FANDOM


Ships of the Line information Edit

How should we go about integrating the Ships of the Line 2011 information into this article? The previous reference materials (other than the three canonical sources), which have been superseded by later productions, are not entirely compatible with what the calendar attempts to establish. (The centerfold, which provides explanation about the ship, can be seen here.) --Columbia clipper 21:35, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be too much of an issue from what the article currently says, the only clash I can see is that Star Trek Maps says it was built pre-warp while the new info describes it as an early warp experiment. And as the other sources seem to agree that the ship was a warp vessel i suggest we simply make the new info the main origin with the Star Trek Maps as an indented alternate history noted just below that. --8of5 19:44, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Revision 355141 undoneEdit

After all, the space shuttle was never a starship...

I would've put this in the summary but for some reason that option wasn't available as normal. --Cyfa 00:13, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Conflated ship and class Edit

There some big problems with this article. Namely, there are different two ships and two different classes. Both have a long shaft, two rings, and a zig-zaggy shape connecting them. However, the noses are very different in shape. The one appearing in Star Trek Maps and all the images here and in the series has two rounded cylinders, the longer one on top. This is a Starliner: pre-Federation, 120 metres long and has a crew of 35, and is a manned interstellar probe. However, the Declaration-class one that appears in Spaceflight Chronology has a fattened end to the shaft, and a sphere parked on top. This is post-Federation, warp-capable, 300 metres long and takes a crew of 100, plus 850 passengers, because it's a spacefaring cruise-ship.

The merger has distorted and confused the information here. I'll begin dividing these ships up. -- BadCatMan 01:25, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've done this and the Starliner. Someone else will have to check The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek Encyclopedia to see how well they agree, however. -- BadCatMan 04:15, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
And completed the Declaration-class and the USS Enterprise (Declaration class). This should be done now. -- BadCatMan 13:18, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Retain XVC330 Enterprise Edit

Star Trek is a fictional show using fictional devices. When Roddenberry was devising and making the original TV series he tried to make it as believable as possible. Staff members like Matt Jeffries were part of this believability scenario. In the real world a man called Albert Einstein blew a hole in Sci-Fi media stories with his "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum". Roddenberry/Jeffries answer was the warp drive. If you followed actual scientific advancements today you might find that the warp drive is the only plausible starship drive. Look up the Alcubierre/White warp drive that NASA is currently investigating. Now look at the proposed model of the star ship. Matt was a prophetic genius as his model which is known as the XCV330 Enterprise is a clear match. Star Trek the Motion Picture murals in the Recreation deck showed reality (sailing ship, aircraft carrier and shuttle) and sci-fi (XCV330 and NCC1701). Based on todays studies in warp drive, the XCV330 is more a proof of concept vehicle that is more worthy than the fictional NX01. Star Trek was always ahead of the pack, and including the possibly factual XCV330 is more proof of the genius of Roddenberry/Jeffries and I believe should be retained. Mavon Vaughan 114.73.213.129 02:00, December 13, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.