Better view on Enterprise-J....

[Sarevok]

The Steamrunner is about as good as you'll see in modern Trekships. The only things I can think of that are better are the Defiant and possibly the Miranda.

Dont forget the Akira and the Sovereign. They are pretty good designs too.

[Darth Wong]

The Trek writers obviously believe that maximum speed of a spacecraft has something to do with making it look smooth and aerodynamic. How annoyingly childish.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

The Trek writers obviously believe that maximum speed of a spacecraft has something to do with making it look smooth and aerodynamic. How annoyingly childish.

Nah, I think that's the design and production teams. The writers think a ship goes faster if it looks more like a hotel... Or a salamander.

[Alyeska]

The Trek writers obviously believe that maximum speed of a spacecraft has something to do with making it look smooth and aerodynamic. How annoyingly childish.

Well at least the actual model designers and tech department has created an in-universe explination.

[Rogue 9]

Take a look at the registry on the Miranda in the DS9 shot. Better yet, look at its name. Its the Reliant.

The Fleet Musem makes two obvious mistakes as well. They used the wrong model for the Enterprise-B and they have the A missing on the Connie Refit. Technicaly they have the same ship side by side. Two NCC-1701s.

The Connie didn't get the "A" when it got the refit. It was still the NCC-1701, no bloody A, B, C or D. The 1701-A didn't come along until the fourth movie.

As Alyeska points out, the 1701 and it's refit are the same ship, hence 'refit'- the A was a new build.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the same ship up there twice. (Speaking of which, that's one hell of a refit. It looks like a different class of ship. Always wondered about that...)

[Darth Lucifer]

If starships were dicks, then the Enterprise J is a representation of the deformed, twisted and microscopically small thing dangling between the legs of Star Trek. No amount of Viagra could make it work. You could wank it all day long and derive zero pleasure from the time wasted for the effort.

[Jon]

The Connie didn't get the "A" when it got the refit. It was still the NCC-1701, no bloody A, B, C or D. The 1701-A didn't come along until the fourth movie.

As Alyeska points out, the 1701 and it's refit are the same ship, hence 'refit'- the A was a new build.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the same ship up there twice. (Speaking of which, that's one hell of a refit. It looks like a different class of ship. Always wondered about that...)

That's exactly what I am calling him on, he suggests that they are right to have two up there with the same number, because the A didnt come till later (unless i am misreading ihs meaning), I am too supporting the fact that both 1701's are the same ship.

With regards to the J, SF ships have always been more about form over function.

[Rogue 9]

As Alyeska points out, the 1701 and it's refit are the same ship, hence 'refit'- the A was a new build.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the same ship up there twice. (Speaking of which, that's one hell of a refit. It looks like a different class of ship. Always wondered about that...)

That's exactly what I am calling him on, he suggests that they are right to have two up there with the same number, because the A didnt come till later (unless i am misreading ihs meaning), I am too supporting the fact that both 1701's are the same ship.

No, he's saying that they're wrong to have two up there with the same number, because it's the same ship twice. You're saying exactly what he's saying.

[Alyeska]

That's exactly what I am calling him on, he suggests that they are right to have two up there with the same number, because the A didnt come till later (unless i am misreading ihs meaning), I am too supporting the fact that both 1701's are the same ship.

With regards to the J, SF ships have always been more about form over function.

You still don't fucking get it.

There are 7 Enterprises. That picture only shows SIX. Do you know why? Because it shows NCC-1701 TWICE. It shows the original TOS version and it shows the Refit version. The Museum picture LEFT OUT THE NCC-1701-A. Do you fucking get it now? Had they simply put an A on the Connie Refit (Thats the recognized description for the Movie era Constutition design) then the Museum picture would be showing all seven Enterprises, but as it stands it has one ship shown TWICE.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

If starships were dicks, then the Enterprise J is a representation of the deformed, twisted and microscopically small thing dangling between the legs of Star Trek. No amount of Viagra could make it work. You could wank it all day long and derive zero pleasure from the time wasted for the effort.

Thank you for that disgusting and disturbing image. I'm going to go throw up.

*Why did I picture it with Roddenberry's face? Why? Why?*

[Patrick Degan]

That's exactly what I am calling him on, he suggests that they are right to have two up there with the same number, because the A didnt come till later (unless i am misreading ihs meaning), I am too supporting the fact that both 1701's are the same ship.

With regards to the J, SF ships have always been more about form over function.

You still don't fucking get it.

There are 7 Enterprises. That picture only shows SIX. Do you know why? Because it shows NCC-1701 TWICE. It shows the original TOS version and it shows the Refit version. The Museum picture LEFT OUT THE NCC-1701-A. Do you fucking get it now? Had they simply put an A on the Connie Refit (Thats the recognized description for the Movie era Constutition design) then the Museum picture would be showing all seven Enterprises, but as it stands it has one ship shown TWICE.

If I may offer a tangential speculation, and bear in mind that I realise that this is pure speculation on my part:

The plain fact is that the original construction of the Enteprise does not match her refit configuration. Examination shows that the hull lines are different, and that the saucers on the two ships are of different diametres. Clearly, something more than a mere refit took place, because to alter a ship's lines to such a radical degree would involve essentially stripping the entire ship down to its frame.

There is a historical analogy which may fit and that would be the case of the sailing warship USS Constellation now moored in Baltimore harbour as a permanent museum exhibit. For many years, the Baltimore tourist commission flogged the story that the ship on display was the 1797 frigate which participated in the Quasi-War with France and the War of 1812, which would have made her the oldest preserved American sail warship. The problem is that the ship's lines clearly did not conform to the original builders' plans; right down to the vessel in question featuring a rounded Seppings-stern which was totally unknown to any warship of the 1797 period. The story went that the Constellation was extensively reconstructed in the late 1840s and recommissioned into service. But investigation into the affair has dispelled this story beyond doubt.

Since the restoration of the ship in question, her pedigree has been clearly established as that of the 26-gun sloop-of-war USS Constellation, built in 1854 as the last all-sail propelled warship to enter service with the U.S. Navy and whose career included assignment to antislavery interdiction as part of the U.S. Africa Squadron.

So where did the farsical "rebuilt frigate" story come from? As it turned out, the Baltimore tourist commission weren't exactly lying but rather unknowingly perpetuating a bureaucratic lie from the 1850s. The old frigate Constellation had reached the end of her service life, with hopelessly rotted timbers and framing and a hogged hull that it would not have been worth converting her to a razee-corvette. So, the commandant of the Gosport Navy Yard at that time listed the Constellation as being pulled from service for refit when in actuality the construction of a whole new clipper-hulled sloop was undertaken. The monies and materials allocated for the refitting of the old frigate were instead used for the new warship build —a not unusual practise of the period— and the Bureau of Ships never bothered to correct the record. Hence, officially, the new corvette Constellation was the rebuilt frigate. As it was also common practise then to decommission a ship from service during any period of refitting and repair and then recommission her back into service afterward, it became the case that the new corvette "occupied" the place of the old frigate on the Navy List. This website details the story in the course of debunking a poorly-researched book on the subject.

Perhaps the explanation for the two Enterprise-1701s lies along a similar act of bureaucratic manipulation; a scheduled refit of the original ship was instead the construction of a new vessel but remained listed in the records as a refit of the original.

[Jon]

That's exactly what I am calling him on, he suggests that they are right to have two up there with the same number, because the A didnt come till later (unless i am misreading ihs meaning), I am too supporting the fact that both 1701's are the same ship.

With regards to the J, SF ships have always been more about form over function.

You still don't fucking get it.

There are 7 Enterprises. That picture only shows SIX. Do you know why? Because it shows NCC-1701 TWICE. It shows the original TOS version and it shows the Refit version. The Museum picture LEFT OUT THE NCC-1701-A. Do you fucking get it now? Had they simply put an A on the Connie Refit (Thats the recognized description for the Movie era Constutition design) then the Museum picture would be showing all seven Enterprises, but as it stands it has one ship shown TWICE.

Hey, I do 'fucking' get it, I get exactly what you've just reiterated. My initial post was supporting the fact that they have left the A out by putting in the same ship twice (that being the original and the refit) - All I did was say indeed that the A was another ship which in turn isnt represented, can you not see that in my post (I was talking about drooling in my last post, when I said 'that's what im calling him on', supporting you! lol *shrugs*)

[Alyeska]

That's exactly what I am calling him on, he suggests that they are right to have two up there with the same number, because the A didnt come till later (unless i am misreading ihs meaning), I am too supporting the fact that both 1701's are the same ship.

With regards to the J, SF ships have always been more about form over function.

You still don't fucking get it.

There are 7 Enterprises. That picture only shows SIX. Do you know why? Because it shows NCC-1701 TWICE. It shows the original TOS version and it shows the Refit version. The Museum picture LEFT OUT THE NCC-1701-A. Do you fucking get it now? Had they simply put an A on the Connie Refit (Thats the recognized description for the Movie era Constutition design) then the Museum picture would be showing all seven Enterprises, but as it stands it has one ship shown TWICE.

If I may offer a tangential speculation, and bear in mind that I realise that this is pure speculation on my part:

The plain fact is that the original construction of the Enteprise does not match her refit configuration. Examination shows that the hull lines are different, and that the saucers on the two ships are of different diametres. Clearly, something more than a mere refit took place, because to alter a ship's lines to such a radical degree would involve essentially stripping the entire ship down to its frame.

There is a historical analogy which may fit and that would be the case of the sailing warship USS Constellation now moored in Baltimore harbour as a permanent museum exhibit. For many years, the Baltimore tourist commission flogged the story that the ship on display was the 1797 frigate which participated in the Quasi-War with France and the War of 1812, which would have made her the oldest preserved American sail warship. The problem is that the ship's lines clearly did not conform to the original builders' plans; right down to the vessel in question featuring a rounded Seppings-stern which was totally unknown to any warship of the 1797 period. The story went that the Constellation was extensively reconstructed in the late 1840s and recommissioned into service. But investigation into the affair has dispelled this story beyond doubt.

Since the restoration of the ship in question, her pedigree has been clearly established as that of the 26-gun sloop-of-war USS Constellation, built in 1854 as the last all-sail propelled warship to enter service with the U.S. Navy and whose career included assignment to antislavery interdiction as part of the U.S. Africa Squadron.

So where did the farsical "rebuilt frigate" story come from? As it turned out, the Baltimore tourist commission weren't exactly lying but rather unknowingly perpetuating a bureaucratic lie from the 1850s. The old frigate Constellation had reached the end of her service life, with hopelessly rotted timbers and framing and a hogged hull that it would not have been worth converting her to a razee-corvette. So, the commandant of the Gosport Navy Yard at that time listed the Constellation as being pulled from service for refit when in actuality the construction of a whole new clipper-hulled sloop was undertaken. The monies and materials allocated for the refitting of the old frigate were instead used for the new warship build —a not unusual practise of the period— and the Bureau of Ships never bothered to correct the record. Hence, officially, the new corvette Constellation was the rebuilt frigate. As it was also common practise then to decommission a ship from service during any period of refitting and repair and then recommission her back into service afterward, it became the case that the new corvette "occupied" the place of the old frigate on the Navy List. This website details the story in the course of debunking a poorly-researched book on the subject.

Perhaps the explanation for the two Enterprise-1701s lies along a similar act of bureaucratic manipulation; a scheduled refit of the original ship was instead the construction of a new vessel but remained listed in the records as a refit of the original.

All of which is irrelevent. The Enterprise never changed names and it was still considered of the same general class. This also ignores the fact that the E-A still isn't shown.