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 Cat^Talk|@ 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)