# the 2009 Enterprise 3 foot version



## Mr.Predicta (Nov 15, 2004)

love to see pix of the ship if available


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

A very Nice Job!!!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

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

It looks like they might be available (along with 10" versions) sometime soon.


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Below are the views of the QMX model:


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

Looking at the wording:

"QMx has pioneered the U.S.-based development and manufacture of licensed, made-to-order ship replicas. "

I wonder if the license is similar to what Master Replicas had with the 1:350 TOS. If so, there may still be hope for a styrene kit...


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Also, while I think most of the promo customs now on display at theatres are crappy, there are a few that are fantastic. The last one would be great inspiration for fanfic.


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

I still say the damned nacelles look like frakin' pontoons on a pleasureboat, or a weekend rafting excursion. oooh! (chills)

Sincerely,
Scorp.

"Boldly GO!" :wave:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

There's no doubt: the nacelles have definite hooded phallic tendencies with giant silicon bosoms and areola formations upon the said bosoms.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

omnimodel said:


> Looking at the wording:
> 
> "QMx has pioneered the U.S.-based development and manufacture of licensed, made-to-order ship replicas. "
> 
> I wonder if the license is similar to what Master Replicas had with the 1:350 TOS. If so, there may still be hope for a styrene kit...


A 1/1000 Styrene kit looks likely-
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=72205


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Man, you can't say that. Thomas has done "garage" versions of Star Trek stuff like the EnnoxO'Won (the first resin NX-01 kit). We don't know anything yet.

As for QMx's stuff, these are fully finished replicas, NOT KITS. I'm not interested in a finished replica, it takes the fun out of life. All I can say is someone HAD BETTER get a styrene kit done of this thing, because it will sell crazy.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Thomas has done a *lot* more than just garage kits-



.


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Scorpitat said:


> I still say the damned nacelles look like frakin' pontoons on a pleasureboat, or a weekend rafting excursion. oooh! (chills)
> 
> Sincerely,
> Scorp.
> ...





charonjr said:


> There's no doubt: the nacelles have definite hooded phallic tendencies with giant silicon bosoms and areola formations upon the said bosoms.


Yeah, they look like silicone implants. 



Roguepink said:


> Man, you can't say that. Thomas has done "garage" versions of Star Trek stuff like the EnnoxO'Won (the first resin NX-01 kit). We don't know anything yet.
> 
> As for QMx's stuff, these are fully finished replicas, NOT KITS. I'm not interested in a finished replica, it takes the fun out of life. All I can say is someone HAD BETTER get a styrene kit done of this thing, because it will sell crazy.


I wouldn't want that at their detriment, though. I believe in kits as well, but kits began as cost-effective alternatives to once cost-prohibitive articulated toys and replicas. Since those are now mostly feasible and often realized, the model kit now appeals more for the pleasure of the build than the final product. Toys can even be bashed and converted, which undermines the need for those kits that have yet to be produced as toys.

I still believe in both, but I don't believe kits are the primary desire by the general public compared to less fragile representations of a ship.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

There's been conjecture that this ship is larger than the classic Enterprise. While completely non-canonical, A VR of the ship posted on the official website gives these statistics: Length 2500', breadth 1100', height 625', displacement 495,000 metric tons, crew complement 1100, maximum velocity 1600c, 16 short range shuttles, photon torpedo yield 65 mt (largest bomb ever detonated was 500 kt, or 1/130 of that).


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

FyreTigger said:


> photon torpedo yield 65 mt (largest bomb ever detonated was 500 kt, or 1/130 of that).


not quite.....

The largest bomb ever detonated was by Russia in '61 - the "Tsar Bomb"

Hydrogen bomb with a yield of 50 Megatons - it was actually designed to do 100 MT, but they did it half scale to minimize local fallout. The shockwave went around the Earth 3 times.

I think our largest was 15 Megaton.

Photon torpedo detonations in Star Trek have always been either very weak or unrealistically portrayed (a nearby detonation would destroy the firing ship as well)

Happy thoughts :wave:


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> not quite.....
> 
> The largest bomb ever detonated was by Russia in '61 - the "Tsar Bomb"
> 
> ...


I stand corrected on yields. I shouldn't do math in my head or try to decipher poorly designed Wikipedia tables when I haven't had my coffee yet.

The Wikipedia article on antimatter suggests a 20 megaton yield / kilogram. Surprisingly low, but 60% of the energy goes to non-reacting neutrinos.

I totally agree on portrayal. In reality, photon torpedoes should not be an in-fighting weapon.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

FyreTigger said:


> There's been conjecture that this ship is larger than the classic Enterprise. While completely non-canonical, A VR of the ship posted on the official website gives these statistics: Length 2500', breadth 1100', height 625', displacement 495,000 metric tons, crew complement 1100, maximum velocity 1600c, 16 short range shuttles, photon torpedo yield 65 mt


Hmm....looks like it's the size of the Enterprise-D after all.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Something else that's interesting: each of the QMX ships are built differently. Only one or two have the saucer, engineering hull and warp nacelles aligned with each other along the same horizontal line. Even the Playmates NuE has the saucer angled upwards from the engineering hull and the rear of the nacelles pointed high, as well.

Is there any evidence that all three segments are, in fact, aligned?

Also, I'd posted about the engineering hull hatch comparison between the playmates NuE and the Art Asylum Refit: The Playmates hatch was 1/3 the size of the Refit's. If they are matched, NuE would be 3 times the size of the Refit, wouldn't it?

Yet QMX says a 1/350 NuE would be 34"...doesn't add up.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

There are two different scales for the NuE- one about the size of the refit and one as big as the D.
From what I have heard in the movie they also show several scales- the saucer and neck seem refit , the Hangar Deck and Engineering is gigantic.
For those who have seen the movie already- what was your impressions?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

If you've got an HD version of the trailer (you can download it from Itunes) look closely at the shipyard construction shot. You can see a guy walking on a catwalk by the engine...he's pretty tiny. and in images where you can see the secondary hull, the windows are considerably smaller than on the refit. I'd be surprised if it's as big as the 'D', but I think it's a little bigger than the refit.


----------



## SamwiseVT (Apr 30, 2009)

I'd rather see it as a model kit that I can build.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

SamwiseVT said:


> I'd rather see it as a model kit that I can build.


Yes, yes, yes! I'm not gonna plunk down $1-2k for something I'd rather build myself.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

JeffG said:


> If you've got an HD version of the trailer (you can download it from Itunes) look closely at the shipyard construction shot. You can see a guy walking on a catwalk by the engine...he's pretty tiny. and in images where you can see the secondary hull, the windows are considerably smaller than on the refit. I'd be surprised if it's as big as the 'D', but I think it's a little bigger than the refit.


So how did they get this thing off the ground?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> So how did they get this thing off the ground?


By typing a few words on a page...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

CLick heels three times and say-
"There's no place like orbit, there's no place like orbit..."

I always liked the idea of the orbital shipyard but it probably just didn't look good enough from the back of a motorcycle.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I've seen the film twice, and watched closely the second time around for scale hints. When Pike's shuttle departs the hangar bay, then turns and flies up and over the saucer, the shuttlecraft appears to be a third to a quarter as thick as the saucer's edge. And since the new movie shuttles are much larger than the standard F class TOS shuttlecraft, it at least appears that the nu1701 is significantly larger than the TOS version, maybe even twice as big. It doesn't "feel" as big as the D. 

Most photos from the film, and the Playmates toy of the nu1701, make the saucer edge appear three decks thick with no windows on the upper deck.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> So how did they get this thing off the ground?


They didn't. They lowered the Earth.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ Makes as much sense as anything else in the movie.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> ^ Makes as much sense as anything else in the movie.


You didn't like the movie. We GET IT. Ha ha.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I saw the movie for a second time today. I also looked for hints of scale. The bridge window is nearly floor to ceiling in height. Engineering is a good four decks high, though those water pipes making U turns when they could have gone straight? And the neck portal through which Kirk is ejected: either the capsule thickness is greater than a man's height or both it and the engineering portal are not standard size ingress/egress hatches.

Anyway, the saucer rim appears four decks thick. Engine alignment changes with perspective: one rear shot makes the nozzles of the engines even with the saucer, but a later shot at the end shows them clearly elevated above the saucer.

I tried looking at the engineering screens while Chekov was announcing the mission status, but they weren't on screen long enough for a detailed examination (true for all sfx shots through the movie).

Could Playmates have the alignments correct? Then I just trashed it to align the saucer and engines unnecessarily....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Maybe it's got vectoring nacelles after all....


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Why were the domes blue and not red?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Antimatter said:


> Why were the domes blue and not red?


Just a design change I suppose. I've always liked the classic red color, but the blue didn't bother me at all. I missed seeing the bussard effect altogether on the refit, but quickly got used to it. On another note, I really liked the warp jump effect from this film. No big light show, just BAM...and it's gone. Kinda justifies the engines being so large. It seems as though it would pass earlier versions of the E like they were going backwards! Probably not true, but just their spin on the effect. This ship also makes a really cool resonant sound effect too.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

CaptainApril, vectoring nozzles could be true, as anything on this. JeffG, the warp speed might have approached warp 4 when Scotty pushed it at the end, yet there trip to Vulcan from Earth took just minutes! Maybe the warp engines, like the transporters, took on the turbolift propensity of taking just enough time to get the dialog in?

It varied all over the place. Interesting, maybe Mom could have been saved if Chekov used the fast setting....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just using the transporter from the original timeline would've saved Amanda. This new one sucks big time.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Ha ha. My gosh...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Chekov obviously knew of a way of locking on to a target in motion whereas in the case of Spock's mom, the transporter had a fixed lock THEN the target moved out of it.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

Enough. Maybe it's time to lock down another thread. This way, when we're trying to have a positive, objective discussion about the new Trek movie and the new E, we don't have to keep hearing how much *EVERYTHING* sucked; the cast sucked, the ship sucked, the plot sucked, the bridge sucked, the writing sucked, the music sucked, the titles sucked, the FX sucked, the transporter sucked, the popcorn sucked, the theater seats sucked, did I miss any? Oh yeah, if you liked the movie and E *YOU * suck, etc. etc., as nauseum.

I am a 40 year afficianado of what has been defined as "The True Trek". I've attended conventions, met cast members, built models, gone broke buying Master Replicas and Art Asylum toys, own the TOS on DVD (both regular and remastered) along with every movie (even the truely bad ones - can you say _The Final Frontier_? ) and watch them regularly, read dozens of books, magazines, etc. etc. etc. 

I saw the movie. I loved the movie. Despite truly loving everything about the "old" Trek and the E in all her various incarnations. Of course there were things I didn't like (engineering and some aspects of the ships exterior design) but I don't intend to bore or offend anyone obsessing about things that, in the course of real life, *DON'T MATTER ONE BIT*. I appreciate that everyone has their opinion, but it seems as if some just garner overwhelming joy pissing on the parade of anyone who dares to have one that differs or likes what differs from the original canon or look.

J.J. Abrams did for Star Trek what Barbara Broccoli did for James Bond. In both instances, these reboots have refreshed stale,failing franchises IMHO, and the Trek reboot will now hopefully attract a whole new generation of ST fans, not just those of us who pre-existed. Is it different? Yup. Things change. Can someone hate that? Sure! I respect that difference of opinion.... to a point... the point where the unmitigated ire is spread over any/all related threads over any/all details.

I'll probably get my head ripped off for this and banned from the board, but you know? It finally got to the point where I had to speak up. 

I apologize for the protracted pontificating and my intent was not to offend *anyone * regardless of their viewpoint, honestly. I'd just like to come to these boards without being bombarded by the negativity. I've seen so much positive energy and talent from *everyone* here that it really helps me relax from what I have to endure on a daily basis in my line of work (shared with the late Mr. Roddenberry, no less, before he changed careers and went off to create the Trek universe). This place lets me relax. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. Movies are supposed to be fun. I'll climb down off my soapbox now.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I agree with oshkosh619, except for locking the thread. Everyone should be able to say their opinions and debate but without attacking anyone personally over it. I wish we could all try better to stay on the topic that each thread is started with.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, that just sucked...


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

I've finally been to see the movie last night and I have to say I really loved it. I was unsure of the design of Nu-E but it works. The final shot of the film with the soundtrack voice-over and fly-by just absolutely rocked my world (and as a stiff assed Brit, this doesn't often happen!)

Would I buy a 3 foot Nu-E? As the owner of 3 1/350 E-fit's and 3 1/350 NX's, as well as about a dozen 1/1000 kits (and paid the shipping from the US!), most definately!

Rob


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

robcomet said:


> I've finally been to see the movie last night and I have to say I really loved it. I was unsure of the design of Nu-E but it works. The final shot of the film with the soundtrack voice-over and fly-by just absolutely rocked my world (and as a stiff assed Brit, this doesn't often happen!)
> 
> Would I buy a 3 foot Nu-E? As the owner of 3 1/350 E-fit's and 3 1/350 NX's, as well as about a dozen 1/1000 kits (and paid the shipping from the US!), most definately!
> 
> Rob


Be nice now. One sure sign of a good movie is that inflames the passions and caused 'normal' men to act like children.
Poor films happen and nobody cares at all- does anybody remember the film "Ishtar"?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Come on, guys, settle down. As much as I find some of the relentless, never-let-an-opportunity-pass negativity tiresome, I'd rather not see the topic of the new movie off-limits here, of all places, just because we can't play nice. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm tired of issuing warnings. Those trolling for a fight, even after repeated requests not to do so, will receive a seven day ban. For starters.

Critical comments of a constructive nature are, and will continue to be, welcome. I have NO PROBLEM with an intelligent discussion of the pros and cons of Trek design, past present and future. That said, pointless, disruptive, and tiresome snipes of the "IT SUCKS" variety will no longer be tolerated.

Similarly, if you have a problem with someone's behavior on this forum please CONTACT THE MODS rather than respond with inflammatory remarks of your own. All that does is make a bad situation worse.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Just coming in on the end of this, I'm kind of thinking that guy was just saying the new transporter sucks because they couldn't lock onto Amanda--I didn't take it as the 10 thousandth slam on the film although believe me I'm getting tired of the arguments too.

I don't know if it's been brought up in this thread but Rob, what about this idea that the ship is two thousand feet long or so now? I know you stated that wasn't the case earlier but now it seems like that is being put out there as the length--and it actually makes more sense given the apparent size of the two deck shuttlebay and the fact that the shuttles appear to be about the size of a phaser bank on the primary hull. Maybe that brewery actually WOULD fit inside engineering...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

jbond said:


> I don't know if it's been brought up in this thread but Rob, what about this idea that the ship is two thousand feet long or so now? I know you stated that wasn't the case earlier but now it seems like that is being put out there as the length--and it actually makes more sense given the apparent size of the two deck shuttlebay and the fact that the shuttles appear to be about the size of a phaser bank on the primary hull. Maybe that brewery actually WOULD fit inside engineering...


The main thing that bothered me about the Engineering set is that they should have added curved hull walls on the sides or something to give you the feeling you were in a large vessel. I think that could have been done easily with some 3D computer effects.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jbond said:


> I don't know if it's been brought up in this thread but Rob, what about this idea that the ship is two thousand feet long or so now?


Go here...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=2828723#post2828723

...(post # 19) for my ever-evolving take on the whole Abrams Enterprise length issue.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

Steve Mavronis said:


> The main thing that bothered me about the Engineering set is that they should have added curved hull walls on the sides or something to give you the feeling you were in a large vessel. I think that could have been done easily with some 3D computer effects.


Agreed Steve. I also remember spotting nuts and bolts (still used in the 23rd Century??) holding assemblies together, and even some rust in some places. I have no problem with the "industrial" look for engineering, just would've preferred they film it in say, an electrical generation station with a huge turbine standing in for their reactor. Cleaner in appearance, yet replete with plenty of conduits, control stations, catwalks, overhead tracked crane, etc. A water treatment plant or brewery just looks too much like, well, a water treatment plant or a brewery!! I could see all the huge bolted tanks if the E ran on steam (dilithium *BOILERS*??)......:wave:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I work in a water treatment plant I know what you mean! I've never had the feeling I was ever in a starship here!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I'm sorry that I started a firestorm about the transporter. Good Grief! My point wasn't that it "sucked" because Amanda fell out of it's grip. My point was that the transporter had various times of operation used for solely dramatic effect. This is just like the turbolift taking only as long as needed to arrive based on dramatic effect. My remark about Chekov using a fast setting to save Amanda was a joke, not a "it sucks" comment.

I found the movie quite enjoyable and plan on going for a third viewing.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Transporters have been missused in stories for uite some time- they keep getting abilities to help a story point. In Voyager they had ones which would remove individual organs, in TNG they recombined DNA and cloned Riker. Later they could beam people while falling or walking- in the good ole'TOS days I remember the boss in 'A Piece of the Action' telling his henchmen that the poeple beaming in couldn't do anything until the sparkles finished. Like the New Dr. Who's Sonic Screwdriver, Transporters were catch all plot devise that did whatever was needed and I was getting tired of it.
I like technology which does have some limitations. Those limitations sometimes have consequences like Amanda.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Very true, Richard. I'm curious as to the function of the bright "bees" whipping around the transportee. I'm thinking that they are what read and store the molecular structure information to be transmitted. Interesting, the sound of glass or crystal breaking from the "bees" when Kirk and Sulu hit the platform. It suggests that they are somehow solid?

I tried to go to the Experience the Enterprise site, but found that both Firefox and IE crashed when running the AR. Weird.

Still like the 2500 foot figure, though. It allows for less TARDIS problems....


----------

