![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There really needs to be some stuff about the propulsion / engineering systems on this page. Type and size reactor, power output, impulse/ warp system specs, ... any body know where to find this stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.244.22 ( talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems kind of strange that the design of a starship would be so vertically asymmetrical, or that the bridge would be located on the very "top". I'd imagine that this particular starship had massive problems with center-of-gravity balancing and... well... bridges getting shot off =) 74.135.4.188 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain what makes this spec list authoritative? Or was it just picked at random? AlistairMcMillan 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's start real simple. Can someone point me to the source of the "463 m (1,521 ft)" figure for the width of the Ent-D? The Technical Manual, which at a glance doesn't seem to explicitly list dimensions, does however suggest 388.36 metres on page 20. AlistairMcMillan 07:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The exact quote from Conundrum is "We are equipped with 10 phaser banks, 250 photo torpedoes and a high-capacity shield grid." AlistairMcMillan 12:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions that Commander Riker briefly was Captain of the Enterprise-D. During that period, he had been field-promoted to Captain (he wore four pips on his collar and everything). Should any mention be made that he was a Captain during the time of his command of the Enterprise?-- Raguleader 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How big is it?-- 66.176.212.236 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the asteroid field image really needed? Per WP:NFC, use of non-free content should be kept to a minimum. "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Neitherday 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does Ten Forward redirect here? Someone needs to make a disambiguation for this because I KNOW there's more definitions of this term. -- TangoFett ( talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I've re-added a legitimate point about the inconsistency of the "future" Enterprise travelling in excess of warp 10. This is well based - it is covered in detail in the warp drive article linked to, the TNG Technical Manual, and features prominently in the Voyager episode Threshold.
And yet, somehow this is still OR. Go figure. Crispmuncher ( talk) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Doing this from memory but here is the breakdown as I figure it:
1 - NX-01 (TV Series "Star Trek Enterprise") 2 - NCC-1701 Constitution Class (TV Series "Star Trek" original series) NOTE: Includes NCC-1701 Improved Constitution Class (Star Trek Movies I, II, and III) 3 - NCC 1701A Constitution Class (Star Trek Movies IV, V, and VI) 4 - NCC 1701B Excelsior Class (TV Series "Star Trek TNG" referenced and shown in "Star Trek Generations") 5 - NCC 1701C Ambassador Class ("Star Trek TNG" shown in episode "Yesterdays Enterprise") 6 - NCC 1701D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.5.154 ( talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But NX-01 wasn't part of the federation. Brian Boru is awesome ( talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the federation was founded while the Enterprise NX-01 still was on duty... so I would agree: NCC-1701-D is the 6th Federation Starship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:2746:E900:F541:3DFA:DFDF:4553 ( talk) 20:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Starship_article_ruminations, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! -- EEMIV ( talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion relevant to the most recently added/reverted edits to the mainpage has started here: Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Thanks. Jabberjawjapan ( talk) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Fellow Treksters: I have an idea that would affect this and other articles about various starships Enterprise. I'd appreciate your input at the WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dammit._Very_complicated,_head-scratching_idea_to_consider. Thanks! -- EEMIV ( talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think displacement is the correct unit as it is a maritime term. The unit should be mass, surely? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Mass on the White fire plans says Approx 5,000,000 metric tons --
Stevegoodmansen (
talk)
06:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
While the Length and Width seem to be close enough to accurate, the Height can not possibly be accurate. This height number is way too tall. -- Stevegoodmansen ( talk) 04:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The dimensions on the original Whitefire plans are: Overall Length 642.5 meters Overall Beam (Width) 467.2 meters Overall depth 137.6 meters
These dimensions actually scale to the size of the ship. I'd be really curious where the numbers on this page came from. Width and length aren't too bad but height is extremely off.
-- Stevegoodmansen ( talk) 06:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Published NCC-1701-D Dimensions vs Wikipedia:
Ed Whitefire Blueprints: L: 642.5m, W: 467.2m, H: 137.6m [1]
Rick Sternbach Blueprints: L: ~642.5m, W: ~468.4m, H: ~139.9m [2]
Wikipedia dimensions: L: 642.5m, W: 463.73m, H: 195.26m
Ed Whitefire worked with Star Trek Art Department staff member Andrew Probert to produce his original blueprints, which are probably the closest to the actual models used on the show.
Since Rick Sternbach was a senior illustrator for the show, and coauthored the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual with Michael Okuda, his version is probably considered the most "official", but since it uses a scale instead of providing explicit dimensions, all sizes were estimated based on measurements taken from the drawings, using the generally agreed on 642.5m length as a fixed reference.
Since both sources are pretty close, and the Wikipedia entry is so far off, I can only guess it's a typo, and was supposed to be something like 135.26m. In any case, since there are 2 quasi-official sources that give a vastly lower height value, unless a more official citation can be provided that backs up the current Wikipedia entry, it should be changed accordingly. (I came to this discussion after trying to model the 1701D using the dimensions currently provided here, and it looks ridiculous, like a 16:9 aspect image squashed to fit on an old 4:3 TV screen.)
69.172.159.106 ( talk) 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Hey, all. I've begun an overhaul of this article. It's very much a work in progress, but I'm hoping to do here in terms of restructure, content, and sourcing that was my passion project at USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) a couple of years ago. Please do jump into the article to deposit sources and production info here. I've been skimming through old Starlogs at the Internet Archive and have been a bit surprised by some of the scant info. on the ship design itself (although there is a cool report from David Gerrold about set construction: https://archive.org/details/starlog_magazine-121/page/n13/mode/2up). -- EEMIV ( talk) 23:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
"Starfleet commissions the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise in 2263 under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. " - Isn't that 2363? Drsruli ( talk) 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Ten-Forward redirects to this article, but is not mentioned in the article. Koro Neil ( talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There really needs to be some stuff about the propulsion / engineering systems on this page. Type and size reactor, power output, impulse/ warp system specs, ... any body know where to find this stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.244.22 ( talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems kind of strange that the design of a starship would be so vertically asymmetrical, or that the bridge would be located on the very "top". I'd imagine that this particular starship had massive problems with center-of-gravity balancing and... well... bridges getting shot off =) 74.135.4.188 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain what makes this spec list authoritative? Or was it just picked at random? AlistairMcMillan 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's start real simple. Can someone point me to the source of the "463 m (1,521 ft)" figure for the width of the Ent-D? The Technical Manual, which at a glance doesn't seem to explicitly list dimensions, does however suggest 388.36 metres on page 20. AlistairMcMillan 07:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The exact quote from Conundrum is "We are equipped with 10 phaser banks, 250 photo torpedoes and a high-capacity shield grid." AlistairMcMillan 12:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions that Commander Riker briefly was Captain of the Enterprise-D. During that period, he had been field-promoted to Captain (he wore four pips on his collar and everything). Should any mention be made that he was a Captain during the time of his command of the Enterprise?-- Raguleader 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How big is it?-- 66.176.212.236 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the asteroid field image really needed? Per WP:NFC, use of non-free content should be kept to a minimum. "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Neitherday 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does Ten Forward redirect here? Someone needs to make a disambiguation for this because I KNOW there's more definitions of this term. -- TangoFett ( talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I've re-added a legitimate point about the inconsistency of the "future" Enterprise travelling in excess of warp 10. This is well based - it is covered in detail in the warp drive article linked to, the TNG Technical Manual, and features prominently in the Voyager episode Threshold.
And yet, somehow this is still OR. Go figure. Crispmuncher ( talk) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Doing this from memory but here is the breakdown as I figure it:
1 - NX-01 (TV Series "Star Trek Enterprise") 2 - NCC-1701 Constitution Class (TV Series "Star Trek" original series) NOTE: Includes NCC-1701 Improved Constitution Class (Star Trek Movies I, II, and III) 3 - NCC 1701A Constitution Class (Star Trek Movies IV, V, and VI) 4 - NCC 1701B Excelsior Class (TV Series "Star Trek TNG" referenced and shown in "Star Trek Generations") 5 - NCC 1701C Ambassador Class ("Star Trek TNG" shown in episode "Yesterdays Enterprise") 6 - NCC 1701D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.5.154 ( talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But NX-01 wasn't part of the federation. Brian Boru is awesome ( talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the federation was founded while the Enterprise NX-01 still was on duty... so I would agree: NCC-1701-D is the 6th Federation Starship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:2746:E900:F541:3DFA:DFDF:4553 ( talk) 20:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Starship_article_ruminations, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! -- EEMIV ( talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion relevant to the most recently added/reverted edits to the mainpage has started here: Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Thanks. Jabberjawjapan ( talk) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Fellow Treksters: I have an idea that would affect this and other articles about various starships Enterprise. I'd appreciate your input at the WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dammit._Very_complicated,_head-scratching_idea_to_consider. Thanks! -- EEMIV ( talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think displacement is the correct unit as it is a maritime term. The unit should be mass, surely? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Mass on the White fire plans says Approx 5,000,000 metric tons --
Stevegoodmansen (
talk)
06:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
While the Length and Width seem to be close enough to accurate, the Height can not possibly be accurate. This height number is way too tall. -- Stevegoodmansen ( talk) 04:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The dimensions on the original Whitefire plans are: Overall Length 642.5 meters Overall Beam (Width) 467.2 meters Overall depth 137.6 meters
These dimensions actually scale to the size of the ship. I'd be really curious where the numbers on this page came from. Width and length aren't too bad but height is extremely off.
-- Stevegoodmansen ( talk) 06:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Published NCC-1701-D Dimensions vs Wikipedia:
Ed Whitefire Blueprints: L: 642.5m, W: 467.2m, H: 137.6m [1]
Rick Sternbach Blueprints: L: ~642.5m, W: ~468.4m, H: ~139.9m [2]
Wikipedia dimensions: L: 642.5m, W: 463.73m, H: 195.26m
Ed Whitefire worked with Star Trek Art Department staff member Andrew Probert to produce his original blueprints, which are probably the closest to the actual models used on the show.
Since Rick Sternbach was a senior illustrator for the show, and coauthored the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual with Michael Okuda, his version is probably considered the most "official", but since it uses a scale instead of providing explicit dimensions, all sizes were estimated based on measurements taken from the drawings, using the generally agreed on 642.5m length as a fixed reference.
Since both sources are pretty close, and the Wikipedia entry is so far off, I can only guess it's a typo, and was supposed to be something like 135.26m. In any case, since there are 2 quasi-official sources that give a vastly lower height value, unless a more official citation can be provided that backs up the current Wikipedia entry, it should be changed accordingly. (I came to this discussion after trying to model the 1701D using the dimensions currently provided here, and it looks ridiculous, like a 16:9 aspect image squashed to fit on an old 4:3 TV screen.)
69.172.159.106 ( talk) 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Hey, all. I've begun an overhaul of this article. It's very much a work in progress, but I'm hoping to do here in terms of restructure, content, and sourcing that was my passion project at USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) a couple of years ago. Please do jump into the article to deposit sources and production info here. I've been skimming through old Starlogs at the Internet Archive and have been a bit surprised by some of the scant info. on the ship design itself (although there is a cool report from David Gerrold about set construction: https://archive.org/details/starlog_magazine-121/page/n13/mode/2up). -- EEMIV ( talk) 23:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
"Starfleet commissions the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise in 2263 under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. " - Isn't that 2363? Drsruli ( talk) 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Ten-Forward redirects to this article, but is not mentioned in the article. Koro Neil ( talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)