# First look at Star Trek Beyond's NCC-1701-A?



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Paramount/IMAX released these posters today. The second one looks like a hybrid design of the JJprise and original refit. Is this the new 1701-A?

New Movie Marathon TREK BEYOND Posters Revealed | TrekCore Blog


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Hard to tell- the artist abstracted it a lot- the nacelle pylons do look a lot like the refit.
Thing is the artist might have been holding a refit model for reference and just changed a few details. Last word was that the 1701-A would not be that much different


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

So, wait, there's a replacement Enterprise at the end of the movie? I'm not a spoiler-phobe, so whisper it in my ear. Obviously the JJprise gets destroyed, so I assumed something would happen.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

If they put the nacelles as far apart as they are in that poster it would make me very happy.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

From another site:


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

charonjr said:


> From another site:


That's the Into Darkness/Beyond refit 1701.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Just got back from the movie. The "A" is pretty much the same as the first JJprise, including the more vertical nacelle pylons (which is weird since they swept them back for the refit but just put them back to how they were for the brand-new, freshly built starship). The surface texture looks a little beefier and there are points of lights that now ring the perimeter of the deflector dish. It kinda resembles a mash-up of the JJprise and the Gabrel Koerner version, but with more bling.
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...erprise.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080207200508


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Just got back from the movie. The "A" is pretty much the same as the first JJprise...


It's really not though. It has very similar hull details and lines, but the proportions of the ship are far different. The 1701-A is actually almost dead-on shaped to the TOS Enterprise, but with JJprise surface details. The nacelles no longer have a "hood" over the bussards nor are they shaped the same at all to the JJprise. These nacelles are very cylindrical shaped like the TOS Ent. The bussards and deflector are still blue, though. The deflector "spokes" are a different pattern. The lower saucer has landing feet triangles like the TOS. Hard to remember all the details because you barely see it for 5-10 seconds and it's only backlit in the darkness of space.

It's basically the ship we should have gotten in 2009. Also, the NCC-1701-A registry on the bottom of the saucer is HUGE.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Can't wait for the Blu-ray! I want to analyze these differences. I would love to build the Darkness Refit and the 1701-A! Heck, even the Franklin. Too bad Revell Germany didn't announce anything this year for these designs.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Daniel_B said:


> It's really not though. It has very similar hull details and lines, but the proportions of the ship are far different. The 1701-A is actually almost dead-on shaped to the TOS Enterprise, but with JJprise surface details.


Hmmm. During the "time lapse" of the ship being built, it definitely had JJprise shaped dorsal (wide at the top where it connects to the saucer section) and nacelle pylons. In that "reveal" moment where we could finally see the entire ship assembled, to me it still looked far closer to JJprise than TOS, but, yeah, a few more TOS-inspired details. The impulse engines are also still the wide line from the Into Darkness refit.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Not the best quality pic, but here is the NCC-1701-A










Registry while under construction...










And also an animated gif of the spin around.

http://i.imgur.com/M3fIjzq.gifv


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Slightly off-topic, but it's hard for me to get excited about the new "A" when the Enterprise gets pretty much destroyed in every movie now.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Slightly off-topic, but it's hard for me to get excited about the new "A" when the Enterprise gets pretty much destroyed in every movie now.


Well, yeah. I mean, I saw the first, felt the actors were generally great but the script and art direction was meh. Never bothered with the second one, caught a bit on TV recently and the feelings maintain. Cast, decent to excellent. Script and art direction, meh. Not really at all interested in the third. 

But with the Enterprise constantly getting destroyed, shouldn't we be on Enterprise-C by now?


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Just got back from seeing it and I think the refit solves the two biggest problems of the JJprise--the nacelles are spaced much further apart (hooray!) and the secondary hull has been fleshed out so the ship doesn't look like it is going to tip over any second. You only saw it briefly, but it looked a hundred times better than the JJprise to me.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Not a high bar, since the JJprise is hideous.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

charonjr said:


> ...Too bad Revell Germany didn't announce anything this year for these designs.


Just in case you haven't heard by now, Moebius Models announced they will be producing model kits of ships from the new Star Trek movies.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I very much like the design of this Enterprise!


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Just dropping this here...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIL-7qFh0Hw/


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, what others have said, it seems improved in the right direction, but man, I hope that's an optical illusion on those nacelle pylons, they look THICK. I mean a couple DECKS thick! 

But you know? We shouldn't get too comfortable with this. JJ does like to change things up unless he's got a firm hand telling him what to do (see Star Wars TFA).


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Glad about the Moebius Models! Hope I see them sooner than later. You guys, thanks for the videos. Daniel B, that was 3D, wasn't it? wish I could do a stereo separation on it. Would you be willing to email me a copy or put it in Dropbox or something? I need something to concentrate, m y health is failing.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'm glad to hear of the new Mobius license. I look forward to designs like the Kelvin and such, which I liked much more than the JJPrise.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Daniel_B said:


> Just dropping this here...
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BIL-7qFh0Hw/


Thanks!- now I have some idea of what it looks like now.

I like it much better than the earlier NuEs- if they had started off with this one I would have been sadder to see the ships shredded so often...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I'll be the skunk at the picnic (I usually am) and say I actually liked the 2009 JJprise the most of the Kelvin Timeline (TM) ships. It's proportions, especially in shots like the undocking/jump to warp scene, actually worked for me. That they were different from the TOS or Refit proportions didn't bother me at all. I think I like it for the same reason I like the original ILM model of the E-D (not Jein's chunkier/clunkier version). It's more sculptural than functional.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I'll be the skunk at the picnic (I usually am) and say I actually liked the 2009 JJprise the most of the Kelvin Timeline (TM) ships. It's proportions, especially in shots like the undocking/jump to warp scene, actually worked for me. That they were different from the TOS or Refit proportions didn't bother me at all. I think I like it for the same reason I like the original ILM model of the E-D (not Jein's chunkier/clunkier version). It's more sculptural than functional.


Just 'cause one is a skunk, don't mean you gonna stink. 

No, seriously, I get it. You find the visual aesthetics pleasing. Nothing wrong with that. Myself, I gripe (whenever it's a subject that comes up and haw, that not often!  ) about 'Enterprise' and I actually find the NX-01 not that bad, the key gripe is it just doesn't look RIGHT for what the show itself is supposed to be about. Blah blah blah. 

Like what you like. Nobody needs to hate.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I haven't looked closely enough at the differences between the 2009 JJprise and the Beyond version, but how hard would it be for Moebius to offer parts to do both versions? Are the swept nacelle pylons mounted in such a way that they'd essentially need to replace both nacelles and the entire secondary hull?


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I haven't looked closely enough at the differences between the 2009 JJprise and the Beyond version, but how hard would it be for Moebius to offer parts to do both versions? Are the swept nacelle pylons mounted in such a way that they'd essentially need to replace both nacelles and the entire secondary hull?


I don't see a way you could do both, without offering two secondary hulls, and 4 nacelles, and a separate upper and lower saucer.

The Beyond refit has a longer/thinner dosral neck, thinner swept back pylons, and 30% smaller/thinner nacelles. The saucer also has more windows and more phaser banks at different radials. You'd need a lot of extra parts to do both.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

So best to hang on to my Revell kit -- not that I was planning to let it go.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I haven't looked closely enough at the differences between the 2009 JJprise and the Beyond version, but how hard would it be for Moebius to offer parts to do both versions? Are the swept nacelle pylons mounted in such a way that they'd essentially need to replace both nacelles and the entire secondary hull?


Nope! The pylons are mounted identically to the secondary hull and the engines. The swept back version actually pushes the engines rearward, but the engines look the same. Daniel B., it seemed as though the engines, once separated had the same length to them and ratios to them. Are you sure that they are 30% smaller?


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

charonjr said:


> Nope! The pylons are mounted identically to the secondary hull and the engines. The swept back version actually pushes the engines rearward, but the engines look the same. Daniel B., it seemed as though the engines, once separated had the same length to them and ratios to them. Are you sure that they are 30% smaller?


Absolutely.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

WOW! That...is...really...odd!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I'd like the new Enterprise more if they'd simply change it from this:










To this:


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Hmmm. One of the things I like about the closer nacelles is that to me it's got a faster look. Like they're pulled inward to reduce drag (which, obviously, isn't needed in space, but just aesthetically). That's one of the positive aspects of the design. LFSS. Looks Fast Standing Still.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I could care less one from the other. Both designs look very similar! Both designs look very neat! I like both, and one slight difference doesn't make or break it for me. And if I had to pick one, I agree w/ Hunk.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

If I could figure out the pylon shape, I could try to 3D print it. The only thing about 3D printers is that the plastic ridges have to be filled and sanded. The corn based plastic, PLA, is surprisely strong. There is a new resin (?) out that another member mentioned is designed to do this. I'll have to play with it.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Hmmm. One of the things I like about the closer nacelles is that to me it's got a faster look. Like they're pulled inward to reduce drag (which, obviously, isn't needed in space, but just aesthetically). That's one of the positive aspects of the design. LFSS. Looks Fast Standing Still.


I think that's another issue that bothers me. This is supposed to be a big ship with a lot of mass, and even in space it would take a bit of effort to get it moving (sci-fi mystery technology notwithstanding). It's supposed to look and move like a battleship, not a streamlined jet fighter.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Zombie_61 said:


> I think that's another issue that bothers me. This is supposed to be a big ship with a lot of mass, and even in space it would take a bit of effort to get it moving (sci-fi mystery technology notwithstanding). It's supposed to look and move like a battleship, not a streamlined jet fighter.
> 
> Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.


Two words: warp speed.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Zombie_61 said:


> I think that's another issue that bothers me. This is supposed to be a big ship with a lot of mass, and even in space it would take a bit of effort to get it moving (sci-fi mystery technology notwithstanding). It's supposed to look and move like a battleship, not a streamlined jet fighter.
> 
> Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.


It's all subjective. No one is right or wrong. I agree the ship should have mass. That's why I like the undocking/jump to warp in the 2009 movie. The ship seems big and heavy as it pulls away (the music definitely helps) and then PA-CHOW! There it goes.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> Two words: warp speed.


I should have been more specific. I don't have a problem with it when the Enterprise goes to warp speed because it's traveling in a straight line from here to there. But this Enterprise has the same problem as the ship in some scenes in the remastered original series episodes--under impulse it whips around like a paper airplane in a strong wind with no hint of it's mass. Granted this is all fiction, but we've come to expect to see that a large ship in space will have mass, and that it will move and maneuver rather slowly under normal conditions.

Now, I know this is a new Trek for a new generation, but does _everything_ in movies have to look like a video game these days?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Some people complain the the ships as filmed in 'the Wrath of Khan' move too slowly but that was intended to show them as massive machines which take time to change position and accelerate


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Zombie_61 said:


> under impulse it whips around like a paper airplane in a strong wind with no hint of it's mass.


Are there some particular shots we can reference (of the JJprise)? Overall, I thought ILM did a good job in 09 and ID keeping the ship feeling massive.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Well using Treknobabble, the usage of a (very necessary) inertial dampening field would allow such maneuverability both at impulse and warp. The question at hand is whether the entire mass of the ship could be dampened and by how much. If the mass could be dampened 100%, then no external inertia means altering the angle of flight, even backwards, instantly. Think of UFO flight pattern descriptions. But, I would hazard that storing of this much energy from the Higgs Boson field would only be possible in a total vacuum, such as that between galactic clusters. As it is, I would think that quantum virtual pair creation/destruction would provide enough interference of temporary mass to slow the ship down.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

charonjr said:


> Think of UFO flight pattern descriptions.


A lot of those use gravity wave manipulation. Mass is reduced to zero. Much is classified on this. Almost no info. I think we are still a decade out from figuring out what we have found. But, I digress...



charonjr said:


> But, I would hazard that storing of this much energy from the Higgs Boson field would only be possible in a total vacuum, such as that between galactic clusters.


Wow! For those not familiar:

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is *the quantum excitation of the Higgs field*—a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory, first suspected to exist in the 1960s.

Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it takes a non-zero constant value almost everywhere. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed, explains why some fundamental particles have mass when, based on the symmetries controlling their interactions, they should be massless. The existence of the Higgs field would also resolve several other long-standing puzzles, such as the reason for the weak force's extremely short range.

Although it is hypothesized that the Higgs field permeates the entire Universe, evidence for its existence has been very difficult to obtain. In principle, the Higgs field can be detected through its excitations, manifest as Higgs particles, but these are extremely difficult to produce and detect. 

The importance of this fundamental question led to a 40 year search, and the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, in an attempt to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. 

On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson.

Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted by the Standard Model. It was also tentatively confirmed to have even parity and zero spin, two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. 

This appears to be the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature. More studies are needed to verify that the discovered particle has properties matching those predicted for the Higgs boson by the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

Great subject! Charon, you have some extensive knowledge! :thumbsup:

Doug


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Richard Baker said:


> Some people complain the the ships as filmed in 'the Wrath of Khan' move too slowly but that was intended to show them as massive machines which take time to change position and accelerate


Really? I thought those scenes were rather well done, and they're a good example of how ships of their size should move in space. But then, I'm not taking the fictional/magical propulsion of Star Trek into consideration.



Hunk A Junk said:


> Are there some particular shots we can reference (of the JJprise)? Overall, I thought ILM did a good job in 09 and ID keeping the ship feeling massive.


Probably, but I've only seen the '09 movie twice--in the theater when it was released, and again when the Blu-Ray was released, so it's been a while. And I've only seen _Into Darkness_ once. I'm going from memory here, but I remember being unimpressed by one or two maneuvers the Enterprise made at impulse speeds.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Radiodugger said:


> Great subject! Charon, you have some extensive knowledge! :thumbsup:
> 
> Doug


Thank you, Doug! I read a lot about physics, and astro-physics. My genius (at 14, was 167 - but my family kept that hidden, so I didn't learn it until 9 years ago. Feeling of a life wasted! LOL!), is more in generating synthesis from available information. Helpful when I used to be creative and worked in Hollywood (after an OJT accident, went into computer repair)!

But, I have forgotten all of my fractions and algebra rules from 40 years ago. I don't understand the math in the papers. Calculus was interesting back, but very difficult. Although, now, if I could go to school again, I believe that I would pick it up much faster and understand it.

My Father, was an astronomer for the U.S. Naval Observatory. Now retired, he works on astro-physics. His theories have been rejected for being too novel. But interestingly what has put forward was semi-addressed in an article in ScienceDaily.com about a physicist who has proposed a workable theory involving the Holographic Model of 2-Dimensional Quantum Entanglement physics in the presence of a Gravity Field, yielding the 3-Dimension Universe in which we live. This a fundamental idea in Dad's paper.

BTW, Dad discovered the moon Charon in orbit Pluto in 1978. Please note that this is a variant of Kharon, the boatman of the River Styx in Pluto's domain, who rowed the souls of the dead to their various rewards in the underworld of Hades. He also named it after my StepMother, Charlene! 

So, the proper pronunciation is "Shar-on" as in Charlene. Not Sharon, as so many have mangled it throughout the world. You have my permission to punch any pronunciation offenders in the shoulder and correct their pronunciation. 

My Mother was also an astronomer. At the University of Arizona, she used to grind telescope mirrors as college job! She went for an MFA in a combined field of Painting, Sculpture, Jewelry making (pouring molten metals in a very old centrifuge washer) and Stain Glass windows and doors. She did this after being thrown from a horse caused brain damages, wherein she lost all her memories after High School, including a lot of her BFA art knowledge. But, she got back up on "the horse" and went her MFA. Astonishing woman of great strength, knowledge and skill. She passed in 2009 after a broken leg took six months to heal and she developed an diagnosed condition of Heart Failure. 

So, I am extremely lucky to have been born to these two parents of mine. Hence, a lot of general education in the areas specific to their interests!

Ok, hospital time in half an hour. May God Bless all of you! You are worth it, my friends!:grin2:


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Wow! I am awestruck...I gotta digest all this...Wow. I'll come back later and comment. Now I see where _your name_ comes from...

Doug


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Interesting. 167 is 7 points higher than Einstein's IQ. Not bad...


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Thanks. True. I have heard it is a use it or lose it thing. Since this was determined at 14 years old, but withheld from me (told that if I knew the MMPI score - had no idea it was an IQ test! - that I would get a big head), the education I could have used to develop my abilities was never accessed. Family politics? I was living with my Mom then, she told me all this and to this day, I don't know if she just thought I would be too uppity for her. She swore my Sister to secrecy, that last 41 years!

I did connect with medicine in my teens, but got the film bug due to my interest in special effects: a science teacher gave me his 8mm movie camera. He was animating 16mm television commercials. Eventually, he moved up and was the animator for The Nightmare Before Christmas, and others. My history was changed! Went to USC film school and earned a BFA. But injuries from work in the film industry kept me from getting too far.

On another note, had an orientation today on the chemo starting Monday. Glad I went, because my surgery was moved up a week to Friday morning. Have to be there 430a. A little under 6 hours from now. Glad I am up all night!


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

charonjr said:


> On another note, had an orientation today on the chemo starting Monday. Glad I went, because my surgery was moved up a week to Friday morning. Have to be there 430a. A little under 6 hours from now. Glad I am up all night!


I'm rooting for you brother - I hope it goes well.

:thumbsup:


----------

