Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)

Propulsion
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)

Odd design
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)

Spec list
Can someone explain what makes this spec list authoritative? Or was it just picked at random? AlistairMcMillan 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with spec list
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)


 * I believe this information is in the ST:DS9 Technical Manual; I don't have it handy, but specs for numerous classes are in there. E Pluribus Anthony 07:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great. TNG Technical Manual says 388.36m and DS9 Technical Manual says 463.73m. AlistairMcMillan 08:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey; I know ... inconsistencies. There is also a diagram in The Art of Star Trek which indicates the beam of the saucer section (used in scale for Star Trek: Generations) in feet.  It is just slightly larger than the 463.73 m figure, which is also about right if you consider the length as being around 641 m.  (I can't recall what the precise figures are now, though.)  I'll confirm later.  E Pluribus Anthony 12:42, 24 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)


 * Hi! I know; didn't I say that (paraphrased)?  I believe (but could be mistaken) that both technical manuals indicate different figures for phasers, too.  Not to conduct original research and dispute canon, but one can count the number of phaser arrays (the long strips on the ship exterior); in the docked configuration, there are eleven of them (one additional array is on the battle 'cobra' head, when docked).  Perhaps a note indicating 10 or more is sufficient?  And then there's the 'souped-up' Venture, which apparently has one more array atop each warp engine.


 * The number of phaser arrays – eleven type-10 – appears in the ST:DS9 TM (p. 151). E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The number of pho-torps (missiles) cited on-screen is consistent with the ST:TNG TM; in the manual, the number of probes is also mentioned.


 * The number of torpedo launchers – two (while docked) – appears both in the ST:TNG TM and ST:DS9 TM (p. 151). E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: a high-capacity shield grid is indicated; the ST:TNG TM actually cites a total shield output in the gigawatt range, but unsure of the precise figure. (This all from memory ... very sad.) :)


 * I hope this makes some sorta sense. Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 12:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do the tehcnical manuals have info for all ships. We can compare them using both manuals. In a table showing what each manual suggests. There may be incinsistencies, but what is new with that. -- Cool CatTalk 23:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be somewhat cumbersome. To my knowledge, there are three major semi-canon print sources for specs: Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, and Star Trek Starship Spotter (ST:SS).  None are fully comprehensive.  The first focuses (of course) on the Enterprise-D but gleans insights into other aspects of 'contemporary' technology.  Ditto for the ST:DS9 TM, which is glossier and profiles numerous starships from vaious nations, but it has been chided for inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  Lastly, ST:SS is primarily a compendium of beauty shots (by the graphic artists who created digital starships for the various productions) with specs that don't necessarily agree with factoids in the other two and elsewhere.  As well there are also a smattering of specs et al. in other print and online materials (of varying canonicity) ... and entire fanon sites are devoted to resolving said inconsistencies regarding starship specs.


 * I think the approach taken, for example, with the Enterprise-D or -E spec infoboxes is the way to go. As long as (the above) sources are cited, we discuss inclusions/variations, and note them (with general statements if necessary), we can embolden said articles and include agreeable yet germane information.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Commander/Captain Riker?
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)
 * Great minds think alike, and so do we: while you were typing this up, I just removed the rank listings for both Jellico and Riker. Anyone interested in that info. can just go to the characters' articles. --EEMeltonIV 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Size
How big is it?--66.176.212.236 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-free Image Use
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)

Ten Forward
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)

Warp 10+
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)


 * Pease cite a source indicating this trivial plot detail and supposed discrepancy actually matters to someone in the real world, and not just tech-manual-obsessed fanboys (such as myself). The notion that it is an "inconsistency" is OR -- it may very well be consistent with eg the episode's alternate future history tech. This kind of speculation/assertion without citation to it being an "inconsistency" is inappropriate here. Take it to Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that as well and was about to comment on it til I noticed this. It seems to me that you can argue things one or the other - you can argue that a one-off episode is an irrelevance _or_ you can argue that one episode is significant.  What you _can't_ do is argue that one episode is significant and another irrelevant, which is what EEMIV appears to be doing from the edit log.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.22.111 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NCC-1701D would be at least the 6th Federation Starships named Enterprise
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)

Input requested
I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Using "the" with ship's names
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170118051229/http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D307923.PN.&OS=PN%2FD307923&RS=PN%2FD307923 to http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D307923.PN.&OS=PN%2FD307923&RS=PN%2FD307923

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article
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. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Displacement?
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)

Length Width & Height
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

Rick Sternbach Blueprints: L: ~642.5m, W: ~468.4m, H: ~139.9m

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)

Working on an overhaul
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)

Commisioned when?
"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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Picard Bridge Enterprise D x.png

Ten-Forward
Ten-Forward redirects to this article, but is not mentioned in the article. Koro Neil (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)