• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

I Never Noticed Before

It was a great design that was hardly used, and it fitted the writers' bible specifications. Did you have the same complaint when the Enterprise-B reused the Excelsior model?

That's not really the same, because the Excelsior was consistent with the timeframe of the E-B and the ship had been assumed to be an Excelsior for years anyway. It was depicted as such on TNG long before Generations "confirmed" it canonically. The only real complaint about the B was that they added a bunch of unnecessary stuff to the Excelsior model to make the ship look "special."

As for the Pasteur, while it clearly draws some design elements from the conjectural Daedalus design, it's also reasonably distinct. And that both ships share design elements does not automatically mean that the Pasteur was derived from the Daedalus. It may be that Starfleet has a number of designs that use spherical hull modules, and we've simply seen them rarely.

I don't really want to dive into the can of worms here, as that's a separate topic from the original one. On a personal level, I do agree with Trekker - while one could argue that the Akira could have been derived from the NX, the reality is that the producers were lazy and cut corners. They modeled the NX on the Akira because it was a "cool" and "popular" design, not because they could have created something more original and more in keeping with the overall continuity of Trek.

And that's all I'll say about that. ;) :D
 
I also never noticed before in DS9 "Tears of the Prophets" that there is a ship that looks remarkably similar to the NX-01 -

tears.jpg

There's a can of worms you don't want to open. There's a reason we have a mod here called Akiraprise.
As I recall the board nearly melted down the day the NX-01 TV Guide image broke.


Didn't realize this was such an issue back then.

By the way, I was thinking your avatar was a little dark so I took a shot at brightening it up -

punch.gif
 
The folks at ILM responsible for NX-2000 are highly unlikely to have gotten their inspiration specifically from the outdated general aviation registry scheme

I know ILM took on a lot of design responsibility for SFS (even props ... who did they think they were, the Robert Abel company?), and most of it looks inferior to Probert/Minor IMO, but can you point to any source that indicates the NX came from them? I'd always figured that was from Bennett, somebody who would have remembered X-1 and X-15 (and probably the x-jet) ... does anybody have an undoctored shooting screenplay (not an after the fact continuity script) that indicates if the NX is in there?
 
the producers were lazy and cut corners. They modeled the NX on the Akira because it was a "cool" and "popular" design

"Lazy" implies everyone sat around doing nothing. It doesn't take much effort to send designers off to design a new ship. That they chose to go with "cool" and "popular" - not to mention sorely underused - is fine with me.

"Cutting corners" means saving money to spend in other areas, and that's fine too, because the money still has to be spent somewhere. It's not as if Rick Berman was able to hide it in a Swiss bank account if it wasn't spent on someone designing a new ship.

As I said, design trends are cyclic. We see retro clothes, fabric patterns, cars, furnishings, artworks all the time in RL.

And the USS Pasteur looks exactly like the pre-TOS Daedalus class to me. Any changes are merely to upgrade it to 24th century standards.
 
Sorry, that's not an excuse for me. It's illogical for Columbia to've had an "NX" registry. It should've been NCC, unless we want to "rationalize" it by saying that Columbia was different enough from Enterprise to be another experimental vessel. And the class name should've been something other than "NX."

The class name "NX" is just dumb. That's like someone aksing you what kind of car you drive and yon answer by giving them the first two letters off of your license plate.

Why is it illogical to follow the class naming patterns established for Earth vessels in the pre TOS era? The last thing it should be is NCC which is from 100 years in the future and for a different organization.
 
Within the Trek universe, we could say the Federation way of doing it owes something to the old United Earth way of doing it, in the sense of historical homages rather than slavishly identical schemes.

In turn, the UE Starfleet would probably want to follow old Earth naval tradition on most things. Thus, starship classes would be named after the first vessel, even though there could also be parallel and more futuristic designation schemes: hence Archer's ship would begin the Enterprise class (just like ships hundreds of years before and after his), despite also beginning the NX class in the futuristic designation scheme (just like another Enterprise in the real world began the CVN class, and like many other classes like "668 class" or "AEGIS class" have been primarily known by such terms rather than by the classic class names they also possessed).

So Archer's ride could well be NX class "coincidentally", just because it followed the NW class or the MX class chronologically, and not because NX holds some special symbolic meaning. And UFP Starfleet could use NX for experimental vessels not just because it makes general sense (X=experimental is a no-brainer, and it seems UFPSF just plain likes things beginning with N) but also because the admirals would think it's cool how this reminds of Archer's historical ship.

Of course, it's just as possible that NX on Archer's ship meant the exact same as NX on Sisko's ship: an experimental or prototype design. And frankly, the first four or five ships of that design would all have been more or less experimental throughout their operational lives, never warranting another kind of designation.

Let's also remember that it's never quite established that "NX class" would be an in-universe designation for Archer's specific type of vessel. The first place where this expression is used, ENT "Fortunate Son", has Archer call his vessel and the three on the drawing boards "NX class" merely as distinction against what he calls "old freighters". Perhaps NX means something like Naval Explorer, and Archer informs the pirates that they are facing a UE naval exploration vessel this time, an adversary well beyond their powers. And the three other "NX class ships" he refers to might mean three other NX classes rather than three further vessels of the same design as Archer's - after all, that's how a "drawing board" would be required for creating them.

Beyond this, "NX class" is used in "E2" where it seems to more specifically refer to a ship similar to Archer's. It doesn't need to refer to a design identical to Archers even there, though.

The third and last time we hear "NX class" is in "Home", and this time it is actually "the NX class", which finally makes it sound as if it refers specifically to the design flown by Archer. But that could be because the next three NX classes are still in the drawing boards...

Timo Saloniemi
 
Why is it illogical to follow the class naming patterns established for Earth vessels in the pre TOS era? The last thing it should be is NCC which is from 100 years in the future and for a different organization.

Did you not read or just not understand the part where "NX" is a designation for experimental vessels and "NCC" is a designation for production/civil used on real-world aircraft?
 
Why should that be relevant to anything?

Besides, as described above, "NX" has never been a designation for experimental "vessels", only for general aviation aircraft (and that's outdated usage). And "NCC" has never been a designation for production aircraft - "NC" has.

The analogies applied to starships have generally been naval, not aviation. ENT forms a notable exception in how it describes the NX engine test project in "First Flight", which is perhaps fitting for this pioneering era that is not so greatly separated from the days when space exploration was an "aerospace" thing rather than a "naval" undertaking.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Why is it illogical to follow the class naming patterns established for Earth vessels in the pre TOS era? The last thing it should be is NCC which is from 100 years in the future and for a different organization.

Did you not read or just not understand the part where "NX" is a designation for experimental vessels and "NCC" is a designation for production/civil used on real-world aircraft?

Because it's not.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top