« Yet Another Welcome Page | Main | The Thrilling Conclusion (For Now) »
Monday
Apr252011

Update

Hello! We're back for a quick update. The script is taking a bit longer than expected. Like quite a bit longer, actually. The first four pages are smashing, though. The rest is mostly blank. A couple fleeting verbs here and there. So let's just say the E.T.A. on that one is difficult to calculate.

However, I' ve posted some images of a new Enterprise model I've been working on here and there for the past few months. It's a much better idea of the direction we were heading with the design, with more detail and shape. Still not final by any means, but something to look at. We'd love to hear your thoughts. Images in the Gallery, where you can also check out all our awesome storyboards if you haven't seen them yet. Or you can click on this to go right to the ship:

I had a small version of this model 3D printed in plastic. I'll post a few pictures if I can find a decent way to photograph it.

 

Reader Comments (21)

I love it!

And I think that it would look great in darker tones, like a hammer. That would also match the darker feel of this future.
I think you mentioned before that the forward-side of the hole was the shuttlebay. Is there a function for the aft ventral rectangle (see slide 5)? It seems to include two aft torpedo tubes.

Good job!

April 25, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterToni

Great design, by the way have you asking for our help? Maybe together we can make this plot move foward.

April 25, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterbatty

Looks great! I don't know if you changed the proportions between the primary hull and secondary hull, but it looks even more imposing than before. I also like the refinements you've made, like the beveled edges, the half-circle cut-out on the rear of the primary hull and how the aft section is slightly lower than the primary hull rather than being straight across. Especially impressive is the feeling of power that the impulse engines on either side of the dorsal connector add to the NR-02870.

April 25, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMei-Yi

I'm starting to really warm to this design even though I was very unimpressed at first. But after reading the storyboards for the pilot (which was one of the best Trek pilots IMHO) I totally get what you were trying to do with this Enterprise and I'm onboard. I think the broadside phaser banks won me over :P.

One question I've always had is, what is with the registry number, NR-02870? Why no NCC-1701-K, L, or M or whatever next letter it should be? Seems a bit strange to change this but I've been convinced before with this series departing the usual path ;)

April 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThom

Thanks Thom, I'm glad you liked the pilot. I have a feeling a lot of our critics take a look at the ship design or just read a few lines of the background story and pass judgement without actually reading the script. Which is a shame, because while everything else is still a budgetless work in progress, the story is pretty much final and is the best representation of the core idea.

The NR registry number was a temporary thing I threw on that original concept model. We had not decided on a registry, but knew we wouldn't go with NCC-1701 with a letter after it. There is some conversation on that in the thread below this one, but basically the new registry was yet another way to show that Starfleet has strayed from its ways.

We had also talked about re-designating the ship back to NCC-1701 in a later season, once Chase and the ship had saved the galaxy and started to nudge Starfleet back on track.

April 26, 2011 | Registered CommenterDoug

I'm sure you're right about the 30 second judgement by most people. I know I was one of them at first!

Sorry that I missed the previous discussion about the registry, but I like the rational for the NR number. Starfleet certainly must have lost it's way to drop the NCC-1701, which fits in nicely with everything else said and hinted at in the pilot.

Looking forward to the new scripts!

April 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThom

Will we see the finished product? By the way, have you made any progress with the script? Can we at least see the first four pages?

April 29, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterbatty

That's a really nice Enterprise - thanks for posting!

In the old TrekMovie.com post* the NR-02870 was said to be Bismarck Class heavy cruiser but I can't find this info anywhere on this website here.
Is it Bismarck class?

* http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/13/cbs-considering-new-animated-trek-series/

May 8, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMarkonian

Are you considering in trying to sell this series again? I just heard that Paramount may be considering an animated trek series, by the guys who wrote the 2009 trek movie. If you talk to them, they might be interested.

May 14, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterbatty

It looks awful. What happened to the sleek lines Starfleet used to have? It looks absolutely horrendous.

May 16, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Redman

@ Thomas Redman: It's a design that grows to you, Imho. And for the sleek lines you probably have in mind - the NR-02870's successor E-J will return to a more typical Starfleet style. ;-)

May 21, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMarkonian

Attention, please. Have a look at Christopher L. Bennett's Star Trek - Department of Temporal Investigations: Watching the Clock, page 466 - Star Trek: Final Frontier has become part of licensed Star Trek material!
Please, also have a look on his annotations page: It references Final Frontier's BUG and the cataclysmic Federation-Romulan War:

http://home.fuse.net/ChristopherLBennett/DTI_Annot2.html#Ch21

I am totally stoked about this. What do you think about the reference? And about Bennett's revelation of the perpetrator of the omega detonations?

May 29, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMarkonian

That's awesome! It's even cooler that Christopher L. Bennett referred specifically to this project and website! Thanks so much for letting us know, Markonian!

May 30, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMei-Yi

Wow, that's really cool. We're most definitely flattered. Thanks for pointing it out, Markonian. Very cool to see that Chase and crew are still alive out there in ways we never expected.

May 31, 2011 | Registered CommenterDoug

When I first saw the previous design it took me a while to realize that its design actually makes sense in the context of the story. I don't feel this version fits. Maybe I was reading into things and figuring context that didn't exist.

To me, the very simple lines of the ship were saying the fleet is poorer, or the demand for more ships is so high, construction speed over refinement became necessary. With the Federation broken into huge subspace sections, this made sense to me, because there would be little chance for large fleets to form quickly. Every section needs its own standing fleet, which means more, lower tonnage, ships ships are ideal.

One aspect which really stands out with the new design is the bridge section on the saucer. It looks like a warp capable section, and that rubs me the wrong way. If it's what I think it is, then I feel it goes against the simplicity and ruggedness. In general seeing separating sections no long used would be a excellent. It's a feature that I never saw as truly useful, especially not for a single role ship. The older ship concepts had a separating section as a life boat, but if you have escape pods you don't really need it; a target that huge is bound to be heavily damaged in a fight where you need to use it as an escape boat. In the Enterprise-D, it was a means to keep civilians out of the fight, but most of the time the chance to use it that way was never present. Lastly, with technology being more advanced in this concept, there should be no objection to high warp capable escape pods. They could easily be as capable as any shuttle... more so.

The only issue I had with the previous concept was the weaponry. I was ambivalent about it. While I was delighted by seeing the phaser broad side, I also couldn't help think that it wasn't needed, breaking the array into smaller elements didn't make sense to me, and the torpedo tubes seemed artificially constrained. I'll start with the second point.

If phaser arrays, think of the Galaxy's saucer arrays, are truly redundant, what should happen when you cut one in half? It should be two arrays. Cut those in half and you have four. That's not how it works in the show, I'm talking about how it should be. Next, is power. The idea that the power from the entire length can be pointed in any direction only works if there is some sort of power confusion in every array element of the strip. The alternative should be massive phaser energy generators in or outside the hull. If you go with that idea, then you could have a single huge generator in an armored compartment, and you would only need enough emitters to cover each arc; six emitters. Although, two well placed emitters could cover everything.

What I'm saying is, having numerous broken strips doesn't make sense, either it should be a few well placed point emitters, or continuous strips around the hammer's edge, and engineering section. The longer the ship the better. In fact, if hammer had a winding strip zig sagging along as much of its surface as possible, and wrapping around to the underside to zig and zag more, that would be even better. It could all converge on six well placed special emitters that allow pulse shots. If you wanted something really different, you could make it so the hull plating is a form of phaser emitter, so the entire hull emits phaser energy all at once, in a converging stream on the target.

As for torpedoes, why not use those broad expanses on the hammer head for four big torpedo turrets firing bursts of twenty torpedoes each? At the very least, I was expecting fixed tubes pointing in every direction.

Even the torpedoes could be completely different. Why have multiple types that are all exactly the same, what about torpedoes capable of reaching warp from an impulse launch, with ranges measured in light years.

June 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMajorD

Sorry but the ship doesn't do it,in fact I hate to say it but I really dislike it.There are many more and better designs you can come up with.I draw and auction off art at sci-fi cons.,and have many star ships that look better.You have to come up with something else.

November 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterWolf Larson

That rectangular, hammerhead design is gross. An interesting starship design but far too clumsy looking for any ship named "Enterprise." In spite of the fact that streamlining is unnecessary in space, this design has all the grace of a door panel (no offense to the talented artist/designer)
It needs more "round," is all I can add. :(

March 3, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kleinbergen

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but are you aware that the Dragonfly shuttles look ominously similar to the Starfuries in Babylon 5?

April 25, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSpock1701

Imho, the similarity between Dragonfly and Starfury is superficial. It's a small maneuverable craft with four engines sitting on backward pylons. You could find such a design in other sci-fi, too.

April 25, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMarkonian

It's more a coincidence of overall shape, especially when you look at the scale of the ship. The Starfury is a one-seat fighter with physics-accurate maneuvering. The Dragonfly is much bigger and longer. As the poster above touched on, you could accuse both us and JMS of ripping off the X-Wing if you really wanted to. We all share four engines in an X shape.

April 28, 2012 | Registered CommenterDoug

I want all star trek fans to see this. As an avid star trek fan I almost cried with laughter after I saw it. It is a blog that shows photos Of people in northeast philadelphia that have the exact same haircut as Spock. check it out you wont be disappointed http://spocksighting.blogspot.com/

May 1, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterTom

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>