Different design for the NX-01
- Thread starter Vanyel
- Start date
It doesn't mean "nothing." It means is that, if they choose to, they can make an exact replica. They could have also torn every thing down and made new buildings and bridges. It would have been easy, the Golden Gate Bridge was pretty much gone anyway.
Uh, no. Largely because that's not even close to the same thing. The Sovereign shares a few basic design lineage things with the Constitution, but just about nothing else. The Sovereign is only slightly closer to the Constitution than Voyager. Meanwhile, the NX is basically an upside-down Akira with older-style nacelles.
And it's not a vs thing as much as it is groaning that they just turned an old ship upside down instead of actually designing a new one.
One saucer connected by a pylon to a long secondary hull, connected with two upward engine nacelles in the rear. Constitution -> Excelsior -> Ambassador -> Galaxy -> Sovereign are all pretty much the same design with updated parts.
Saucer -> platform -> engines fits both NX and Akira, although granted the engines are going different directions.
Well, the fact that they have a basic design lineage was my point. Sure, the NX is a flipped Akira. But it was also "retroed" to be an older ship. So the NX and Akira also share the same design lineage with each other.
I can understand the frustration at the lack of creativity. I completely felt that way when they decided to still call themselves "Starfleet." I would have much rather they called themselves UESPA, or made up a new name that was Earth-centric. Calling it "Starfleet" before the Federation was formed just felt uncreative.
So I can get how you guys feel the same way about the ship. I just never felt that way about it, since they at least made the effort to make it look older (a return to the TOS fonts on the hull, and round nacelles, which we hadn't seen at ALL since TAS). By doing a prequel, they had to do a "reverse evolution" ship. I for one was glad they did it on an Akira and not a Constitution, because it reinforced that this ship was "outside" the previous Enterprises we'd heard about.
Just my opinions, mind you.
Point *slightly* taken, but in the end, what does it matter? It's not like this was a major plot point or anything. We get the gist of it: San Francisco was attacked, heavily damaged, and then rebuilt. What more do we need?
OK, let me reiterate again: my point wasn't that they reused the shot. My point was the REASON WHY they reused the shot. Yes, it's perfectly logical that Starfleet Command could have been rebuilt very quickly, but that was not the reasoning behind it. The reasoning was that the producers thought the fans were stupid. QED.
No, the reasoning was that it was cheaper to just use a stock shot than to pay for someone to paint or render a new one. It wasn't because they didn't think anyone would notice; we're Trekkies, of course we'd notice.
Yeah, it's not the first time they've reused something on a Trek show.
I see a lot of people here haven't worked in the TV industry, and don't know what words like 'budget' mean 
Reusing a backdrop for SF means you save ten thousand dollars that you can then use on VFX, costume, editing...
Actually, the amount of effort and thought Drexler put into that design is staggering. Service hatches on the warp nacelles, removable coils, robot arms and EVA service vehicles, removable warp core, Engineering having its own EVA staging area on the rear of the saucer with its own control tower (since it'd be doing a lot of maintenance in deep space in EVA suits). The 'grid' on the hull is actually a network of sunken tracks for work pods to dock to and roll around the hull for repairs. Hell, the comm arrays are little clusters of parabolic dishes on various points of the hull. It's great! Pity the writers never took much advantage of it and we didn't get to see much.
Sad to see the NX-Akira thing is still going on.
Reusing a backdrop for SF means you save ten thousand dollars that you can then use on VFX, costume, editing...
Actually, the amount of effort and thought Drexler put into that design is staggering. Service hatches on the warp nacelles, removable coils, robot arms and EVA service vehicles, removable warp core, Engineering having its own EVA staging area on the rear of the saucer with its own control tower (since it'd be doing a lot of maintenance in deep space in EVA suits). The 'grid' on the hull is actually a network of sunken tracks for work pods to dock to and roll around the hull for repairs. Hell, the comm arrays are little clusters of parabolic dishes on various points of the hull. It's great! Pity the writers never took much advantage of it and we didn't get to see much.
Sad to see the NX-Akira thing is still going on.
No. I read a magazine article that stated that the producers felt the Voyager viewing audience wouldn't understand why San Fran was destroyed, because they figured the Voyager viewing audience weren't watching DS9. QED, yet again.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Where's that cool design that I think maybe Vektor made where the NX-01 looked concurrent with the Constitution? The nacelle struts weren't swept back and the color was in line with TOS' hull color.
What magazine?
So? They may have been right.
I think that the uglier Conestoga design works better than the NX design because it looks like it belongs a century before TOS Constitution class. Also Enterprise shouldn't have been called Enterprise but something else yet still called Star Trek, UPN was stupid to have thought that Enterprise would attract anyone other than Trekkers. The technology in Enterprise would have made more sense if it was more primitive than what it was ultimately depicted as. I also really like the rocket housing detail on the Conestoga it fits and as a thruster they should have had that detail on the NX design.
I don't really understand why it's a problem that the ship was named Enterprise. Who cares about a throwaway line from TMP?
However, "Star Trek" should have been in the title, but I don't think the title should have been Star Trek: Enterprise (which is redundant), either.
However, "Star Trek" should have been in the title, but I don't think the title should have been Star Trek: Enterprise (which is redundant), either.
Last edited:
The hilarious thing is the ring-ship Enterprise isn't anywhere on the TNG 1701-D wall with all the Enterprises, right down to the aircraft carrier, but it IS on the TMP wall, and on various walls in ENT.
So, I guess they leave Enterprises out now and then for space reasons, (seriously, no pun intended, please don't hurt me)
And both wall scenes - the one in TMP, and the one in TNG - left out one aircraft carrier. The TMP scene left out the CVN-65 carrier, the one that's in use today. The TNG wall left out the *other* carrier, the WW II version. I think.
I never meant to imply that it was, sorry if it came across like that. The point I was trying to make was that layout is what both the Constitution and Sovereign classes had in common, just as the other layout is what the NX and Akira classes have in common. Since Starfleet does stick with the same designs, it's easy for me to reverse it and say that story-wise, the Akira is simply the 24th century version of the NX.
