Enterprise episode, "Twilight". Down to one nacelle and limited to a low warp.
Why Did Roddenberry Hate the "dreadnought" from the Starfleet Technical Manual?
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
Enterprise episode, "Twilight". Down to one nacelle and limited to a low warp.
Thank you!
Thank you.
Don't know about their speed, but it seems reasonably clear that once the port nacelle was out, it was gone for good.
What's a "connie"? Synonym to "pylon" or "strut"?
"Connie" is a nickname for Constitution-class.
Fan vernacular for a Constitution-class starship.
Like others said above, I hadn't thought about the Manual like that before, but it's a great idea!
I'm of the opposite thought, it's extrapolated from the Constitution class, but not exactly. If you just stuck a third nacelle directly to the TV ship, THAT would be ugly. Franz Joseph, within his own artistic temperament to not step too much away from the source material, came up with an elegant in its own way design.
Something @Christopher said about Matt Jeffries original elegant final design for the Enterprise made me think. Do we know what he thought about how his design was extrapolated from by Probert, Minor, ILM et al? I'd especially like to know what he thought about the TMP redesign. I also love how, in the "Star Trek Sketchbook: the Original Series" book, he had a notation (page 68, lower image) on how an upgrade to the TV ship would be 1701A!
Last edited:
Yes. The movies and TNG got it utterly wrong. The TMP refit should've been 1701-A; subsequent ships of the same name should never have had the same registry number with a letter appended, because that's not how registry numbers work or what they're for. They're meant to identify a single unique ship regardless of whether its name is changed or shared with a different ship. So the new E in TVH shouldn't have been 1701-A. If they'd wanted to evoke the original registry, they should've made it NCC-1781 or 1901 or something.
Lifted possibly from the abbreviation for Lockheed Constellation airliners, commonly called Connies. Some of the most beautiful machines to ever decorate the sky. Oddly, in my reversed brain, hearing people call the Enterprise a Connie makes me sometimes errantly call it a Constellation class ship, which is a completely different thing altogether (talking about too many nacelles
)
@Christopher Is there Star Trek significance to 1781? I agree on registry numbers; "no bloody A, B, C, or D." If they would have left even the wreak of secondary hull in orbit, it could be recovered and rebuilt with a new saucer and still be the 1701. In 1943, the destroyer USS Abner Read had 75 feet of its stern blown off by a mine, but kept afloat. The navy slapped on another stern and returned the ship to duty. Decades later, the stern was found which confused the team because the ship was officially sunk in 1944 in a completely different location.
1781 = 17*1 with the roundest non-0 * you are gonna get.
No, I'm just suggesting that if they wanted to evoke the original NCC-1701, then NCC-1781 is pretty close visually and would've been a reasonable number for a ship built decades later in the same class. NCC-1761 could've worked too.
Following on from the above:
Enterprise-A: NCC-2017
Enterprise-B: NCC-2071
Enterprise-C: NCC-26701/31701
Enterprise-D: NCC-71701
Enterprise-A: NCC-2017
Enterprise-B: NCC-2071
Enterprise-C: NCC-26701/31701
Enterprise-D: NCC-71701
or
Enterprise: NCC-1701
Enterprise: NCC-2701
Enterprise: NCC-3701
Enterprise: NCC-4701
Enterprise: NCC-5701
I'm kind of mad that they destroyed the original Enterprise in 1984 only as a ploy to introduced the 1701-A nomenclature in 1986 to justify using 1701-D for the TNG in 1987. I am not seeing conspiracies; the timeline doesn't lie. Shame on them.
That would be silly, since there's no reason the name would always be applied to that particular point in the registry number cycle. Again, it's missing the point of what registry numbers are for to think they need to correspond with a specific ship name in any way. Their purpose is to provide information that the name doesn't. I could've bought something like 1761 or 1781 for the second Enterprise for the nostalgia factor, but extending it into a regular series applying to all the Enterprises would've been as unrealistic and silly as the bloody A, B, C, and D.
It's not like any of the other hero ships in Trek have memorable registry numbers. I remember that Voyager is NCC-74656, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what the number is for the Defiant or the Discovery. Because it shouldn't matter all that much. What was the license plate number of the Batmobile or Jim Rockford's car or the A-Team's van? That's trivia, not a vital story detail.
I'm going to assume you're joking here...
Based on the idea that the registrations might be a nod to NX-01 I might go with:
UESS Enterprise: NX-01
USS Enterprise: NCC-1701
USS Enterprise-A: NCC-1901
USS Enterprise-B: NCC-2001
USS Enterprise-C: NCC-26701
USS Enterprise-D: NCC-70701
UESS Enterprise: NX-01
USS Enterprise: NCC-1701
USS Enterprise-A: NCC-1901
USS Enterprise-B: NCC-2001
USS Enterprise-C: NCC-26701
USS Enterprise-D: NCC-70701
Again, there's no logic in registry numbers being a "nod" to anything. If you want a "nod," that's what ship names are for. Registry numbers are functional, meant to give information about the ship itself as a piece of hardware, its class and its place in the construction sequence. They're not vanity plates.
Mostly. I enjoy all the various renditions of Star Trek. I'm just sad that the original Enterprise was destroyed.
But in the case of the Enterprises, they literally are.
I don't really see the problem here. A registration number is a unique ship identifier. 1701-D is as unique as 74205 or 74656.
Similar threads
