Building NCC-1701 [The Trek XI Way]
- Thread starter Tigger
- Start date
In other words, you're asking us to prove a negative, which is impossible, especially in situations like these.
What the hell does all this talk about NX and registry's have to do with building the NCC-1701 as depicted in the trailer?
Oh, I think it's a valid point to wonder about why the ship has the name and ID number painted on while some hull plates are still missing. Is it a construction scene or a refitting scene? Is what we see typical or atypical? That's where this all ties in. Even if a bit awkwardly...
I'd call that the real screw-up - why go aeronautical on pennant codes which are definitely a ship thing?
Of course, "NCC" doesn't look much like an aircraft type code. For most of the sixties folks, it would look like some sort of nuclear cruiser, the letters "N" and "C" having a familiar meaning in USN pennant code.
Could mean that. Then again, might mean something completely different. X could stand for eXploration just as logically... Or perhaps even more so.
It's not as if P still stands for Pursuit in today's US aeronautics codes. And X no longer means "first prototype", it means "purely experimental and never to be used operationally", with Y for the former "second prototype" now the letter of choice for "prototype". If these meanings don't survive half a century, why would they survive several?
Since we never saw another pennant code in ENT besides NX-01 and NX-02, it's impossible to argue trends and meanings there. I have some fondness of the idea that NX would be in the same vein as DY and J, a type code that only by chance resembles those later starship pennant codes (although of course there could also be a causal connection, with the famous NX class donating the use of these letters to future pathfinding starships or something like that).
Timo Saloniemi
I'd call that the real screw-up - why go aeronautical on pennant codes which are definitely a ship thing?
Of course, "NCC" doesn't look much like an aircraft type code. For most of the sixties folks, it would look like some sort of nuclear cruiser, the letters "N" and "C" having a familiar meaning in USN pennant code.
Could mean that. Then again, might mean something completely different. X could stand for eXploration just as logically... Or perhaps even more so.
It's not as if P still stands for Pursuit in today's US aeronautics codes. And X no longer means "first prototype", it means "purely experimental and never to be used operationally", with Y for the former "second prototype" now the letter of choice for "prototype". If these meanings don't survive half a century, why would they survive several?
Since we never saw another pennant code in ENT besides NX-01 and NX-02, it's impossible to argue trends and meanings there. I have some fondness of the idea that NX would be in the same vein as DY and J, a type code that only by chance resembles those later starship pennant codes (although of course there could also be a causal connection, with the famous NX class donating the use of these letters to future pathfinding starships or something like that).
Timo Saloniemi
Because Jefferies and Roddenberry were Army Air Corps. Justman, the Navy guy on staff, was busy with other things.
And aircraft are arguably a closer analogy to starships than boats are.
I don't know... the thing is, there are very few fixed wing aircraft that are designed to act as an extended living environment for their crew. If I was going to make a comparison between space vehicles (beyond orbital operations) and other large craft, I would say that the following are most similar (in relative order) in operational techniques...
- Submarines,
Airships (like the Navy's USS Macon or USS Akron),
Most other naval vessels (of the last few hundred years),
Long duration aircraft and the space shuttles
^ Agreed.
Submarines would come to mind first.
And often out of contact for long periods of time.
Yet, for Roddenberry's own show, he has Picard able to WALK from his ship to Earth, hopping base to base, and never seeing space. :P
But, seriously, from the Trailer there's a couple of issues.
1) The welding. I actually don't take this really literally, since it's selling the idea that 'we're working on it' to an audience that may not be familiar with micro-welders or macro-welders, etc.. the 'guy in the welding mask' is still iconic, if already anachronistic.
2) The amount on the surface to be 'shunted up'. I never minded the ship's components build in San Fran and sent up, but I never thought that the entire saucer was one such component. Although, in thinking about it, it would explain the highly standardized hull components we seen in Trek.
But, seriously, from the Trailer there's a couple of issues.
1) The welding. I actually don't take this really literally, since it's selling the idea that 'we're working on it' to an audience that may not be familiar with micro-welders or macro-welders, etc.. the 'guy in the welding mask' is still iconic, if already anachronistic.
2) The amount on the surface to be 'shunted up'. I never minded the ship's components build in San Fran and sent up, but I never thought that the entire saucer was one such component. Although, in thinking about it, it would explain the highly standardized hull components we seen in Trek.
I seem to remember mention of a space navy in the 1950s novel Vandals of the Void.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Enterprise_orig.jpg
What about those little triangles on the saucer of the TOS Enterprise? I thought they had landing legs in there.
The E-E also has such triangles, in a configuration that doesn't much look like it could be landing gear.
The triangles on the E-nil don't look too functional in that role, either. It would be their sharply pointed ends that would dig into the ground if they were to be deployed. Very 1950s flying saucerish, yes, but not something I'd want to see in a starship that tries to be plausible in the same way many other Matt Jeffries creations are.
Perhaps the triangles are conformal antennas of some sort? They could even be transporter antennas, 2260s style, later replaced by the orangish grilleworks we see in the TNG era. But since the E-E has both the grillework and the triangles, I'd rather go for some other type of antenna. Perhaps some rare sensor that most starship types don't carry?
I do hope they will be present in the STXI version, because the ship could use that sort of surface detail. But I won't yell "Treknobabble contradiction!" if that variant omits the things. (OTOH, if they are landing legs, then their absence would be inexcusable...)
Timo Saloniemi
The triangles on the E-nil don't look too functional in that role, either. It would be their sharply pointed ends that would dig into the ground if they were to be deployed. Very 1950s flying saucerish, yes, but not something I'd want to see in a starship that tries to be plausible in the same way many other Matt Jeffries creations are.
Perhaps the triangles are conformal antennas of some sort? They could even be transporter antennas, 2260s style, later replaced by the orangish grilleworks we see in the TNG era. But since the E-E has both the grillework and the triangles, I'd rather go for some other type of antenna. Perhaps some rare sensor that most starship types don't carry?
I do hope they will be present in the STXI version, because the ship could use that sort of surface detail. But I won't yell "Treknobabble contradiction!" if that variant omits the things. (OTOH, if they are landing legs, then their absence would be inexcusable...)
Timo Saloniemi
In light of the latest possible tidbit that what we may be seeing is an alternate timeline warship, built during a time of war, how logical is it that they'd be building it on the surface instead of in orbit?
The argument could be made that the operation would be more secure on the surface...
The argument could be made that the operation would be more secure on the surface...
...Interesting rumor. Then again, do we know that the 2240s weren't a time of war in the "regular" timeline? Garth of Izar got a chance to show his military prowess at some point...
It wouldn't be inconsistent if Starfleet built the Constitutions originally as invincible battlewagons to defeat the dangerous enemy X, or perhaps as rough'n'dirty war cruisers for attrition in that fight.
Timo Saloniemi
It wouldn't be inconsistent if Starfleet built the Constitutions originally as invincible battlewagons to defeat the dangerous enemy X, or perhaps as rough'n'dirty war cruisers for attrition in that fight.
Timo Saloniemi
Wouldn't it be safer on the ground than in orbit, and easier to defend?
Similar threads
