# A forgotten Enterprise?



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I came across this: http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/Declaration-ClassEnterprisePopCulturePage.htm and I'm wondering if anyone has ever actually seen one or built one. It looks like a rather cool model and I'm thinking of getting one.

Anyone?


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Nope.
I can kind of understand why it's forgotten too....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It is a part of Trek histroy that was abandoned. It was to have been the first starship named Enterprise, as seen in the display in the rec-room in ST:TMP. There is an image of the sailing ship Enterprise, the aircraft carrier, the space shuttle, this craft and the tv Enterprise. When they designed the E for "Enterprise", I guess they decided this design was not "sexy" enough, so like ALL Star Trek, established facts go out the window for the sake of the story! I suppose it was easier for them to use the computer model of the Akira, a 24th century ship, as a 22 century ship.......surely no one will notice!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I still accept it as the first _Enterprise_ (and I ignore the NX-01 as well as all of ENT) and I think it looks cool. So hence my interest in it.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I really like that design!


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

For those of you who have the old "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology" this ship is featured in its pages. I think it's a great looking ship and if I didn't have a backlog of models (and a frontlog of bills) I'd be all over this!

Tib


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Here's a much better rendition of that original design:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1oTNGkUkHgM/TF6Z03n5jLI/AAAAAAAAB78/3Sldgy48Oq0/s1600/330.jpg


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Here's a much better rendition of that original design:
> 
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1oTNGkUkHgM/TF6Z03n5jLI/AAAAAAAAB78/3Sldgy48Oq0/s1600/330.jpg


Yep, that's pretty sweet. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

That design of the Enterprise has actually been around since the very beginning of Trek. One of Matt Jeffries' original designs is almost identical to that version. I found a picture of the original sketch in a copy of "Star Trek - The Original Series Sketchbook".

Bryan


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I personally love the design. It's another Matt Jefferies classic.
It was included in the "Ships Named Enterprise" wall in TMP, but none of the back stories are "cannon." I prefer the idea that it was a testbed for warp propulsion based on the Vulcan ring design and that Starfleet R&D later made the decision to go the warp nacelle route. 

I did a scratch build of it and posted it here many moons ago.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

^^^ Very nicely done mikephys!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: 
-Jim


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

RSN said:


> It is a part of Trek histroy that was abandoned. It was to have been the first starship named Enterprise, as seen in the display in the rec-room in ST:TMP. There is an image of the sailing ship Enterprise, the aircraft carrier, the space shuttle, this craft and the tv Enterprise.


Here's a pic.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Anyone have snaps of the finished kit? I won't pony up $90 but if it looks good and ever goes on sale it might have to be bought 

Tib


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

JGG1701 said:


> Here's a pic.:thumbsup:
> -Jim


Thanks for posting that pic! Just what I was referring to!! I have really come to dislike everything after Star Trek 6. I really like the world of the original series, not the re-imagined Trek that followed on TV in the Next Generation universe. Remember, Spock said Earth was spared a nuclear war, in "Bread and Circuses" I believe. Yet in TNG that claim is altered in the first episode. Same with the lineage of the Enterprise. The ring design was the ship before the 1701, not the "Akira" mash-up! 

I am glad they went back and re-did the timeline in the last movie, now they can chart a course without worrying about contradictions!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Fantastic Plastic is a quality kitmaker. If you buy it, you can be sure of a good kit and good customer service from Allen Ury.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9.
PM sent.
-Jim


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> It is a part of Trek histroy that was abandoned. It was to have been the first starship named Enterprise, as seen in the display in the rec-room in ST:TMP. There is an image of the sailing ship Enterprise, the aircraft carrier, the space shuttle, this craft and the tv Enterprise. When they designed the E for "Enterprise", I guess they decided this design was not "sexy" enough, so like ALL Star Trek, established facts go out the window for the sake of the story! I suppose it was easier for them to use the computer model of the Akira, a 24th century ship, as a 22 century ship.......surely no one will notice!


Technically, that's not true... it was not created to be "the first Enterprise."

It was actually created for a totally non-Trek project. Something that Roddenberry was trying to create post-Trek. He got M.J. to design a new ship concept, and this was to be the "hero ship" for that new series, simply titled "Starship."

The series went nowhere, as you can probably guess. Not even as well as Roddenberry's "Genesis 2" or the massive re-edit/re-write/re-cast, "Planet Earth."

So in 1978/1979, when they were dressing up the 1701 sets, Roddenberry asked Rick Sternbach to do a B&W backlit piece of art to go along with the other "Enterprises," roughly based upon M.J's original sketches.

Sternbach also produced a more detailed painting for the "Spaceflight Chronology." I've made my own model based roughly on that second, more detailed Sternbach concept, which is dramatically different from the original non-Trek M.J. concept. 

Since then, the original MJ concept got re-used as a wall painting at the earth-side club in an episode of "Enterprise," making it somewhat more "canon."

The best we can say is that this is recycling at its best. 

As far as I, personally, am concerned, I'm sticking with the "Enterprise" being the Sternback painting version. This ship is another, marginally related design.

That said... it's a very nicely done translation of the original M.J. "Starship" design... and it's worth having for that reason alone!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Technically, that's not true... it was not created to be "the first Enterprise."
> 
> It was actually created for a totally non-Trek project. Something that Roddenberry was trying to create post-Trek. He got M.J. to design a new ship concept, and this was to be the "hero ship" for that new series, simply titled "Starship."
> 
> ...


I does not matter to me what it was designed for, Decker's line in the movie was "All these ships were named Enterprise". So to me, and anyone else watching, that ship was the last ship to be named Enterprise before the NCC- 1701 and therefore part of Trek continuity. It was so small on the screen in ST:TMP and it went by so fast, all the viewer is left with is the shape of a ship.....not details. So I am not sure how I am wrong, or what your point is?! When "Enterprise" was made, they went with the cheap and easy "Akira" design, since the CG model already existed and not one shaped like the ship Decker said was Enterprise. I am no novice when it comes to Trek, been a fan for over 40 years, I just don't put it on an "Infallible Pedestal"! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Here's a much better rendition of that original design:
> 
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1oTNGkUkHgM/TF6Z03n5jLI/AAAAAAAAB78/3Sldgy48Oq0/s1600/330.jpg


As far as I'm concerned this is the earlier _Enterprise_ before TOS' 1701. I've always looked at ENT as an alternate timeline anyway.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> I does not matter to me what it was designed for, Decker's line in the movie was "All these ships were named Enterprise". So to me, and anyone else watching, that ship was the last ship to be named Enterprise before the NCC- 1701 and therefore part of Trek continuity. It was so small on the screen in ST:TMP and it went by so fast, all the viewer is left with is the shape of a ship.....not details. So I am not sure how I am wrong, or what your point is?! When "Enterprise" was made, they went with the cheap and easy "Akira" design, since the CG model already existed and not one shaped like the ship Decker said was Enterprise. I am no novice when it comes to Trek, been a fan for over 40 years, I just don't put it on an "Infallible Pedestal"! :thumbsup:


I'm not disagreeing with the "in-universe" idea... only the "out of universe" one. The design was not originally created as part of Trek-dom. I just wanted to emphasize that for anyone who may then mistakenlly conclude that Roddenberry had this developed, in 1978/1979, to be "the first Enterprise." That's not the case.

Also... there is not only no reason to conclude that "it was the last ship before the 1701 to be named Enterprise," there is strong reason to believe differently. How many Enterprise naval vessels were there? How many KNOWN, REAL WORLD naval "Enterprises" were there?

There was a WWII aircraft carrier, and a later nuclear aircraft carrier. Yet the WWII carrier is not shown. Does that mean that, in Trekdom, this WWII carrier never existed? I'd argue "no." There were quite a few sailing vessels as well... I have a full book with every real, historical ship (as well as the known, fictional ships) named "Enteprise" This predates the "Enterprise" TV show, of course, but the REAL stuff is all there, and is well researched. We're talking about HUNDREDS of entries!

As an aside... if I were going back and redoing ST-TMP, I might use CGI to redo that panel. Not to remove the original graphics, but to make it a "rotating display" showing the many, many vessels which have carried the name Enterprise throughout history.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> I'm not disagreeing with the "in-universe" idea... only the "out of universe" one. The design was not originally created as part of Trek-dom. I just wanted to emphasize that for anyone who may then mistakenlly conclude that Roddenberry had this developed, in 1978/1979, to be "the first Enterprise." That's not the case.
> 
> Also... there is not only no reason to conclude that "it was the last ship before the 1701 to be named Enterprise," there is strong reason to believe differently. How many Enterprise naval vessels were there? How many KNOWN, REAL WORLD naval "Enterprises" were there?
> 
> ...


Tomato, tomahto......you can't make a BLT without one, no matter how you pronaounce it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> As an aside... if I were going back and redoing ST-TMP, I might use CGI to redo that panel. Not to remove the original graphics, but to make it a "rotating display" showing the many, many vessels which have carried the name Enterprise throughout history.


Hmm... I understand your point...but if you put the NoXi0us1 in there then we will be eternal blood enemies.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

If the rings are supposedly the propulsion, there ain't much room for crew in that little capsule, is there.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I always assumed the rings were part of the propulsion. Maybe an early type of warp coil that eventual advances will make smaller and smaller untill they can be contained within...nacelles.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, I personally did not like the way the first warp ship was portrayed in "First Contact". I liked the Borg part of the film, but the Zephram Cochran stuff was horrible. First, Cochran was in his 60's when he should have been half that age. But then post TOS Trek never let established “fact” get in the way of their stories! Second, the engines should not have looked almost exactly like the TOS nacelles, and they for sure would not have been able to retract and fit inside that missile shell without the "magic" of CG! And did anyone ever wonder how they landed the Phoenix?!!

It would have been nicer if it had a different look, the circle engines would have been visually interesting. Oh well, you can’t have everything.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> If the rings are supposedly the propulsion, there ain't much room for crew in that little capsule, is there.


Well, you can read up on Roddenberry's proposed series... which I seem to be having a rough time finding through Google right now, or I'd share more... 

But in this case, this ship was to have a very small crew... basically, with the entire crew being "stars" in an ensemble cast. As I recall, it was going to be either 9 or 12 crew on the ship.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> Well, I personally did not like the way the first warp ship was portrayed in "First Contact". I liked the Borg part of the film, but the Zephram Cochran stuff was horrible.


Agreed. I didn't like the casting or the writing re: Cochran, who was NOT the same character, or even remotely similar to the character, we'd seen in Star Trek. There were a LOT of actors they could have chosen to play the role, who would have fit it better. But the producers liked a particular actor, and "reshaped" the role to fit the actor. It's SUPPOSED to work the other way around, isn't it?


> First, Cochran was in his 60's when he should have been half that age. But then post TOS Trek never let established “fact” get in the way of their stories!


Well, I can almost forgive that part... since we don't know exactly how old Cochran was supposed to have been when he left earth. But it was unnecessary, and again was done not to further the story or to help the film, but instead to let the producers use someone who they, personally, happened to LIKE.

Sort of how Simon Pegg got cast as Scotty...


> Second, the engines should not have looked almost exactly like the TOS nacelles, and they for sure would not have been able to retract and fit inside that missile shell without the "magic" of CG!


This was just a mistake... and it was caused, I'm sure, by the "underestimation" of the fans by the producers. They figured that we'd all "ooh" and "ahh" if we saw something we recognized, and would grimace if we didn't. Because we're stupid that way... you know... "Oooo! Shiney!"


> And did anyone ever wonder how they landed the Phoenix?!!


Well, that part, at least, was pretty clear... the same way that they landed Apollo 11, or any of the other "space capsule" missions...


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> As far as I'm concerned this is the earlier _Enterprise_ before TOS' 1701. I've always looked at ENT as an alternate timeline anyway.


That is my take on it, the Borg incursion into the past created an alternate timeline that resulted in the "Enterprise" universe. When Picard and his crew returned to their "present" the alternate timeline continued on in an a parallel universe without altering the universe or history that Picard and his crew knew. A universe in which Cochrane made the first warp flight unassisted by Riker and LaForge. A universe where Cochrane never saw the massive "USS Enterprise" in earth orbit to know where his invention would take humanity.
It could also easily be argued that the universe in the recent "Star Trek" was also part of that same alternate timeline since Scotty obviously knew Admiral Archer.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Agreed. I didn't like the casting or the writing re: Cochran, who was NOT the same character, or even remotely similar to the character, we'd seen in Star Trek. There were a LOT of actors they could have chosen to play the role, who would have fit it better. But the producers liked a particular actor, and "reshaped" the role to fit the actor. It's SUPPOSED to work the other way around, isn't it?Well, I can almost forgive that part... since we don't know exactly how old Cochran was supposed to have been when he left earth. But it was unnecessary, and again was done not to further the story or to help the film, but instead to let the producers use someone who they, personally, happened to LIKE.
> 
> Sort of how Simon Pegg got cast as Scotty...This was just a mistake... and it was caused, I'm sure, by the "underestimation" of the fans by the producers. They figured that we'd all "ooh" and "ahh" if we saw something we recognized, and would grimace if we didn't. Because we're stupid that way... you know... "Oooo! Shiney!"Well, that part, at least, was pretty clear... the same way that they landed Apollo 11, or any of the other "space capsule" missions...


Well, for his age, I was going by the timeline the TNG people put together, Cochran would have been around 30.

From Memory Alpha site

"Cochrane was born in 2032. During the 2060s, he lived in Bozeman, Montana in North America, where he and his team of engineers began developing the warp drive and finally built Earth's first warp ship, the Phoenix. 

On April 4th 2063, he encountered the crew of the Federation starship USS Enterprise-E who came from the future to stop a Borg sphere from preventing first contact."

OK, based on how he looked in the film, he must have done a lot of drinking in his life and it aged him! James Cromwell was 56 when he played him. That's showbiz!!!!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

RSN said:


> Well, for his age, I was going by the timeline the TNG people put together, Cochran would have been around 30.
> 
> From Memory Alpha site
> 
> ...


The only thing about the TNG film version of Zefram Cochrane is that he's completely different than the original character shown in the TOS episode "Metamorphosis". In that episode, Kirk stated that Cochrane was from Alpha Centauri, not Earth. The only detail that the TNG film used was that Cochrane was the discoverer of Space Warp technology.

When you read online Trek resources, the TOS version of Cochrane is merely a footnote that's been overwritten by TNG and fan produced material. It was one character in "First Contact" that got me wound up because they had changed so much about the character.

Bryan


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Gemini1999 said:


> The only thing about the TNG film version of Zefram Cochrane is that he's completely different than the original character shown in the TOS episode "Metamorphosis". In that episode, Kirk stated that Cochrane was from Alpha Centauri, not Earth. The only detail that the TNG film used was that Cochrane was the discoverer of Space Warp technology.
> 
> When you read online Trek resources, the TOS version of Cochrane is merely a footnote that's been overwritten by TNG and fan produced material. It was one character in "First Contact" that got me wound up because they had changed so much about the character.
> 
> Bryan


The Alpha Centauri thing is easy - He emigrated to AC after developing warp drive and became a citizen there before heading off to deep space at age 87


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kenlee said:


> That is my take on it, the Borg incursion into the past created an alternate timeline that resulted in the "Enterprise" universe. When Picard and his crew returned to their "present" the alternate timeline continued on in an a parallel universe without altering the universe or history that Picard and his crew knew. A universe in which Cochrane made the first warp flight unassisted by Riker and LaForge. A universe where Cochrane never saw the massive "USS Enterprise" in earth orbit to know where his invention would take humanity.
> It could also easily be argued that the universe in the recent "Star Trek" was also part of that same alternate timeline since Scotty obviously knew Admiral Archer.


Yes, but he still would have been born before the time alteration by the Borg, just 30 years before he invented warp drive. As I said, for the sake of story, they threw out what was established and did what they wanted. It is not the only time they did it.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

RSN said:


> Yes, but he still would have been born before the time alteration by the Borg, just 30 years before he invented warp drive. As I said, for the sake of story, they threw out what was established and did what they wanted. It is not the only time they did it.


Gods no - they changed things all the time; got to be a habit

I just pretty much ignore a lot of things that don't fit what I believe about Trek

(Like Enterprise )


----------



## DarthCluin (Apr 10, 2011)

Once upon a time there was an animated Star Trek series (TAS). One of the writers for the animated series was Larry Niven. Larry incorporated his Known Space Mythology into the The Animated Series Mythology.

In the Known Space Mythology Humanity's most consistent foe were the Kzinti, a felinoid warrior race. First contact was made when the Kzin attacked an unarmed human colonisation ship named "Angel's Pencil", described as a long slender cylinder concentric to two rings. The ship escaped by turning its drive on the attacking Kzin ship.

A ringship design was one of the first designs Matt Jefferies made for The Original Series Enterprise, and Larry may have borrowed it for Angel's Pencil. When Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote "The Mote in God's Eye", they based the I.N.S. MacArthur on Matt Jefferies S.S.C. Leif Erikson. Then again the ringship design shares similarities with 1950s space station designs, so it might have been a case or great minds thinking alike.

I do not recall Angel's Pencil being shown in The Animated Series, however years later when I saw the S.S. Enterprise in the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology, Angel's Pencil was the first thing I thought of.

Since this is only my second post, I cannot embed links.
Look for:
memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kzinti
For the Spaceship of the Rings go here:
trekplace.com/article13.html
ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tos_6.php
memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(XCV_330
wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-Kzin_Wars


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well Larry Niven did adapt his short story "The Soft Weapon" for TAS called "The Slaver Weapon." And it's one of TAS' best episodes.


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

I tend to overlook that error. The character in First Contact was memorable and worked very well for the story. The TOS character was completely bland for me, even though it's still an enjoyable episode (and all of them are)


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Landru said:


> I tend to overlook that error. The character in First Contact was memorable and worked very well for the story. The TOS character was completely bland for me, even though it's still an enjoyable episode (and all of them are)


Exactly! I specifically recall (I think it was Ron Moore) who said, at the time of writing First Contact, that a lot of times they would write an episode or film and would come across a situation where what they wrote was contradictory to what had already been established. He explained that if the story is good enough, he wouldn't allow it to be dictated by a line or a plot point from a series 30 years old dictate his story. I'm in complete agreement with this. As the quote above stated: the original Cochrane was wooden and bland. A totally uninteresting character, especially for an action-film like First Contact. While FC is hardly the best Trek film out there (sorry, but I refuse to believe the Borg would rely on a gimmick like time travel....they would send a fleet of cubes to wipe out Earth in the present) I'm not one to fault the writers for allowing "Metamorphosis" to dictate their story.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

GSaum said:


> Exactly! I specifically recall (I think it was Ron Moore) who said, at the time of writing First Contact, that a lot of times they would write an episode or film and would come across a situation where what they wrote was contradictory to what had already been established. He explained that if the story is good enough, he wouldn't allow it to be dictated by a line or a plot point from a series 30 years old dictate his story. I'm in complete agreement with this. As the quote above stated: the original Cochrane was wooden and bland. A totally uninteresting character, especially for an action-film like First Contact. While FC is hardly the best Trek film out there (sorry, but I refuse to believe the Borg would rely on a gimmick like time travel....they would send a fleet of cubes to wipe out Earth in the present) I'm not one to fault the writers for allowing "Metamorphosis" to dictate their story.


Sorry, for me that is sloppy and unprofessional. To disregard what had been established by others in a franchise that is supposed to have a cohesive narrative is inexcusable. A talented writer would be able to incorporate past stories to make his work. This attitude is just lazy and lowers "Star Trek" to the same level that most Trek fans have about Irwin Allen shows!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> Sorry, for me that is sloppy and unprofessional. To disregard what had been established by others in a franchise that is supposed to have a cohesive narrative is inexcusable. A talented writer would be able to incorporate past stories to make his work. This attitude is just lazy and lowers "Star Trek" to the same level that most Trek fans have about Irwin Allen shows!


I agree. Writers of historical novels have no problem placing their stories in the context of real events and real people without altering them to unrecognizability. It shouldn't be a problem for a competent writer to treat the events and characters of Trek in the same way.

(Now cue some poor unimaginative soul crying "but Trek isn't real historeeeee!" :freak: )


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> I agree. Writers of historical novels have no problem placing their stories in the context of real events and real people without altering them to unrecognizability. It shouldn't be a problem for a competent writer to treat the events and characters of Trek in the same way.
> 
> (Now cue some poor unimaginative soul crying "but Trek isn't real historeeeee!" :freak: )


Anyone who does cry that should have no problem with JJ Abrams reinvention of Trek.......right?!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Waitaminute... The Cochrane we saw in "First Contact" is actually YOUNGER than the one in TOS. In the TOS episodes he said he was dying of old age, but had been rejuvenated. Who knows what happened to him between the events of "FC" and TOS? Fame, time, and other "untold stories" could have transformed him into the more thoughtful, reserved man we saw in TOS.


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

RSN said:


> Sorry, for me that is sloppy and unprofessional. To disregard what had been established by others in a franchise that is supposed to have a cohesive narrative is inexcusable. A talented writer would be able to incorporate past stories to make his work. This attitude is just lazy and lowers "Star Trek" to the same level that most Trek fans have about Irwin Allen shows!


Fair comment, but these are Trek MOVIES and they're not written, nor should they be, for the Fan audience. That was the downfall of the TNG movie franchise. Sure I loved all the movies, but I can still see their flaws.
They did get it right for First Contact though, which is why it WORKED. :tongue:

Just sayin!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fozzie said:


> Waitaminute... The Cochrane we saw in "First Contact" is actually YOUNGER than the one in TOS. In the TOS episodes he said he was dying of old age, but had been rejuvenated. Who knows what happened to him between the events of "FC" and TOS? Fame, time, and other "untold stories" could have transformed him into the more thoughtful, reserved man we saw in TOS.


The timeline that the The Next Generation people themselves created has Zephram Cochrane being born in 2032. The events of "First Contact" take place in 2063. That would make him 31 years old at the time of "First Contact". James Cromwell was 56 when he played him. Almost twice as old as he should have been. Biiiiig discrepancy!


----------

