Maybe they're listening. . .?
TJK2023
Enterprise, aptly named "Enterprise". Could this be one of the other pitches B
& B made to Paramount? Could they have concerns that generally negative
reaction to a "Birth of Fed/Time travelling Villain" could jeopardize the
success of such a show? Could they be trying to appeal to the fans of a
"Birth" series and the fans of "old" Trek? Hey, just what the hell are they
doing anyway!? (wink wink)
faste...@my-deja.com
This is just rumours pile on top of rumours. Besides if they want to
appease all the fans of the excelsior campaign people, all they have to
do is get 50 donuts last weekend and everybody can go home happy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Suite241
I hate the Time Traveller idea, so almost anything sounds better.
John Szpara
perhaps? Definately civillian.
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> > : Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
> > : Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
> > : series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
> >
> > Are you sure? I'm thinking back to Start Trek: The Motion Picture. I
> > thought there was a ship between the shuttle and the starship, but maybe
> > I'm wrong.
>
> There was, but it doesn't seem to be a military Starfleet vessel.
> (Definitely does not LOOK like one.) The Encyclopedia lists it as the
> S.S. Enterprise, which suggest that it's a civilian ship of some kind.
> Definitely not series material.
>
> --
> "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery."
> - Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey"
--
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 85GT, 86 Coupe, 87GT, 88 Formula, 88 Coupe, 88GT
jne...@nospam.csd.uwm.edu
: Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
: Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
: series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
Are you sure? I'm thinking back to Start Trek: The Motion Picture. I
thought there was a ship between the shuttle and the starship, but maybe
I'm wrong.
--
Jim Nelsen
Hamilton High School
Milwaukee, WI
Visit my web page to look at my "Virtual Teaching Portfolio" and find some
useful sites for social studies teachers. www.uwm.edu/~jnelsen
Timo S Saloniemi
>> By now you may have heard the newest Trek rumour, a show about a pre-Kirk
>> Enterprise, aptly named "Enterprise".
>Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
>Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
>series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
Of course, it might be that this pre-TOS Enterprise wasn't a "starship"
(of which there were none before the one captained by April, Pike,
Kirk, Decker, Stocker, Lester, Decker Jr, Spock, Kirk). Just call her a
"spaceship" instead, and you are off the hook. :-)
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>> : Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
>> : Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
>> : series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
>>
>> thought there was a ship between the shuttle and the starship, but maybe
>> I'm wrong.
>
>(Definitely does not LOOK like one.) The Encyclopedia lists it as the
>S.S. Enterprise, which suggest that it's a civilian ship of some kind.
>Definitely not series material.
OTOH, the TMP display certainly doesn't show all the seagoing ships
named Enterprise - there's only one carrier there, and only one
sailing ship. There could easily have been numerous sexier spacegoing
Enterprises between the S.S. Enterprise shown, and Kirk's ship...
Timo Saloniemi
David E. Sluss
>> By now you may have heard the newest Trek rumour, a show about a pre-Kirk
>> Enterprise, aptly named "Enterprise".
>
>Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
>series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
LOL!!! Like the Powers That Be would give a shit about something like
that...
--
// David E. Sluss (The Cynic) \\ // "I'm impatient with \\
//_________ sluss%dhp.com _________\\//__ stupidity. My people have __\\
\\ Cynics Corner Interactive //\\ learned to live without it." //
\\ http://users.dhp.com/~sluss // \\ Klaatu //
Suite241
legit
Allen Newman
<tsal...@meripihka.hut.fi> wrote:
> In article <260420002244180766%bri...@home.com> Brian Barjenbruch
> <bri...@home.com> writes:
> >> : Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
> >> : Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
> >> : series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
> >>
> >> Are you sure? I'm thinking back to Start Trek: The Motion Picture. I
> >> thought there was a ship between the shuttle and the starship, but maybe
> >> I'm wrong.
> >
> >There was, but it doesn't seem to be a military Starfleet vessel.
> >(Definitely does not LOOK like one.) The Encyclopedia lists it as the
> >S.S. Enterprise, which suggest that it's a civilian ship of some kind.
> >Definitely not series material.
>
> OTOH, the TMP display certainly doesn't show all the seagoing ships
> named Enterprise - there's only one carrier there, and only one
> sailing ship. There could easily have been numerous sexier spacegoing
> Enterprises between the S.S. Enterprise shown, and Kirk's ship...
>
> Timo Saloniemi
TMP didn't write the idea into a hole, either. Decker said, "all these
ships were called Enterprise," not the more exclusive, "these are all
the ships called Enterprise."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Timo S Saloniemi
>> TMP didn't write the idea into a hole, either. Decker said, "all these
>> ships were called Enterprise," not the more exclusive, "these are all
>> the ships called Enterprise."
>If there was another, presumably Starfleet, U.S.S. Enterprise (in
>between the starliner SS Enterprise and the NCC-1701), then why wasn't
>it listed on the display?
For the same reason only one of the USN carriers was shown? The wall may
only have had five viewscreens, so it would be pick and choose...
However, it is firmly established that the E-E is the sixth starship
named Enterprise - it has been spelled out in dialogue in several episodes.
To have a ship named Enterprise predate the ship flown by Kirk, Paramount
would have to either contradict this canon, or then use creative semantics
(like calling the old ship "spaceship Enterprise" instead of "starship
Enterprise").
Timo Saloniemi
Stephen Voss
"David E. Sluss" wrote:
> Brian Barjenbruch <bri...@home.com> wrote:
> >> By now you may have heard the newest Trek rumour, a show about a pre-Kirk
> >> Enterprise, aptly named "Enterprise".
> >
> >Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
> >Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
> >series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
>
Oh that is a load of puckey. there was no constitution class ship named
enterprise before april it doesnt mean there was no ship named enterprise perhaps
Starship is a specific class. In Star trek TMP, Decker clearly points out a bunch of
ships
that were named enterprise.
Stephen Voss
> named Enterprise - it has been spelled out in dialogue in several episodes.
> To have a ship named Enterprise predate the ship flown by Kirk, Paramount
> would have to either contradict this canon, or then use creative semantics
> (like calling the old ship "spaceship Enterprise" instead of "starship
> Enterprise").
Canon is for cameras and bibles.
If its a good story, wtf cares!
David E. Sluss
Mike Dicenso
On Mon, 1 May 2000, Stephen Voss wrote:
> > >
> > >Impossible. This series cannot exist, because there was no USS
> > >Enterprise prior to Robert April as captain. Unless, of course, the
> > >series would have April (or even Christopher Pike) as the captain.
> >
>
> Oh that is a load of puckey. there was no constitution class ship named
> enterprise before april it doesnt mean there was no ship named enterprise perhaps
> Starship is a specific class. In Star trek TMP, Decker clearly points out a bunch of
> ships
> that were named enterprise.
Oh sure, of the ships that we see in display, how many were actual
starships?
Only two of them were is the answer. Of those two, the last one pictured
is the original Constitution class design, the other is the
"S.S. Enterprise", an unknown design that we have never seen before, or
since. The other ships appear to be the 12 gun American sloop Enterprise,
the American nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CV-65), and
the space shuttle orbiter Enterprise (OV-101). If it's to be any of the
designs that we see it would have to be the largely unknown
S.S. Enterprise. But was she an early Starfleet vessel, or merely a
passenger ship as the non-canon Spaceflight Chronology suggest, or perhaps
she was a pre-Federation vessel that served in the Earth-Romulan War?
-Mike
Timo S Saloniemi
>Oh sure, of the ships that we see in display, how many were actual
>starships?
>Only two of them were is the answer. Of those two, the last one pictured
>is the original Constitution class design, the other is the
>"S.S. Enterprise", an unknown design that we have never seen before, or
>since. The other ships appear to be the 12 gun American sloop Enterprise,
>the American nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CV-65), and
>the space shuttle orbiter Enterprise (OV-101). If it's to be any of the
>designs that we see it would have to be the largely unknown
>S.S. Enterprise.
But the list of pictures is missing CV-6, the conventionally powered
WWII carrier named Enterprise (the nuclear-powered one would have a
CVN prefix, nor CV). Similarly, it is missing the sailing ship Enterprise
that we saw in "Generations", remarkably similar in appearance to one
Lady Washington and dissimilar to the 12-gun sloop. The uniforms
aboard this sailing ship Enterprise would place it in the 1800s,
but I do not know if that would be before or after the time of
that sloop (any resident experts?). Other sailing ships could also
be missing from the chronological order.
With that in mind, how can we know the list isn't also missing Space
Cruiser UNS Enterprise, CLS-4077, the famous hero of the Romulan
War (and a really cool and sleek design)? As long as this vessel
wasn't designated as "starship", she could have existed without
contradicting anything we know.
One would probably have to assume that the sloop, the CVN-65,
the shuttle test article and the SS Enterprise were all more
famous in their time than this design was in hers (or else why
choose those for the display?). Or perhaps the ships on display
were simply sampled evenly from the timeline, and SS Enterprise
happened to provide for more even sampling than CLS-4077?
(unlikely, since in that case CV-6 should have been chosen over
CVN-65).
>But was she an early Starfleet vessel, or merely a passenger ship as
>the non-canon Spaceflight Chronology suggest, or perhaps she was a
>pre-Federation vessel that served in the Earth-Romulan War?
Whatever that ship was, she seemed to be utilizing either rotational
gravity (which is a sign of REALLY primitive technology in the Trek
universe - in fact, *nobody* with starflight or even decent interplanetary
capabilities uses it), or a fancy form of warp drive or weaponry or
shielding that required big wheel-like structures (which is a sign of
an era of Trek history that we have so far not seen a single glimpse of).
The ship could be something out of the 2000s-2050s, but perhaps even
from the late 1990s. The lack of warp nacelles would seem to make her
less likely to date from after Cochrane's flight: all Earthships
capable of warp tend to have easily distinguishable nacelles,
beginning with Cochrane's Phoenix. Or then she could be something
bought from aliens but registered for Earth...
Timo Saloniemi
Mike Dicenso
On 2 May 2000, Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> But the list of pictures is missing CV-6, the conventionally powered
> WWII carrier named Enterprise (the nuclear-powered one would have a
> CVN prefix, nor CV). Similarly, it is missing the sailing ship Enterprise
> that we saw in "Generations", remarkably similar in appearance to one
> Lady Washington and dissimilar to the 12-gun sloop. The uniforms
> aboard this sailing ship Enterprise would place it in the 1800s,
> but I do not know if that would be before or after the time of
> that sloop (any resident experts?). Other sailing ships could also
> be missing from the chronological order.
More interesting why the sailing vessel Enterprise, whether it be the
American sloop, or one of other possible sailing vessels, is missing from
the group of half models seen on the E-D conference lounge wall. The same
thing is true of the unsual S.S. Enterprise. Why the sudden dropping of
these ships, including the shuttle test orbiter Enterprise from the
linage line up?
> With that in mind, how can we know the list isn't also missing Space
> Cruiser UNS Enterprise, CLS-4077, the famous hero of the Romulan War
> (and a really cool and sleek design)? As long as this vessel wasn't
> designated as "starship", she could have existed without contradicting
> anything we know.
> One would probably have to assume that the sloop, the CVN-65, the
> shuttle test article and the SS Enterprise were all more famous in
> their time than this design was in hers (or else why choose those for
> the display?). Or perhaps the ships on display were simply sampled
> evenly from the timeline, and SS Enterprise happened to provide for
> more even sampling than CLS-4077? (unlikely, since in that case CV-6
> should have been chosen over CVN-65).
According to the backstage sources, OV-101 was dropped because of the fact
that she did not actually fly into space as was originally the plan in
1979 after the completion of the ALT flights, and the vibration testing at
Marshall Spaceflight center.
> Whatever that ship was, she seemed to be utilizing either rotational
> gravity (which is a sign of REALLY primitive technology in the Trek
> universe - in fact, *nobody* with starflight or even decent interplanetary
> capabilities uses it), or a fancy form of warp drive or weaponry or
> shielding that required big wheel-like structures (which is a sign of
> an era of Trek history that we have so far not seen a single glimpse of).
If you look closely at the design, it can't really be a rotational design
because the ship has a large, thickly built dorsal section connecting the
main spindle-like section with the circular outer section.
> The ship could be something out of the 2000s-2050s, but perhaps even
> from the late 1990s. The lack of warp nacelles would seem to make her
> less likely to date from after Cochrane's flight: all Earthships
> capable of warp tend to have easily distinguishable nacelles,
> beginning with Cochrane's Phoenix. Or then she could be something
> bought from aliens but registered for Earth...
Possible, or she is a design based heavily on Vulcan designs. Look at the
Apollo class T-Pau with it's wraparound warp nacelles and engineering
section for example, and compare it to the SS Enterprise with again a
circular wraparound propulsion section, and a centralized command inside
of that.
-Mike
Timo S Saloniemi
>On 2 May 2000, Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>> But the list of pictures is missing CV-6, the conventionally powered
>> WWII carrier named Enterprise (the nuclear-powered one would have a
>> CVN prefix, nor CV). Similarly, it is missing the sailing ship Enterprise
>> that we saw in "Generations", remarkably similar in appearance to one
>> Lady Washington and dissimilar to the 12-gun sloop. The uniforms
>> aboard this sailing ship Enterprise would place it in the 1800s,
>> but I do not know if that would be before or after the time of
>> that sloop (any resident experts?). Other sailing ships could also
>> be missing from the chronological order.
>More interesting why the sailing vessel Enterprise, whether it be the
>American sloop, or one of other possible sailing vessels, is missing from
>the group of half models seen on the E-D conference lounge wall. The same
>thing is true of the unsual S.S. Enterprise. Why the sudden dropping of
>these ships, including the shuttle test orbiter Enterprise from the
>linage line up?
Perhaps they would be far too small to be portrayed? The detail on the
huge starships and the CVN-65 is already rather low - the shuttle would
be a near-invisible featureless bump in comparison, and we don't really
know the size of the S.S. Enterprise either.
>According to the backstage sources, OV-101 was dropped because of the fact
>that she did not actually fly into space as was originally the plan in
>1979 after the completion of the ALT flights, and the vibration testing at
>Marshall Spaceflight center.
For the birdeyed among us, it has been revealed that OV-101 in fact
did fly into space in the Trek universe. It is seen docked to space
station Freedom in the desktop model in his DS9 office!
Or then Sisko is into modeling things that never were - after all,
Freedom never was built in the real world, either. Does this mean
that his model of a Daedalus class ship is also a fake?
>> Whatever that ship was, she seemed to be utilizing either rotational
>> gravity (which is a sign of REALLY primitive technology in the Trek
>> universe - in fact, nobody with starflight or even decent interplanetary
>> capabilities uses it), or a fancy form of warp drive or weaponry or
>> shielding that required big wheel-like structures (which is a sign of
>> an era of Trek history that we have so far not seen a single glimpse of).
>If you look closely at the design, it can't really be a rotational design
>because the ship has a large, thickly built dorsal section connecting the
>main spindle-like section with the circular outer section.
The outer section could rotate in two ways. One, there could be a
sliding contact with the pylon (mechanically difficult to do, though).
Two, the main spindle (or just the part that attaches to the pylon)
could easily rotate along with the pylon and the outer ring. The ship
has to be cylinder-symmetric anyway, as far as thrust lines and centers
of mass are concerned, so why not rotate all of it? There could be
a counter-rotating bow structure for a shuttlebay if needed.
>> The ship could be something out of the 2000s-2050s, but perhaps even
>> from the late 1990s. The lack of warp nacelles would seem to make her
>> less likely to date from after Cochrane's flight: all Earthships
>> capable of warp tend to have easily distinguishable nacelles,
>> beginning with Cochrane's Phoenix. Or then she could be something
>> bought from aliens but registered for Earth...
>Possible, or she is a design based heavily on Vulcan designs. Look at the
>Apollo class T-Pau with it's wraparound warp nacelles and engineering
>section for example, and compare it to the SS Enterprise with again a
>circular wraparound propulsion section, and a centralized command inside
>of that.
Indeed. OTOH, the big rings could be solar panels or radiators for a
nuclear reactor for all we know, and the vessel a very primitive
interplanetary rocketship from roughly the era of the Ares flights to
Mars. There's a pronounced rocket plume coming out of the central
spindle, atypical of impulse engines and thus probably placing
the ship before the 2160s (Geordi says in "Relics" that impulse
engines haven't changed much for 200 years).
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>> Whatever that ship was, she seemed to be utilizing either rotational
>> gravity (which is a sign of REALLY primitive technology in the Trek
>> interplanetary capabilities uses it
>Babylon 5's tech is so obsolete (at least Earth's is), it considers
>rotational gravity state-of-the-art...I always laugh when I see those
>crappy Earth ships, they look like flying erector set accidents.
Then again, that's half the fun. What sort of heroism is it to fly
around in invincible ships? The crappier, the better.
If anything, the EA ships looked a bit too systematic to me. I'd
have expected more asymmetry, a greater number of variants created
by simply bolting together elements from various designs (easy to
do in CGI), etc.
The Earth of Star Trek doesn't show signs of using rotational
gravity before the 2060s - neither the early Ares ships nor
Cochrane's pod nor the speculative design of S.S. Valiant
have rotating sections. Then again, Khan's DY-100 ship
appeared to have artificial gravity built into the floorplates.
Was that a secret known only to Khan and his superintelligent
engineers, technicians and scientists, or was it a common feature
of all ships of that era? Or did the Enterprise's tractor
beam somehow generate the onboard gravity?
If it wasn't common, and astronauts were in free fall until the 2060s,
then did Earth perhaps adopt rotational gravity after the 2060s, only
to drop it before the Daedaluses were built? Or did it buy/steal/otherwise
acquire floorplate gravity from the Vulcans, skipping rotating ships
altogether?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>> For the birdeyed among us, it has been revealed that OV-101 in fact
>> did fly into space in the Trek universe. It is seen docked to space
>> station Freedom in the desktop model in his DS9 office!
>>
>> Or then Sisko is into modeling things that never were - after all,
>> Freedom never was built in the real world, either.
>It's an early version of the real International Space Station that is
>being built right now.
But the desktop thing certainly isn't the version that is going to be
built. It's easy to spot the lack of Russian elements (although there's
a possibility that some of them will be missing from the ISS as well,
at the rate the Russians are currently delivering...) and the different
main truss layout.
One might assume that Freedom was built in the originally planned
timeframe, in the early nineties. The Trek space program seems to
have been faster-paced than ours anyway. If they could orbit those
DY-100s, then there wouldn't have been much of a problem orbiting
the Freedom, either - it failed mostly for lack of funds and
commitment, and the Trek NASA doesn't seem to be lacking. They
could afford to deploy even overpriced semi-useful stuff.
Timo Saloniemi
Mike Dicenso
On 3 May 2000, Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> >More interesting why the sailing vessel Enterprise, whether it be the
> >American sloop, or one of other possible sailing vessels, is missing from
> >the group of half models seen on the E-D conference lounge wall. The same
> >thing is true of the unsual S.S. Enterprise. Why the sudden dropping of
> >these ships, including the shuttle test orbiter Enterprise from the
> >linage line up?
>
> Perhaps they would be far too small to be portrayed? The detail on the
> huge starships and the CVN-65 is already rather low - the shuttle would
> be a near-invisible featureless bump in comparison, and we don't really
> know the size of the S.S. Enterprise either.
Actually looking back through my references, the Enterprise from the late
1700's through early 1800's was actually a 12-gun schooner, not a
sloop. But even still, that would be big enough to be seen, but would be
out of sight below the conference table in most shots. As for the
mysterious S.S. Enterprise, if it's a ship comparable to the DY-100, and
500 series spacecraft, it should be large enough to be seen. In order of
the history of such vessels it would be between CVN-65, and NCC-1701.
> >According to the backstage sources, OV-101 was dropped because of the
> fact >that she did not actually fly into space as was originally the
> plan in >1979 after the completion of the ALT flights, and the
> vibration testing at >Marshall Spaceflight center.
>
> For the birdeyed among us, it has been revealed that OV-101 in fact
> did fly into space in the Trek universe. It is seen docked to space
> station Freedom in the desktop model in his DS9 office!
>
> Or then Sisko is into modeling things that never were - after all,
> Freedom never was built in the real world, either. Does this mean
> that his model of a Daedalus class ship is also a fake?
Well if you must nitpick, ISS is being constructed using 75% of the
hardware from the original SS Freedom design. So if you want to be silly
about it....
Even still, the model's configuration lacks the Russian contributions
that the real station has.
I might hazard a guess that the Daedalus may be correct in terms of that
class of starship's design, but does'nt represent any actual ship of said
class.
>
> The outer section could rotate in two ways. One, there could be a
> sliding contact with the pylon (mechanically difficult to do, though).
> Two, the main spindle (or just the part that attaches to the pylon)
> could easily rotate along with the pylon and the outer ring. The ship
> has to be cylinder-symmetric anyway, as far as thrust lines and centers
> of mass are concerned, so why not rotate all of it? There could be
> a counter-rotating bow structure for a shuttlebay if needed.
This is also possible, but look at the designs for the DY-100, and
500's. Again we see as early as 1996, that ships have no rotational
sections what so ever. Furthermore, when Kirk and company board the Botany
Bay in "Space Seed", it appears as though the ships of that time period
had artifical gravity generators too! So it may be that if the
S.S. Enterprise lacked gravity generators, it may place her existance far
earlier than the 1990's, perhaps the 1970s-1980s?
Of course it may just be proof that the ship we see does'nt rotate at all,
and it is an early warpship of some kind built post 2063...
> >Possible, or she is a design based heavily on Vulcan designs. Look at the
> >Apollo class T-Pau with it's wraparound warp nacelles and engineering
> >section for example, and compare it to the SS Enterprise with again a
> >circular wraparound propulsion section, and a centralized command inside
> >of that.
>
> Indeed. OTOH, the big rings could be solar panels or radiators for a
> nuclear reactor for all we know, and the vessel a very primitive
> interplanetary rocketship from roughly the era of the Ares flights to
> Mars. There's a pronounced rocket plume coming out of the central
> spindle, atypical of impulse engines and thus probably placing
> the ship before the 2160s (Geordi says in "Relics" that impulse
> engines haven't changed much for 200 years).
This ship is going to be one of those "goodies" I look forward to oogling
at up close in detail when I play around with the DVD zoom function. Like
I pointed out earlier, this may have been a quick, and cheap design
borrowed from Vulcan technology. This may in fact be really what the
S.S. Valiant may really have looked like (note the use of S.S. as well
too). These ships being a quick way for Earth to play catch up tech-wise,
may explain how the Vailant was able to reach the edge of the galaxy so
quickly.
-Mike
Timo S Saloniemi
>> Perhaps they would be far too small to be portrayed? The detail on the
>> huge starships and the CVN-65 is already rather low - the shuttle would
>> be a near-invisible featureless bump in comparison, and we don't really
>> know the size of the S.S. Enterprise either.
>
>Actually looking back through my references, the Enterprise from the late
>1700's through early 1800's was actually a 12-gun schooner, not a
>sloop. But even still, that would be big enough to be seen, but would be
>out of sight below the conference table in most shots. As for the
>mysterious S.S. Enterprise, if it's a ship comparable to the DY-100, and
>500 series spacecraft, it should be large enough to be seen. In order of
>the history of such vessels it would be between CVN-65, and NCC-1701.
Indeed. Apparently the Starfleet artist just took some artistic licenses
here - his or her or its E-C and E-B aren't too convincing...
Or perhaps only those ships with power generation above a certain level
of megawatts were admitted? :-) (To make the silly theory work, S.S.
Enterprise could have been a solar-sail design, with her rotating sails
in stowed configuration in the picture, and with actual power generation
in the decawatt range.)
>Well if you must nitpick, ISS is being constructed using 75% of the
>hardware from the original SS Freedom design. So if you want to be silly
>about it....
>Even still, the model's configuration lacks the Russian contributions
>that the real station has.
I just like to use this minor anomaly as further proof that the Trek
nineties were dissimilar to our nineties... Helps with Eugenics Wars
arguments, and DY-100 related questions. :-) And in general it
befits a scifi show that it would portray Earth slightly more advanced
in spaceflight technology than it really was.
>I might hazard a guess that the Daedalus may be correct in terms of that
>class of starship's design, but does'nt represent any actual ship of said
>class.
It's decaled USS Horizon, NCC-173. One could argue that this is sufficient
proof that USS Horizon from TOS "A Piece of the Action" was NOT a Daedalus
class ship of that registry, since otherwise Sisko wouldn't have had
a model of her. :-)
Incidentally, Sisko also has a Nebula in his office that is made out of
Galaxy kit parts (like the original model in "Best of Both Worlds" was) and
looks nothing like modern Nebulas.
>This is also possible, but look at the designs for the DY-100, and
>500's. Again we see as early as 1996, that ships have no rotational
>sections what so ever. Furthermore, when Kirk and company board the Botany
>Bay in "Space Seed", it appears as though the ships of that time period
>had artifical gravity generators too! So it may be that if the
>S.S. Enterprise lacked gravity generators, it may place her existance far
>earlier than the 1990's, perhaps the 1970s-1980s?
>Of course it may just be proof that the ship we see does'nt rotate at all,
>and it is an early warpship of some kind built post 2063...
It would be nice for Earth to get artificial gravity in the 1990s.
That would probably immediately lead to propulsion applications,
explaining the super-duper rocket engines that allowed DY-100 to
go interstellar, or Ares 5 to reach Ares 4 in a matter of a week,
or Cochrane to lift his Phoenix off in what looked like the lower
half of a boosterless Titan, without even breaking the bottles in
the shacktown bar nearby.
One would think artificial gravity would be more visible in everyday
life in "Future's End" in that case, though. Before being used in
serious things like space propulsion, it would certainly be adopted
by the entertainment industry...
>This ship is going to be one of those "goodies" I look forward to oogling
>at up close in detail when I play around with the DVD zoom function. Like
>I pointed out earlier, this may have been a quick, and cheap design
>borrowed from Vulcan technology. This may in fact be really what the
>S.S. Valiant may really have looked like (note the use of S.S. as well
>too). These ships being a quick way for Earth to play catch up tech-wise,
>may explain how the Vailant was able to reach the edge of the galaxy so
>quickly.
I would hesitate with "commonalizing" early Earth spacecraft too much.
Instead of systematically engineered sleek starships, I'd expect a wide
variety of differing designs until Earthfleet would settle on something
that actually worked. Thus, I don't want to eliminate the study model
of S.S. Valiant even if I want a more prominent position for the S.S.
Enterprise.
Speaking of quick catching-up, Mike Okuda once said he intended the
Valiant to be some sort of extant interplanetary design with the nacelles
scabbed on as an afterthought. A quick-and-dirty way for Earth
governments to try out the new tech introduced by Cochrane. This would
explain the bulbous aft hull (a huge fuel or propellant tank), the
four huge burn chambers for the apparent reaction engines, and the tiny
forward compartment - this could be a semi-realistic solar system
exploration or exploitation vessel from just before WWIII, left floating
for the duration of the post-war recovery and then converted into
a warpship.
Timo Saloniemi
Mike Dicenso
On 3 May 2000, Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> Indeed. Apparently the Starfleet artist just took some artistic licenses
> here - his or her or its E-C and E-B aren't too convincing...
I'll say they are'nt, but then again that's just because no one working
for the show's art department at the time had really sat down and thought
about what these ships were going to look like either. But then again, if
you look at the CVN-65, 1701, and 1701-D they're not all that great
either.
> Or perhaps only those ships with power generation above a certain
> level of megawatts were admitted? :-) (To make the silly theory work,
> S.S. Enterprise could have been a solar-sail design, with her
> rotating sails in stowed configuration in the picture, and with actual
> power generation in the decawatt range.)
Well obviously the artist/s were working under some sort of restrictions
on what they could put up. Afterall, why stop with Earth ships named
Enterprise? I'am sure that several other worlds have ships that when the
names are translated come as 'Enterprise'.
By the time of ST:FC the only ships we see there on display are starships
Even the mighty CVN-65 has now been dropped from the line up.
> silly >about it.... >Even still, the model's configuration lacks the
> Russian contributions >that the real station has.
> I just like to use this minor anomaly as further proof that the Trek
> nineties were dissimilar to our nineties... Helps with Eugenics Wars
> arguments, and DY-100 related questions. :-) And in general it befits
> a scifi show that it would portray Earth slightly more advanced in
> spaceflight technology than it really was.
Oddly enough, if Earth's, in particular NASA's space program was so
advanced, and better funded. Then why did the compromised design for the
space shuttle get built?
> It's decaled USS Horizon, NCC-173. One could argue that this is
> sufficient proof that USS Horizon from TOS "A Piece of the Action" was
> NOT a Daedalus class ship of that registry, since otherwise Sisko
> wouldn't have had a model of her. :-)
Then again it might be correct for all that we know. Until we something
on-screen to contradict it, it's as good as anything.
> Incidentally, Sisko also has a Nebula in his office that is made out
> of Galaxy kit parts (like the original model in "Best of Both Worlds"
> was) and looks nothing like modern Nebulas.
Not really. It could be a contractor's prototype model that Sisko picked
up from his days at Utopia Planita for all that we know, or it represents
a subclass varient as yet unseen, or even a possible future upgrade for
the class.
> It would be nice for Earth to get artificial gravity in the 1990s.
> That would probably immediately lead to propulsion applications,
> explaining the super-duper rocket engines that allowed DY-100 to go
> interstellar, or Ares 5 to reach Ares 4 in a matter of a week, or
> Cochrane to lift his Phoenix off in what looked like the lower half of
> a boosterless Titan, without even breaking the bottles in the
> shacktown bar nearby.
> One would think artificial gravity would be more visible in everyday
> life in "Future's End" in that case, though. Before being used in
> serious things like space propulsion, it would certainly be adopted
> by the entertainment industry...
Why would it? Even in our reality you don't see military jet engines
making their way through to the average joe on the street. Only the very
rich get something like that, and then under certain restrictions.
> I would hesitate with "commonalizing" early Earth spacecraft too much.
> Instead of systematically engineered sleek starships, I'd expect a
> wide variety of differing designs until Earthfleet would settle on
> something that actually worked. Thus, I don't want to eliminate the
> study model of S.S. Valiant even if I want a more prominent position
> for the S.S. Enterprise.
I think that's not a bad theory, it would make sense so early on that the
early efforts would be a series of competing designs, which may mean that
S.S. Valiant, and Enterprise were exploring the galaxy in what might've
the ultimate flyoff to see which design worked best.
-Mike