY not on a Batsuit.

Yeah, the little hardware bits on the nacelle domes detract from the boldness of the overall shape. Another thing I miss is the under-camber of the saucer section. It was never practical, but it gave the saucer underside a great visual dynamic.

I always liked the Pike Spikes, but the same argument applies that they distracted from the larger shape of the swirly orange dome thingys.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Golly! I guess I'd better trademark Swirly Orange Dome Thingys (TM), I mean if Lou can trademark Nacelle Nipples (TM). Of course, I'd better check with him that he's given up the patent on Swirly Orange Dome Thingys.

Nipples on batsuits didn't work for me either, and I'm supposed to appreciate that kind of thing. I miss the under-camber too. I know it makes more sense to leave it flat, but then why not make the under cone larger for more space? Too many questions, not enough nipples in the right places, er, sorry TMI.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There were no swirly bits when the spikes were in place. The domes at that time were solid wood.

As for the functionality question, the original ship was made to look like it could actually work, that everything that was put on that model had a purpose and did something, even if the people who put it there didn't have a clue what it actually did.

I think the best description I've seen of the new one is that it looks like it was designed by Harley Earle after a three day bender.


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*I still love our Old Connie...*



FSM-1 said:


> Thanks for the pics. i haven't read through the entire thread, so forgive me if someone has already mentioned this, but this ship still looks a great deal like Gabriel Koerner's ship from a few years ago. It would be a pity if it were morphed slightly and called a new ship. Still, I'm not sure what to think of it. I'm in the same school as many in that I'll wait and see. I still prefer the TOS Enterprise.


I did a couple of comparison shots, the basics are there and to me, the new ship does look pretty cool.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Well, I guess that QMX replica answers the size of this ship question. They say their 34" replica is 1/350 scale, slightly larger than the MR 1701. This seems hard to believe when looking at the airlock size, though and the stills I've taken of the first trailer, which seems to show several decks in the bridge module.

I was going to attach pictures, but the manage attachments is working. Oh well....


----------



## bizzybody (Jun 3, 2009)

How long until someone gets hold of a toy/model/kit of the new Enterprise and paints and lights it like the original version?


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

bizzybody said:


> How long until someone gets hold of a toy/model/kit of the new Enterprise and paints and lights it like the original version?


Ah durn it. Now I have to buy another one!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

bizzybody said:


> How long until someone gets hold of a toy/model/kit of the new Enterprise and paints and lights it like the original version?


That's *EXACTLY* what I had in mind if I were able to get in on that so-called "famous artist" thing and get ahold of one of those models.

Probably would've had to commission special decals from JT Graphics, but the paint job would've taken no more than a couple of hours.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Looking at the comparison (nu1701 vs. TOS) pegs my particular issues with the design: the secondary, pylons, and dorsal. The saucer's a slightly-altered TMP; the new nacelles are kind of cute. But the secondary and its points of attachment would benefit from being reproportioned. Or is it just me?


----------



## gojira61 (May 21, 2008)

charonjr said:


> Well, I guess that QMX replica answers the size of this ship question. They say their 34" replica is 1/350 scale, slightly larger than the MR 1701. This seems hard to believe when looking at the airlock size, though and the stills I've taken of the first trailer, which seems to show several decks in the bridge module.
> 
> I was going to attach pictures, but the manage attachments is working. Oh well....


Actually that has changed as the size of the new Enterprise was updated from Paramount. It was assumed that it was about the size of the refit Enterprise early on but that has now proven to be far from the case.

Jim


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

How far has yet to be determined.


----------

