Well it was named after the famous Capt. Archers NX Enterprise
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
It took Starfleet 84 years to finally get around to launching another Enterprise but I'm sure it was named for Archer's NX-01.
Former President and Admiral Archer sometime around 2210: "So...you guys ever gonna launch another ship named Enterprise? It seems like it's been..."
Starfleet Admiral: "A long road?"
Archer: "I will shove you in an airlock and deprive you of oxygen."
Starfleet Admiral: "A long road?"
Archer: "I will shove you in an airlock and deprive you of oxygen."
Maybe they did that because Kirk has aggravated them by that point.
The old "only ship in the sector" reasoning, or the opposite.
What you don't know is that the NX-01 was actually lost at the Donatru V incident referenced by T'Kumva. Starfleet decided a new Enterprise was needed only because the Klingons didn't like the name.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I theorize that UESPA commissioned several Enterprises between the NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise, which would explain why early TOS episodes had UESPA as the Enterprise’s operating authority, and why those other theoretical Enterprises were not considered Federation Starfleet starships.
John Eaves concept Enterprise - model by Marc Bell
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Poe5ry
Fantastic model with some great views!
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Poe5ry
Fantastic model with some great views!
She is so much better-looking with straight pylons.
John Eaves concept Enterprise - model by Marc Bell
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Poe5ry
Fantastic model with some great views!
Nice model work, but it’s still far too flat for my tastes, not to mention it still has the completely unnecessary gaps in the pylons.
John Eaves concept Enterprise - model by Marc Bell
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Poe5ry
Fantastic model with some great views!
Well at least the crawlways in the pylons wouldn't have to bend....
Quite a nice made model!
There are plenty of engineering reasons to add gaps to the pylons, from strengthening them to better heat distribution, but for all the retconning since Trek came out in the 60s let's not forget the only engineering principle the OG Enterprise was designed on was the principle of cool. It was a sailing vessel on space. Not exactly utilitarian.
True. Which is why, since the Enterprise is a fictional spaceship, the logic you’re invoking about why the pylons should have gaps is kind of irrelevant. A realistic spacecraft wouldn’t look anything like the Enterprise, so to me it’s more important to make subtle changes to the original design rather than just making random glaring changes just for the sake of change, like putting gaps in the pylons where none existed before.
You are the one who posted they are bad because they are useless, not me.
Might as well say the Connie refit is bad because it was updated drastically instead of subtly
Anyone can come up with a fictional reason why said part on said fictional starship has a function. That wasn’t my intention. My intention was to point out that there is no real reason why there has to be gaps in the pylons, since the original ship this version was also supposed to be didn’t have them. It was purely an aesthetic choice by the real-life designer.
Might as well say the Connie refit is bad because it was updated drastically instead of subtly
That’s a different situation altogether. There was an in-universe reason (and a real reason, but that’s not important to the discussion) as to why the ship was refit. As I said before, the Discoprise is supposed to be the same ship as the TOS Enterprise, so there was no real reason to make the changes they did to it other than just to change stuff.
Well, it is on some level. I can at least imagine minor modifications to the TOS Enterprise from the Cage to DSC/SNW to TOS in some fashion. Probably not identical, but close enough for my purposes.
Its not different at all. What, the Enterprise couldn't have another refit between the cage and Disco? Or Disco and TOS? The tech was old at both points and Connie's are modular, designed to be refit easily.
You don't like it because it's different than you're used to. You can say that. ItsYIts a valiedvalid opinion. You don't have to keep trying to come up with "objective" reasons it's a "bad" design.
Similar threads
