# 1:350 Refit and NX-01



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

I do know the Refit has are larger diameter saucer, but is it equal to or has more inner saucer height and depth?


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Certain sections of the NX would probably be thicker if compared overlayed one on top of the other. The refit does though I would guess have thicker edges than the NX. It would seem that some portions would be thicker on each of them than the other.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Believe it or not, the _*NX*_ has the bigger diameter saucer.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I don't believe it!


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

The refit's edges would be thicker because the saucer rim is two decks high, compared to one deck for the NX. I know the width of the NX is a little greater than the refit, though since the NX is an oval rather than a circle, the fore-aft distance of the NX saucer may be a little shorter than the refit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trek Ace said:


> I don't believe it!


 Thomas pointed it out to me himself. 
Yet another reason to think it's a stupid design.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> Yet another reason to think it's a stupid design.


'Tain't neither! :tongue: That's arbitrary. At the risk of igniting a round of silliness (as hard as it is to believe that might ever happen _here_ -- heaven forfend!), I would point out that bigger ain't necessarily better. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

John P said:


> Yet another reason to think it's a stupid design.


Like we need gobs and gobs of reasons to think that way.... As Scotty would/might say: "Just look at 'er. A ship too ugly to be a garbage scow"

José


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

sbaxter said:


> 'Tain't neither! :tongue: That's arbitrary. At the risk of igniting a round of silliness (as hard as it is to believe that might ever happen _here_ -- heaven forfend!), I would point out that bigger ain't necessarily better.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


 Better, no, but it lessens our 35 years of thinking of the 1701 as the biggest starship class buiult up to that point, which is the impression given in the original series. Massive satrship! City in space! a thousand feet long (almost)! Wider than a football field!
[Rick Berman] Oh yeah? Well mine is ALMOST as big, and, and , and it's WIDER! So THERE! [/Rick Berman]


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

Yeah, but it's alot smaller, seeing as it's just a primary hull with nacelles, unlike the Connie, which has an entire secondary hull!!! 

Dan


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

Well, looking at a couple of early proof pictures of the 1/350 refit saucer compared to the NX-01... the refit saucer is bigger. And the ship overall is wider, too... but then again, it could be different for the TOS 1701 and the NX-01.

And to think the NX-01 only had a crew of 83. What sort of a moron crews a ship THAT big with only 83 people?


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

Nighthawk said:


> And to think the NX-01 only had a crew of 83. What sort of a moron crews a ship THAT big with only 83 people?


*AHEM*



Tripdeer said:


> Yeah, but it's alot smaller, seeing as it's just a primary hull with nacelles, unlike the Connie, which has an entire secondary hull!!!


Dan


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Nighthawk said:


> And to think the NX-01 only had a crew of 83. What sort of a moron crews a ship THAT big with only 83 people?


Again, this plays into the idea that while the physical dimensions of the ship overall aren't all that much smaller than Kirk's ship, the components inside take up much more room in the NX-01 because they hadn't yet learned to make them smaller. The NX-01's computer is no doubt quite a bit less powerful than what Kirk had, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was physically larger.

John P, remind me never to send you to choose a laptop computer for me!  You're arguing emotion against logic. You make baby Spock cry.  

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nighthawk said:



> And to think the NX-01 only had a crew of 83. What sort of a moron crews a ship THAT big with only 83 people?


 Say it with me.....


----------



## alpha-8 (Oct 31, 1999)

Also keep in mind that equipment is probably bigger and bulkier thus requiring more space and less space for people.


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

But also remember that a modern aircraft carrier has to carry 84 aircraft both fixed wing and rotary, fuel to support those aircraft, has a crew of six thousand, at least one, probably two nuclear reactors, supplies, and armaments... and yet they're only 1,100 feet long. The NX-01 should have a crew of at LEAST 100... the space alloted to each given officer should have been FAR smaller. Remember Kirk's cabin from ST:VI... pretty much a bed, desk, synthesizer, bathroom and a closet. Archer's cabin on the NX-01 is opulently luxurious by comparison. There are so many things wrong with the NX-class design that we'd need an entire new forum just to debate and gripe about them. Oh well. At least the 1:350 refit is finally off the "coming soon" list... but when you look at the playing mantis website and the polar lights section, it shows the 1:1000 1701. Someone must have goofed.


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

Size is/was/will always be a silly comparison of advancement. Technology starts at one size, bloats, then gets compacted and continues that process over and over. Look at the history of EVERY piece of hardware ever made. Especially anything electronic. VCRs, TVs, Radios, etc.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^But not ships. They've never been bigger than they are now (Ark excluded ).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nighthawk said:


> But also remember that a modern aircraft carrier has to carry 84 aircraft both fixed wing and rotary, fuel to support those aircraft, has a crew of six thousand, at least one, probably two nuclear reactors, supplies, and armaments... and yet they're only 1,100 feet long. The NX-01 should have a crew of at LEAST 100... the space alloted to each given officer should have been FAR smaller. Remember Kirk's cabin from ST:VI... pretty much a bed, desk, synthesizer, bathroom and a closet. Archer's cabin on the NX-01 is opulently luxurious by comparison. There are so many things wrong with the NX-class design that we'd need an entire new forum just to debate and gripe about them.


 Don't get me started! :lol: In the pilot, when Hoshi complained to the captain about the stars outside her window "going the wrong way" I thought, "She has a WINDOW!? An ENSIGN?!" (_after_ I thought "oh shut up you whiney twit").


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I think the name Enterprise is what gets us about the NX 01 .We all hate the fact that something came before our beloved NCC 1701 .For the last 30+ years we had all lived with the knowledge that the TOS Enterprise was first and then they try and tell us that no the NX 01 came first .I think that the show would have been more accepted if they had named it Lexington or Hood or anything but Enterprise .When something starts with a premise that slap you in the face from the start it is usually going to fail .The thing that gets me the most about the failure of the show is that it had a great cast who seemed to care about the product they where putting out .


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

"Enterprise" didn't fail because hard-core fans rejected it but because no one but hard-core fans were still watching it. 

"Star Trek" has lost about twelve million weekly viewers in the ten years since TNG left the air, and it didn't start losing them when "Enterprise" premiered -- in fact, "Enterprise" didn't even accelerate the rate of attrition; the downward curve is steepest back during the DS9/early "Voyager" era. 

Unfortunately, if your car gets twenty-five miles to a gallon when the tank is full and twenty-five miles to the gallon when you're running on reserve...you're gonna run out of gas.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

ALL television ratings are declining with time. How many stations did you have to choose from in 1987 when TNG premiered? For me, it was around 20. Today, I get about 60. If I opted for satellite TV, it could be far higher.

In announcing his retirement from Nightline, Ted Koppel noted how the cable/satellite explosion of channels has changed the economics of TV. When Nightline started in the late 1970s, ABC, NBC, and CBS attracted 75% of viewers in the 11:30 pm timeslot. Today, it's about 28%. With more and more choices, it's harder and harder for any new show to get noticed.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Look at the Nimetz carrier next to the soon-to-built CVX class carrier, is it just me or is the newer, better ship smaller?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm

(incidentally, the Enterprise, CVN-65, is due to be decomissioned when the CVX-78 is launched.. I wonder if the name will carry over)


> These critical technologies are started in FY 1999 to ensure that CVX can reduce the total cost of ownership of its aircraft carriers and meet its required Initial Operational Capability date of 2013, when the first CVX is slated to relieve the 52 year-old Enterprise (CVN 65).


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

phicks said:


> ALL television ratings are declining with time. How many stations did you have to choose from in 1987 when TNG premiered? For me, it was around 20. Today, I get about 60. If I opted for satellite TV, it could be far higher.
> 
> In announcing his retirement from Nightline, Ted Koppel noted how the cable/satellite explosion of channels has changed the economics of TV. When Nightline started in the late 1970s, ABC, NBC, and CBS attracted 75% of viewers in the 11:30 pm timeslot. Today, it's about 28%. With more and more choices, it's harder and harder for any new show to get noticed.


All true. And BTW, after 700 episodes it's entirely reasonable that there may not be enough people who find "Star Trek" novel or intriguing enough to support a series week after week.

Here's a little picture of what's happened:










The ratings data for the first three series was salvaged from the old WebTrek ratings database that was maintained on-line for some years and is no longer available (I have the original owner's permission to bring those tables back on line and may do so when I have the time).

The ratings data for "Enterprise" is from *MvRojo's* Enterprise Ratings Database

The ratings data for TNG, DS9 and Voyager is selected weeks -- November, February and May of each season, which roughly correspond to ratings sweeps periods (I do not have available data on exactly which weeks each season were sweeps weeks. It varies a little from year to year). The ratings data for "Enterprise" is full weekly data through the episode "Observer Effect", as the data tables I used don't include air dates. If enough people think it's worthwhile or that the trends displayed above may be somehow skewed by the fact that the TNG, DS9 and Voyager data isn't week-by-week, I may go back and add the missing weeks in. Note that the premiere-week ratings for the various series aren't included on the chart because of the use of sweeps data -- if we add them in we get a one-week spike at the beginning of each new series that drops off into the curve within a few weeks more.

I'm missing data for Voyager's second season. I'll continue to hunt that up.

Despite those caveats, the trend is unmistakable: the viewership for "Star Trek" has been in a steady decline since 1993. None of the series which followed TNG was able to hold its audience from week-to-week or season-to-season, and one could plot a pretty smooth curve from 1993 onward _regardless of the Trek series in question_.

This is what anyone can come up with from publicly available sources. What do you suppose the numbers being looked at by the folks at UPN and Viacom look like, particularly with regard to the "revive Trek after a little rest" line of reasoning?


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I remember when TNG first came out, there was a huge deal made over the $1.5M price tag per episode.. I wonder what it is down to now... Perhaps a year from now, a new series, made with much cheaper production costs, might justify the numbers. Giving the viewers what they want might help too.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

There's not going to be a new Trek series a year from now or two years from now or three years from now, for reasons that *phicks* suggests. Maybe a movie in five years or so. Maybe.


----------



## djharmon (Apr 3, 2004)

IMO, The best thing that could happen to the Star Trek Franchise (and it will never happen because of Paramount’s death grip on the license) would be to move it to the SciFi channel. SciFi puts out a lot of crap but when they put their mind to it, they can do good stuff (i.e. BSG & SG SG-1). I’d like to believe that at least they get rid of B&B and take the Franchise seriously.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Woozle, as I understand the CV-X plan, they'll be using a Nimitz-class hull to save development money. So she'll be the same size.


Maybe a valid size comparison would be to compare the NX-01 to the original carrier, the Langley; and the 1701 to a WWII era carrier like Enterprise CV-6. And then the 1701-D would be like a Nimitz class.

_*USS Langley (CV-1):*_
*displacement:* 11,500 tons
*length:* 542 feet
*beam: * 65 feet
*draft:* 18 feet 11 inches
*speed: * 15 knots
*complement:* 468 crew
*armament:* 4 five-inch guns
*aircraft: * 55 (max)
*class:* _Langley
_

_*USS Enterprise (CV-6)*
_

*displacement:* 19,800 tons
*length:* 809½ feet
*beam: * 83 feet 1 inch; extreme width at flight deck: 114 feet
*draft:* 28 feet
*speed: * 33 knots
*complement:* 2,919 crew
*armament:* 8 five-inch guns, .38-cal. machine guns
*class:* _Yorktown_ 

_*USS Nimitz (CVN-68)*_

*Length, overall:* 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
*Flight Deck Width: *252 feet (76.8 meters)
*Beam:* 134 feet (40.84 meters)
*Displacement:* Approx. 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load
*Speed: * 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
*Aircraft:* 85


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

To me, the reason the viewership has been dropping off is because of lack of originality and imagination. The same basic people made the various Trek shows and (no surprise) they all came out looking and feeling the same. The makers had their "formula" and they stuck with it. IMO "Star Trek" doesn't need a "break", it needs an injection of imagination. Unfortunately, Hollywood used up all its imagination nearly 20 years ago and there is no new source in sight (there are one or two people around who have demonstrated that they have some imagination but until those few people become the ones that Hollywood listens to, nothing will change). Lack of imagination is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that no one (in Hollywood) wants to mention. Instead they keep looking for that "successful formula" but they simply are incapable of seeing that there isn't one.

"Star Trek" represents an entire universe! Some of the most successful TV shows ever have had far far more limited environments, a house, a hospital, or a police station for example. These new so-called "Star Trek" shows have indeed had some interesting concepts and plot lines presented to be sure but they have been handled in the most mind-numbingly dull ways. For me, the defining moment for this new behind-the-scenes crew came in "Next Generation" when the Enterprise discovered a "Dyson Sphere" which had been built by an unknown alien race and was now seemingly abandoned. What did the new crew of the Enterprise do about it? They "boldly" called in a "science ship" and went on their way to spread smugness, bureaucracy and political-correctness throughout the universe. That really summed-up everything that was wrong with the new approach to the show as far as I was concerned. Obviously there was an audience for this brand of "entertainment" but the facts show that it was and is not a sustainable demographic. Certainly didn't sustain me! My point here is that no science fiction project "needs a break" as many others around the Internet seem to believe, what they need is imagination.

If the only option available for Trek today is to use the same people who created the last project to create the next one, then Star Trek really is dead. The money people only have to look at their declining track record to see that it isn't worth the effort. As long as the nit-wits at Paramount refuse to make the necessary adjustment in staff, no "break" will be long enough. We will all have to wait until we get "Paramount the Next Generation" before we have a chance of seeing a really viable new series.

Just my opinion here, I know that many others here will disagree which is okay too.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

"Star Trek" needs to go away and stay away. Commercially, there's no good argument for its continuance or revival. Creatively...well, having an audience dominated vocally by clones of the Simpsons' "comic book guy" certainly isn't very satisfying for a lot of the creative folks.

As sorry as I am to see an end to the artistic work that really talented folks like *nx01rob*, Mike Okuda and so many other people do for Trek, I'm not going to miss the culture of complaint that "Star Trek" fandom has devolved into. The positive energy that existed in the fans of the 1970s and 1980s barely made the transition of fandom onto the internet, and it's all but bled away over the last fifteen years in animosities over the flavors of Trek that this fan or that fan approves. 

TNG, "Voyager", "Enterprise, TOS and DS9 all have their little knots of devotees who not only lavish praise on their particular fetish but are childishly vituperative toward Trek fans whose tastes differ. Fandom has become a sump for the angry and obsessive, and it's no wonder at all that the larger popular culture was delighted to skewer Trek and its fans as soon as the blood was in the water. If the focus -- or, if you prefer -- "irritant" of new Trek productions subside then all but the most compulsive and bitter will find more productive ways to spend their time.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

It's not like the 70s, where there really was NOTHING, until St TMP, BSG, and SW surfaced.. today, there are numerous movies and shows on constantly... I expect that having trek being quiet for a while will help a new movie sell better, then in a few years, there will be an 'All New' star trek, with a totally different look, feel, and generation, that will totally contradict everything done so far, starting over from scratch. By then, they might even redo the TOS era. Who knows, we might even see a CGI Kirk swaggering around again.

In the mean time, don't forget Starship Exeter, now die out July 1st.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

woozle said:


> there will be an 'All New' star trek, with a totally different look, feel, and generation, that will totally contradict everything done so far, starting over from scratch.


Probably so. They're certainly aware that "Battlestar Galactica" has achieved its success by doing just that, while abandoning a small and fervently negative fanbase. In the end there was no way around that, and the choice has paid dividends so far.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

woozle said:


> Look at the Nimetz carrier next to the soon-to-built CVX class carrier, is it just me or is the newer, better ship smaller?
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvx.htm
> 
> (incidentally, the Enterprise, CVN-65, is due to be decomissioned when the CVX-78 is launched.. I wonder if the name will carry over)


From what I have read the new carrier will be named Enterprise! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

Actually, the CVN-65 Enterprise is a class unto itself: Enterprise-Class. A little tidbit of history is that a foundation had banded together to save the CV-6 Enterprise, the most decorated fighting ship in the U.S. Navy. They couldn't raise the money to preserve the vessel, and had to settle for the first nuclear carrier being named Enterprise, instead. The CV-6 was scrapped in 1958. The CVN-65 was commissioned in October,1961 and some of its first action was during the Cuban Missile Crisis one year later. If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) the America (66) and the Kennedy (67) were based off of the Enterprise-class, but are not nuclear. I certainly hope that the first CVX is named Enterprise, as well.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Nighthawk said:


> Actually, the CVN-65 Enterprise is a class unto itself: Enterprise-Class.


The important question is, will that match up with James Dixon's timeline? I'm sure the U.S. Navy does not want to get on _his_ bad side.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> To me, the reason the viewership has been dropping off is because of lack of originality and imagination. The same basic people made the various Trek shows and (no surprise) they all came out looking and feeling the same. The makers had their "formula" and they stuck with it. IMO "Star Trek" doesn't need a "break", it needs an injection of imagination. Unfortunately, Hollywood used up all its imagination nearly 20 years ago and there is no new source in sight (there are one or two people around who have demonstrated that they have some imagination but until those few people become the ones that Hollywood listens to, nothing will change). Lack of imagination is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that no one (in Hollywood) wants to mention. Instead they keep looking for that "successful formula" but they simply are incapable of seeing that there isn't one.
> 
> "Star Trek" represents an entire universe! Some of the most successful TV shows ever have had far far more limited environments, a house, a hospital, or a police station for example. These new so-called "Star Trek" shows have indeed had some interesting concepts and plot lines presented to be sure but they have been handled in the most mind-numbingly dull ways. For me, the defining moment for this new behind-the-scenes crew came in "Next Generation" when the Enterprise discovered a "Dyson Sphere" which had been built by an unknown alien race and was now seemingly abandoned. What did the new crew of the Enterprise do about it? They "boldly" called in a "science ship" and went on their way to spread smugness, bureaucracy and political-correctness throughout the universe. That really summed-up everything that was wrong with the new approach to the show as far as I was concerned. Obviously there was an audience for this brand of "entertainment" but the facts show that it was and is not a sustainable demographic. Certainly didn't sustain me! My point here is that no science fiction project "needs a break" as many others around the Internet seem to believe, what they need is imagination.
> 
> ...


I agree!

And good to see you around again, Phil!!! 

Stop by the Galileo thread occasionally.

I do think that there are some people like Many Coto who can save Trek if put in charge and not messed with by B & B.

I found it interesting which three episodes turned out to be fan-favorites.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Actually, while the CVN-65 turned out to be its own class due to its final configuration, I THINK it was layed down as a Kittyhawk class hull.


----------



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

"...So - The 1:350 Refit's inner saucer (edges included) is taller' than the NX-01."
(plastic Polar Lights models).

-thanks.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I do think that there are some people like Many Coto who can save Trek if put in charge and not messed with by B & B.


Hi all.

I'm currently watching Series 3 of Enterprise over here in the UK and last week saw an episode where I noticed for the first time that Manny Coto's name was attached to it.

The episode was Twilight. Now admittedly it felt like a retread of the DS9 episode The Visitor (set in future, eradicate temporal whatsit, future changed for the better) but it was the first episode of Enterprise that I actually wanted to watch again. The story line was adequately handled but the CGI work was a credit to people like *nx01rob*. Nacelles being damaged, the Earth being blown up, the bridge being targeted and actually shattering and seeing the bridge internals as well as Enterprise blowing up!

As someone else wrote, Star Trek needs a bit of imagination. I appreciate the actors and writers fine work on all Trek series but I think if the current incumbents of Paramount decide to grant a new series or film to Rick Berman, someone needs to go up to them, rip their arm off and beat them to death with the soggy end!

My two pence worth.

Rob


----------



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

"I could have sworn this threads topic was relative to 1:350 kit dimensions.
BTW: How much more imagination can occur in over 30 years of TOS re-runs, four TV spin-offs, and countless movies? ..it's just SciFi entertainment.


----------



## OKTOBERWULF (Mar 27, 2005)

I like the NX-01 just the way it is...Why change it now? Hummmmm... Fire Power? It can not be for speed..Can it?

Heck,...Sulu take us out of here !


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

user1127 said:


> BTW: How much more imagination can occur in over 30 years of TOS re-runs, four TV spin-offs, and countless movies? ..it's just SciFi entertainment.


Interestingly, I just finished the audio commentary for ST:First Contact, the track with Brannon Braga and Ronald Moore (Braga, the guy everyone around here hates, and Moore, the guy beloved by most for his Battlestar Galactica reinvention), and there was a segment where they both talked about the volume of Trek "canon" and how it's getting to the point where they need to start over and just re-work Trek, capturing the original spirit but ignoring the established canon.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

justinleighty said:


> [T]here was a segment where they both talked about the volume of Trek "canon" and how it's getting to the point where they need to start over and just re-work Trek, capturing the original spirit but ignoring the established canon.


So Moore left to re-work something else and Braga stayed to accomplish the incredible feat of simultaneously ignoring established canon AND failing to capture the original spirit.

José


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

:lol: Well put!


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Wonder if Moore will be involved in the rebooting of Trek for the next version, however long off that is?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

God I hope not.  

The reason the new BSG works is because the original show was never more than one season of really poorly written, loosely strung together melodrama. It had more groan factor than anything else. Potential and some cool models, but nothing else. The new series is _far_ more well thought-out and well presented.

Star Trek has nearly _40 years_ of deeply embedded storytelling to overcome. _Massive_ amounts of precedent. And a lot of stuff is really very good. It would take a break of 100 years or more to eliminate all traces of it from society for any audience to ever buy into a "reimagnined" Star Trek. It worked only once, with Next Gen--because there was only one show before it. After that it was rehash city. A rather quick decline and a too-slow death that's been a long time coming.

And any attempt by the current "administration" or *ANYONE AT ALL* currently in Hollywood to resurrect Star Trek would only destroy it further. Hollywood is a creative vacuum of greed-driven ass-kissers and yes men who only care about sucking out 1,000% of what they put into something via marketing gimmicks, merchandising, outsourcing artwork and outright fraud. With the exception of a few small pockets of talent, the art of storytelling is long gone from Hollywood.

Star Trek needs to wait for Hollywood to implode and the next rennaisance to begin again before it comes back. :wave:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

justinleighty said:


> ...it's getting to the point where they need to start over and just re-work Trek, capturing the original spirit but ignoring the established canon.


For me, the original "Trek" spirit is summed up best by the "Space the Final Frontier..." creedo. Unfortunately, Boldly Going Where No Man Has Gone Before becomes a real creative challenge after you've been boldly going to the same place for going on forty years. I'm a huge fan of TOS, but in recent years the trek itself has become unbearably tedious. And while I do hope Paramount can figure out a way to breath new life into a tired franchise, I'm certainly not holding my breath.


----------



## user1127 (Jun 11, 2002)

..so, the NX-01's saucer diameter is larger than the Refit...


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*?*

What is this thread about, anyway? All things under the Sun?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Jessica Alba ....


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> God I hope not. ...
> Star Trek needs to wait for Hollywood to implode and the next rennaisance to begin again before it comes back.


"Star Trek" as it's existed since the 1960s is over. It'll be back or not based on the "needs" of the folks who own the trademarks, not the fans...of course it's going to be reinvented or rebooted or "reimagined" or whatever the word is this week. Popular culture increasingly consumes itself, and there's not a thing about "Star Trek" -- now that it's ceased to deliver relatively dependable money for the owners -- that makes it special or different from any other bit of pop culture that they have commercial rights to.

Remember that it's owned by the people who have delivered two "Mission Impossible" films and are about to start principal photography on a third -- those flicks have been terribly successful for the studio, and they bear as much resemblance to the source material as we're likely to see out of the next iteration of "Star Trek".

I just hope whoever revamps Trek makes it as interesting as the current "Battlestar Galactica". If they can do that, I'll certainly give it a look-see.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I thought that TNG did well to represent the spirit of trek.. or after the second season, anyway.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dennis Bailey said:


> Remember that it's owned by the people who have delivered two "Mission Impossible" films and are about to start principal photography on a third -- those flicks have been terribly successful for the studio, and they bear as much resemblance to the source material as we're likely to see out of the next iteration of "Star Trek".


 A shudder passes through my spine....


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, them's the breaks. It's amazing that it's lasted as long as it has, as a single continuity. What beats it? 

Superman made it a little over fifty years in the comics before Byrne came in and officially restarted it, but the continuity had just mutated without much fanfare three or four times before that -- and every filmed version had introduced deliberate variations in the mythology. Byrne's reboot didn't survive quite twenty years.

I still enjoy "Superman" occasionally -- I'm certainly looking forward to another film -- despite the fact that "my" version is the late Wayne Boring/early Curt Swann era of my childhood. George Reeves is "my" Superman, but I found that embracing the Christopher Reeve portrayal was very easy. The current comics revamp may be terrible in every detail, but somehow the core character and concept is strong enough to rise above it.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Nighthawk said:


> Actually, the CVN-65 Enterprise is a class unto itself: Enterprise-Class. A little tidbit of history is that a foundation had banded together to save the CV-6 Enterprise, the most decorated fighting ship in the U.S. Navy. They couldn't raise the money to preserve the vessel, and had to settle for the first nuclear carrier being named Enterprise, instead. The CV-6 was scrapped in 1958. The CVN-65 was commissioned in October,1961 and some of its first action was during the Cuban Missile Crisis one year later. If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) the America (66) and the Kennedy (67) were based off of the Enterprise-class, but are not nuclear. I certainly hope that the first CVX is named Enterprise, as well.


And, actually I believe that some pieces of CV-6 live on in CVN-65.
Aren't the port holes on the bow, between the forward catapult launchers on CVN-65, the same ones mounted on CV-6?


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

> And, actually I believe that some pieces of CV-6 live on in CVN-65.
> Aren't the port holes on the bow, between the forward catapult launchers on CVN-65, the same ones mounted on CV-6?


 
Be funny if they made it to Kirk's Enterprise.. until it was destroyed...


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

Then you'd have the U.S.S. Enterprise, Space Carrier Vessel (Fusion) Registry number CVFX-01-A or something like that, lol!


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Being in the US NAVY for the last 18 years, I was a member of the America (CV-66) crew from 1988 through 1989, The Saratoga (CV-60) in 1994, the Enterprise (CVN-65) from 1995 through 1996, the Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN-69) from 1997 through 1998, and finally the Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) from 2002 through the present day. I've also been aboard the Kennedy (CV-67) for carrier qualifications on more than one occasion.


Nighthawk said:


> Actually, the CVN-65 Enterprise is a class unto itself...


That is a true statement. She has the thinnest hull of all the carriers, and because of this (and the fact she has more reactors than a Nimitz Class ship) she still holds the record as the fastest combatant in the world. 


Nighthawk said:


> If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) the America (66) and the Kennedy (67) were based off of the Enterprise-class, but are not nuclear.


The America (CV-66) is a Kitty Hawk (CV-63) variant. The JFK (CV-67) is also considered to be a Kitty Hawk variant, but in some circles, she is also considered to be in a class by herself. This is due to the configuration of the forward end of her angled deck (nearly identical to Nimitz class ships) and the radical design if her smoke stacks; which are angled to prevent exhaust from being funneled back the flight deck. Both are conventional oil burners.



ClubTepes said:


> And, actually I believe that some pieces of CV-6 live on in CVN-65.
> Aren't the port holes on the bow, between the forward catapult launchers on CVN-65, the same ones mounted on CV-6?


To my knowledge (though I could be wrong) there are no pieces or sections of CV-6 on board CVN-65. Here are a couple of links for the final years of CV-6, and the surviving pieces of her (not counting razor blades and die-cast cars ).

1946 to 1958 Remembering Enterprise (CV-6)

Back to the topic at hand ... Though the saucers of NX-01 and NCC-1701/R/-A appear to be around the same diameter, isn't there still the question of volume? The 1701's saucer is 11 decks thick at the middle where the 01's is only 7 decks (according to "official" schematics) making the 1701 bigger ... as it we all believe it should be.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

mactrek said:


> Though the saucers of NX-01 and NCC-1701/R/-A appear to be around the same diameter, isn't there still the question of volume? The 1701's saucer is 11 decks thick at the middle where the 01's is only 7 decks (according to "official" schematics) making the 1701 bigger ... as it we all believe it should be.


Yep. Plus, of course, that the NX-01 saucer volume has to contain most all of the engineering areas that were split off into a separate hull in later ships.

I'm really glad that we got Doug Drexler's design and not some variation on that dreadful globe ship.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

I still would have liked to have seen a Daedalus Class ship or two here and there.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Check out THIS THREAD on TrekBBS for interesting diagrams..


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Mactrek...in regards to Carriers...I too was in the USN. I served aboard TWO Nimitz-class ships. ( Coincidentally, IKE in 1990 - 1992 and then Nimitz herself in 1992 - 1993 ).

JFK, although a modified Kitty Hawk, was originally designed to have the two Westinghouse A4W Reactors which are used in the Nimitz class, however, thanks to then SECDEF Robert N. McNamara, the nuclear power option was nixed early in construction and conventional boilers were substituted. One of the reasons for the angled uptakes on the Island was that they were in fact an add on! You're right about her flight deck arrangement being similar to the Nimitz class. 

As to the relative size difference of the NX class as opposed to the century-newer Connie-class refit, I can see the diameters being what they are, but also would agree that the refit saucer MUST mass more due to deck layout, equipment AND more living space/larger sickbay and MUCH larger transporter facilities crammed into that hull. Add also the computer core in the center....phaser banks/equipment rooms....

.....it makes for a much more complex starship in the engineering sense for certain.


----------

