How would you re-imagine the NX-01 Enterprise?

[Ptrope]

Wingsley said:
Speaking of TAS, what about the possibility of making the NX-01 look at least related to the Bonaventure from "Time Trap"?

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bonaventure

Over the years, I've become less enamored with the TAS Bonaventure, looking as it does like a bloated Constitution with an underdeveloped cranium ; for my own project, I've kept the name, but replaced the design with one originally penned by Matt Jefferies and sold as the Leif Ericson (later, the UFO Mystery Ship) kit by AMT.

http://64.225.237.28/Star_Trek_Reanimated/images/BONAVENTURE7_001.jpg
http://64.225.237.28/Star_Trek_Reanimated/images/BONAVENTURE7_002.jpg
http://64.225.237.28/Star_Trek_Reanimated/images/BONAVENTURE7_003.jpg

I think this design also fits in well as an ENT-era starship, especially since it shares certain design elements with the DY-100 (it originally had a nose cone, rather than the deflector dish that I added, and of course, it has the conning tower like Botany Bay; I added the nacelles, where it originally had engines very similar to those of Defiant)

 

[Wingsley]

Or perhaps the Bonaventure was simply the first Federation starship to be deployed to deep space.

Maybe the "warp seven engine" didn't live up to expectations (a la Excelsior in the late 23rd century) and ships like NX-02 Columbia, not considered a "true" Federation starship, were used to serve the Federation (as Earth starships, redubbed as Federation vessels) while the new Federation Starfleet was being designed/created.

 

[starburst]

Whats funny is that untill recently TAS was not considered canon by practically anyone (didnt GR say that it wasnt a part of the canon?), only live action on screen evidence. Where as this is good as it adds more to the Star Trek universe its not so good when previously events in TAS were ignored by productions after it (and thats true for all be it Rodenberry, Bennette or Berman)

I like the non saucer designs, begining to get the feeling they should have gone with something more like that, as even with the more 24th century detailing it at least would look new and possibly less advanced.

 

[Irishman]

This is why I don't mix consistency with Trek art. It goes nowhere I want to go on my best day.

 

[Santaman]

I very much like your version of the Bonaventure Ptrope.
Interesting hull shape, is she meant to be landing capable?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

PTrope's ship is not really "his" design, realize... as he stated. I had a glow-in-the-dark version of that ship on my shelf as a kid (still in a box SOMEPLACE, I think). Anyone who grew up in the early 70s saw the Trek models in the shops and saw this non-trek ship advertised on the box. It was the "intergalactic UFO" at that point and was molded in glow-in-the-dark plastic.

I never knew until many years later that this was just a relabeling of an earlier kit... the "Leif Erickson Space Cruiser"... which originally had a few other parts.

Even today, this model has its fans... and on "Federation models" you can find a resin version of this model, plus "replacement parts" for the elements left out of the "Intergalactic UFO" version.

The Leif Erickson wasn't evidently landing-capable... no visible gear or gear doors in any case. But the topside had a big double-doored bay with a small landing craft (in the UFO version, provided without landing gear but on the "real" version, it had 'em). Do a web search and you can find ALL SORTS of info on this ship... it has a real fan-base!

 

[Santaman]

^^ I'll definitly look into it. thank you.

 

[B.J.]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Leif Ericson:
http://www.projectrho.com/SSC/index.html

 

[Santaman]

Thank you.

 

[Ptrope]

Santaman said:
I very much like your version of the Bonaventure Ptrope.
Interesting hull shape, is she meant to be landing capable?

I don't know if Leif Ericson was meant to be landing-capable, but at the site B.J provided the link to (and he's right - if it isn't here, it isn't anywhere!), in the CGI galleries are some shots of the ship on the ground, off-loading support craft (in this case, a Landmaster, as seen in Damnation Alley).

I really like the overall layout of the ship's design, and since it is a Jefferies design, I thought it definitely had the pedigree to perform as a pre-TOS starship; my own tweaks are largely to prevent it from being "cut and pasted" directly into the story, to show that, yes, there was development that took place, and that they may, in fact, have retrofitted a non-warp ship to test out the first warp drive. That it was lost in the Delta Triangle and never heard from again could have been a big reason for Starfleet developing the completely-new geometry that subsequently became the 'signature' look of Starfleet capitol ships.

 

[Santaman]

The landing bit comes from my "shortcut" logic , its got wings and control surfaces so why have them when you're not going to be in an atmosphere? And well since you're there then already why not land, circling around only costs fuel and makes the locals nervous..

As for the rest I just happen to like it, it somehow looks very logical..

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, it doesn't actually have WINGS. At most, those are FINS.

Most people don't realize that the term "wing" in this sense means that it must provide lift. Those wings are neither airfoils nor are they positions anywhere close to the center-of-gravity of the ship anyway.

What these fins would do is provide atmospheric stabilization (ie, if the ship, flying through an atmosphere, veered away from "nose forward" orientation, the fins provide a drag force that tends to get the ship pointing nose-forward again). They also have what are pretty evidently some form of exhausts on them. I've always assumed that these were the newtonian thrusters... in other words, "rockets." The big cowlings on either side serve as covers for the FTL drive component, on the other hand.

It's also worth noting that there are forward-facing ... spires?... at the vertex of the lateral and angled fins. Those COULD be sensor spikes of some sort but I've always assumed those were the main forward weapons.

I particularly like, on the referenced page from above, how the trapezoidal back-surface shape is portrayed as the hatch for the "damnation alley" LandMaster ground vehicles. My only suggestion would be to lose the ramp and instead go for a crane-based loader/unloader. And to rememeber that the Landmaster is a sectional vehicle... using a crane makes more sense if you realize you'd only have to crane down 1/2 of the total LandMaster at a time. In fact, that's the only logical reason for having the LandMaster be section "in fiction" that I can think of. (The real reason was actually similar... they needed to be able to take the LandMaster prop vehicle out to the shooting site and the thing wasn't practically transportable as a complete unit... and wasn't "street legal" so it couldn't be driven under its own power!)

 

[largo]

Cary L. Brown said:
Most people don't realize that the term "wing" in this sense means that it must provide lift. Those wings are neither airfoils nor are they positions anywhere close to the center-of-gravity of the ship anyway.

its also a common misperception that a wing must be an airfoil, it does not. surface + angle of attack = lift. airfoils are better at it, but every kid has probably stuck their hand out the window of a moving car and felt it generate lift.

at least with ptrope's variant, between the main wings aft (where most of the mass probably is, since the engines are there) and the canards up front to provide pitch control, it could be a reasonably servicable aircraft.

In fact, that's the only logical reason for having the LandMaster be section "in fiction" that I can think of.

its also how it steers, since the trinary drive units are fixed in place. the entire vehicle is bent at its midpoint by a pair of hydraulic rams, one on either side. trivia!

 

[pookha]

hello

i have been in and out of this forum off and on for years.
and i know i am in a minority in liking enterprise and the nx 01.

but, some of the concepts here are really interesting and just wanted to mention a few i liked.

i liked the irishman concept the best followed by ancients .

ptrope i especially liked the rear of this design .

but, i am having problems with the part that extrudes forward.

and thanks for the info on the leif ericson. i remember seeing those as a kid.

on a little side note..

i know they are not the same thing or having the same exact physics/engineering behind them but looking at how naval ship design as gone in the last 70 years to some designs i have seen of future ships i can see how something like the nx - 01 could eventually evolve into the constellation class.

and in some ways as someone who has studied the importance of symbology i could see why starfleet would reach into the past and take a silhouette of a ship that would have had historical significance and use it in the development of a specialized fighter (with names like thunderchild and akira this is how i saw those ships).

 

[Galactus]

The NX-01 just modifies what was wrong with the show ENT in general. As it was it was exactly what fans said/say they wanted but they still rejected it. It was similiar to what we had seen but it was different at the same time, just in ways that most disliked.

As some others have said they totally missed the boat on the ship. Maybe if they had decided to use a different ship they could have call the show something else and gotten off to a better start. As soon as the majority of folks saw that ship there was no way they were going to like the show.

The ship should have been something that looked more like our future instead of Star Trek past. The Federation ships we knew should have been something that was created by the Federation, not Earth by itself. I mean why would the Vulcans and Andorians except the design of a Terran ship. Makes no sense as most of the things they did with the show.

 

[O'Dib]

Kal-L said:
I continue to maintain to this day that the Enterprise production staff already had a great design for their Enterprise, but for some reason (i.e., The Killer B's) they had to ignore it.

I refer, of course, to the SS Conestoga.

A lot of folks here have disagreed with me over the years about this, but I look at this ship and think it's got a familiarity and a new grace and sense of personality, which is something Enterprise as a whole was sorely in need of.

I look at this ship and I can see her reflecting what TOS said about the era of the Romulan Wars, about what was going on one hundred years before. All she needs is some UESPA signage and a name other than "Enterprise" and we'd be good to go.

My two cents.

Totaly awesome! I don't remember seeing this on any Enterprise episode though (and I'm pretty sure I'd remember it). Admittedly, I missed most of season 2.

 

[B.J.]

The Conestoga was only "seen" on some display graphics when they were reviewing the history of the colony.

 

[Irishman]

They MUST Have originally planned on using this Conestoga design much more than as a display. After all, the level of detailing on the Intrepid and "Iceland" class (lifting body) show that they received much less attention to detail than did the Conestoga.

THAT episode I would have loved to have seen.

 

[Psion]

Agreed, Irishman. Which brings me back to the idea that this design WAS the NX-01 before someone told the art department to come up with something more familiar.

 

[SeerSGB]

Psion said:
Agreed, Irishman. Which brings me back to the idea that this design WAS the NX-01 before someone told the art department to come up with something more familiar.

Which is one of the problems I had with Enterprise: Assume the audience is stupid and has to have everything spelled out for them to the point of beating them over the head with the obvious.