# Into Darkness Refited Impulse engines?



## ibbilly (Mar 18, 2004)

Took a couple of captures from the History Channel Star Trek Special. Looks like the impulse engines have been changed. I wonder which one is in the Revell kit. 

Old?


New?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Looks like there may be other tweaks on the saucer. Was that raised bead on the top rim always like that? Almost looks like it exists only so more illumination light point sources can be added.


----------



## Moderbuilderzero (Mar 29, 2013)

Looks like the rounded crystal chamber has been added as well, just above the impulse area on the saucer spine.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

The refitted ship is only a few seconds visible on screen. The Revell model shows the original ship.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The model impulse engines are like on the top pic, two discreet vents. The impulse crystal is on the original too. The raised rim on the saucer is new, and they've added the glowing vents forward of the depressed vents on the warp engines. The blue glow flow from the bridge down the spine to the impulse engine has been changed as well. I am curious to the other features. I noticed in the film that the bridge window was made larger than the 2009 ship, as though they had settled on the 1200 foot length for the ship itself.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Quite simply, they went from the Spindrift-design impulse engines to the Cheshire Cat.


----------



## holt32 (Nov 5, 2009)

I like the old impulse engines better. It's like they took the one part of the ship that reminded me of the TOS ship and got ride of it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

They can't help themselves from tweaking and changing things. It happened to the 1701E between the movies. It's too easy when you've got CGI.


----------



## modelnut (Apr 19, 2000)

Is it my imagination? Or did they add the STMP Aztecing to the hull this round? I sort of remember the 2009 Aztecing being more random.

- Leelan


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Question for those who've seen the movie:


* *




Is that second picture from after the refit near the end of the movie?
Did the ship start out in STID as it was in 2009 and then was refitted at the end 
of the movie to look like this with a few tweaks?


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

modelnut said:


> Is it my imagination? Or did they add the STMP Aztecing to the hull this round? I sort of remember the 2009 Aztecing being more random.
> 
> - Leelan


I saw the History Channel special the other night and noticed that too, they even added the multicolored pearl effect to the aztecs.

I am seeing the movie tomorrow.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Question for those who've seen the movie:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Yes. That's exactly it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Yes. That's exactly it.


Thanks for the info! At least it wasn't arbitrary tweaking between movies.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

And they also seem to have added some deeply engraved grid lines to the saucer....kind of makes you wonder who reads our posts lol


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yup the JJprise now has grid lines!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> Yup the JJprise now has grid lines!


Looks like it had them before--barely. Now they're just "groovier." :thumbsup:


----------



## edward 2 (Oct 6, 2010)

ibbilly said:


> Took a couple of captures from the History Channel Star Trek Special. Looks like the impulse engines have been changed. I wonder which one is in the Revell kit.
> 
> Old?
> 
> ...


is the impulse engines a reaction type rocket ? 
I think the TOS warp engines was placed far apart so they don;t get cooked?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shhhh. That was back in those foolish old days when such things mattered. Doesn't this look COOL? Look at all that visual texture! Such lovely interplay of light and shadow and form! Don't sully it by the use of stupid old logic and stuff!


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

holt32 said:


> I like the old impulse engines better. It's like they took the one part of the ship that reminded me of the TOS ship and got ride of it.


I couldn't agree more! The newer impulse engines they added don't look right.

I'm glad the Revell kit is the original design.


----------



## modelnut (Apr 19, 2000)

The impulse engines cannot be a reaction type rocket. The _Enterprise_ cannot carry enough rocket fuel to power them. Remember Newton's third law? 

*For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.*

To move forward the ship would have to throw several times her own mass behind her to accelerate forward. Or less mass but at high acceleration. Even then she would quickly run out of stuff to throw. And how would reverse thrust work? There are no impulse engines in the front are there? So the impulse engines simply have to be a field effect drive like the warp engines. 

Sorry. It's an old old discussion.

- Leelan*


*


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Proportionally the impulse module width to saucer ratio is somewhat closer to TOS than the 2009 version and TMP.









credit: TrekCore


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

[Delete - web browser crash double post]


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

While in the movies they were shown to be more like fusion powered thrusters (TMP- they get brighter when the ship moved faster leaving Earth orbit), in terms of what they did it had to be some sort of field effect. On numerous occasions (not just TOS/movies but TNG, ST-V...) they talk about full reverse impulse power which would not work with only rear facing thrust. The clearest example that comes to mind was Scotty in Relics looking at he residual energy from the Enterprise being dragged into the Dyson sphere "only a ship under full reverse impulse power would leave a trail like that..." (IIRC)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yes, this is something of an old discussion. I think that it's been stated in the form of Treknological discussions, that the glow we see is the exhaust effect. Basically, like the warp grill effect.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Didn't Spock say, near the end of Undiscovered Country, that the Bird of Prey "under impulse power expels gas, just like any other vessel..." wouldn't that tend to indicate fuel-powered impulse engines, as opposed to a field-generated drive? Just a thought...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I think the new, "longer" impulse engines look better.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I was thinking maybe they were trying to be more consistant with the impulse engine wide design style of the USS Kelvin?


----------



## Cdr. Shran (Feb 5, 2013)

Personally I like the new impulse engines! But did anyone else notice they didn't show much of the secondary hull(not even in the movie)? I wonder what else was redesigned???


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I was thinking maybe they were trying to be more consistant with the impulse engine wide design style of the USS Kelvin?


The Kelvin is actually a decent looking design that might fit in the real Trek universe. The impulse design on it is superior IMHO in that it looks more functional.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

edward 2 said:


> is the impulse engines a reaction type rocket ?
> I think the TOS warp engines was placed far apart so they don;t get cooked?


I'll get use to them, I preferred the original Impulse Engines but I will adjust to the change


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Cdr. Shran said:


> Personally I like the new impulse engines! But did anyone else notice they didn't show much of the secondary hull(not even in the movie)? I wonder what else was redesigned???


Well the new Enterprise wasn't shown except for a few seconds at the end after the first Enterprise was destroyed.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I assumed it was repaired not replaced.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Paulbo said:


> I assumed it was repaired not replaced.


Exactly. That was said by Kirk himself.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Same difference I suppose. Since half of the ship was shot away, blown off or destroyed returning to Earth, no matter what they say in the movie, its essentially a new ship. Same with the so called "refit" from ST TMP. In real life a refit is just that. Taking off some old parts and putting on some new ones. Like refitting the USS Tennessee in WW2. But, no matter how much of the TOS ship you took off and replaced, you cant make the "refit" ship from it. They are just different. It's a new ship despite the name. If they fixed the Enterprise in the movie they did it really fast to be ready at the end of the film.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

The end of the film, starting with the "missing man formation" ceremony, takes place 12 months after the battle with the Vengeance. This is also clearly said by Kirk in the final narration during that scene. A year should be time enough to repair the Enterprise.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Marco is correct on both points - had forgotten the "rechristen Enterprise" line, plus 200 years from now I expect construction/reconstruction times will be greatly reduced.

Yes, the Refit can't be built from TOS Enterprise. The proportions just aren't correct. When battleships were refit originally refit into aircraft carriers you could at least see the bones of the original ship (even if much of that was below the waterline).


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

djnick66 said:


> Since half of the ship was shot away, blown off or destroyed returning to Earth, no matter what they say in the movie, its essentially a new ship. In real life a refit is just that. Taking off some old parts and putting on some new ones. Like refitting the USS Tennessee in WW2. But, no matter how much of the TOS ship you took off and replaced, you cant make the "refit" ship from it. They are just different. It's a new ship despite the name.


It's a common practice since the sailing ship days. In drydock the ship is essentially rebuilt. On example is the frigate (or more properly classified corvette) here in Baltimore, the USS Constellation. There is a great debate as to how much of ship is even original any more!


----------

