Diagram of a proposed current generation of a Starship Enterprise. Credit: BuildTheEnterprise.org

Engineer Thinks We Could Build a Real Starship Enterprise in 20 Years

11 May , 2012 by

[/caption]

In Star Trek lore, the first Constitution Class Starship Enterprise will be built by the year 2245. But today, an engineer has proposed — and outlined in meticulous detail – building a full-sized, ion-powered version of the Enterprise complete with 1G of gravity on board, and says it could be done with current technology, within 20 years. “We have the technological reach to build the first generation of the spaceship known as the USS Enterprise – so let’s do it,” writes the curator of the Build The Enterprise website, who goes by the name of BTE Dan.

This “Gen1” Enterprise could get to Mars in ninety days, to the Moon in three, and “could hop from planet to planet dropping off robotic probes of all sorts en masse – rovers, special-built planes, and satellites.”

Size comparisons of buildings to the proposed USS Enterprise. Credit: BuildTheEnterprise.org

Complete with conceptual designs, ship specs, a funding schedule, and almost every other imaginable detail, the BTE website was launched just this week and covers almost every aspect of how the project could be done. This Enterprise would be built entirely in space, have a rotating gravity section inside of the saucer, and be similar in size with the same look as the USS Enterprise that we know from Star Trek.

“It ends up that this ship configuration is quite functional,” writes BTE Dan, even though his design moves a few parts around for better performance with today’s technology. This version of the Enterprise would be three things in one: a spaceship, a space station, and a spaceport. A thousand people can be on board at once – either as crew members or as adventurous visitors.

While the ship will not travel at warp speed, with an ion propulsion engine powered by a 1.5GW nuclear reactor, it can travel at a constant acceleration so that the ship can easily get to key points of interest in our solar system. Three additional nuclear reactors would create all of the electricity needed for operation of the ship.

The saucer section would be a .3 mile (536 meter) diameter rotating, magnetically-suspended gravity wheel that would create 1G of gravity.

The first assignments for the Enterprise would have the ship serving as a space station and space port, but then go on to missions to the Moon, Mars, Venus, various asteroids and even Europa, where the ships’ laser would be used not for combat but for cutting through the moon’s icy crust to enable a probe to descend to the ocean below.

Of course, like all space ships today, the big “if” for such an ambitious effort would be getting Congress to provide NASA the funding to do a huge 20-year project. But BTE Dan has that all worked out, and between tax increases and spreading out budget cuts to areas like defense, health and human services, housing and urban development, education and energy, the cuts to areas of discretionary spending are not large, and the tax increases could be small. “These changes to spending and taxes will not sink the republic,” says the website. “In fact, these will barely be noticed. It’s amazing that a program as fantastic as the building a fleet of USS Enterprise spaceships can be done with so little impact.”

“The only obstacles to us doing it are the limitations we place on our collective imagination,” BTE Dan adds, and his proposal says that NASA will still receive funding for the science, astronomy and robotic missions it currently undertakes.

A detailed schedule of building the Enterprise. Credit: BuildTheEnterprise.org

But he proposes not just one Enterprise-class ship, but multiple ships, one of which can be built every 33 years – once per generation – giving three new ships per century. “Each will be more advanced than the prior one. Older ships can be continually upgraded over several generations until they are eventually decommissioned.”

BTE Dan, who did not respond to emails, lists himself as a systems engineer and electrical engineer who has worked at a Fortune 500 company for the past 30 years.

The website includes a blog, a forum and a Q&A section, where BTE Dan answers the question, “What if someone can prove that building the Gen1 Enterprise is beyond our technological reach?”

Answer: “If someone can convince me that it is not technically possible (ignoring political and funding issues), then I will state on the BuildTheEnterprise site that I have been found to be wrong. In that case, building the first Enterprise will have to wait for, say, another half century. But I don’t think that anyone will be able to convince me it can’t be done. My position is that we can – and should – immediately start working on it.”

For the complete space nerd experience, check out Build The Enterprise.

Hat tip to Rand Simberg.

, , ,



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
William928
Member
William928
May 11, 2012 9:42 PM

My whacko detector is ringing.

Erwin Maulana R
Guest
May 11, 2012 9:52 PM

Beam them up scotty!!

Olaf
Member
Olaf
May 12, 2012 11:48 AM

Blasphemy! You are a none-believer! LOL

Erwin Maulana R
Guest
May 11, 2012 9:44 PM

GOD!! I know one day this day will come.. Greetings my fellow trekkies!!
It’s not on the movie again!! We will have it in the next 20 years.. in reality

“Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise”

Olaf
Member
Olaf
May 11, 2012 9:51 PM

With out the warp drive of course. But it would be a cool space hotel or space cruiser.

Erwin Maulana R
Guest
May 11, 2012 9:55 PM

I think u and i will be dead long before.. this 20-years enterprise plan maybe will lauch as a prototype first. need more than 20 years to reach the perfect enterprise, and make them as space hotel or space cruiser.. i say.. hmm.. about 100 years maybe?

Olaf
Member
Olaf
May 11, 2012 10:46 PM

I plan to reincarnate!

jjb
Member
jjb
May 12, 2012 7:33 PM

U just will be totally UNaware when you do .. ….

Olaf
Member
Olaf
May 12, 2012 8:03 PM

That is irrelevant, I will still get to fly in it. smile

Also I could wear an eye-patch with a hard drive in it to recall my memory.

kiljoy616
Guest
kiljoy616
May 12, 2012 4:00 PM

So true we need at least another dozen wars before anything like this even gets to happen. So lets get a few more going and get out of our system.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 4:59 PM

What an absolute irrelevant thing to say…

Shawn Fink
Guest
May 12, 2012 5:25 PM

Not really, according to star trek lore the first warp drive ship was built out of the ashes of civilization after world war 3 and was aptly named “The Phoenix”

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 6:28 PM

War has absolutely nothing to do with this story – fictional or otherwise!

Jonathan Archer
Guest
May 12, 2012 10:14 PM

I think Gene Roddenberry is some kind of man from the future. Without that nerd sci-fi, Martin Cooper form Motorola don’t have inspiration to build and establish first comm with handphone back in 1973. Martin said the idea come from the communicator.

interI0per
Member
interI0per
May 13, 2012 2:27 PM

G.R. got his from hanging out on the set of the ‘outer limits’ and studying the daily shooting shooting schedules. Dick Tracy had one too.

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:30 PM

Of course, some of us were were reading/watching other science fiction before, alongside, and after Star Trek…

Yes, the flip-open design was simply practical, but how many people are now using smart (and non-smart) phones of other designs now?

One could just as well refer to the ‘two-way wrist radio’ of Dick Tracy.

Jonathan Archer
Guest
May 12, 2012 9:26 PM

At least our children, grandchildren, etc.. the next generation have something to do with the space. Not just see it from tv, internet, or whaever, then say: “woow wonderful”, “woow gorgeous”, etc. They have chance to go toward the space directly. Anyway, what’s the fun live in this capitalism era? all of us here.. or common goal is.. to be rich and have lot of money, then die.

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:41 PM

No the goal is to be rich get longevity boosts and live for as long as we want to. Let the poor die.

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
May 14, 2012 2:02 AM

I wrote a discussion on warp drives above.

LC

MichaelL
Member
May 11, 2012 9:59 PM

The guy might be crazy, but at least he’s thinking outside the box.

William928
Member
William928
May 11, 2012 10:14 PM

Thinking outside the box is one thing, living in a fantasy world is quite another…..

kiljoy616
Guest
kiljoy616
May 12, 2012 4:01 PM

So what do you call 2 wars over God told me it was the right thing. Seems to been lots of people behind Bushy boys little magic man talks to me retardation.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 4:59 PM

What an absolute irrelevant thing to say…

Scotty Christ
Guest
Scotty Christ
May 13, 2012 1:47 PM

Not true. What he’s getting at is that if the big men up top could easily use our time and resources and lives to have their own war over some silly fantasy world that has nothing to do with anything happening on Earth, then why can’t they use our time and resources and lives to do something a little more useful, even if it too is a fantasy?

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:15 PM

For one thing, you can theoretically involve *anyone* in a religious conflict. Indeed, young men with what they see as empty futures, and the belief in an afterlife reward of 72 servile women, are easy targets. After that, AK-47s and suicide bombs are cheap to obtain.

But starships and other ‘useful’ things require one to have serious skill sets as engineers, technicians, scientists, etc. And it requires exponentially more in the way of funding, resources and support than terrorism and other ‘unconventional warfare.’

That’s why.

Vinícius Franco
Guest
May 13, 2012 5:17 PM

The apollo program was the most important stimulus package ever. Inspiring people it’s important.

Some people think we do our jobs better if we are afraid to get fired if we dont do it. I like to think that we do our jobs better if we believe in it.

tel
Member
tel
May 14, 2012 3:25 PM

Religion is always the excuse and never the reason.

There are very few people that make decisions based on the teachings of religion (if they did, there would be very few wars). Most people (including all political leaders) decide what they want and use religion to justify and sell it to the public.

.. .__.
Guest
May 12, 2012 12:13 AM

Unfortunately, the “box” is clearly labelled: REASON & REALITY.

Rob
Guest
Rob
May 12, 2012 2:45 PM

A neurotic is a person who builds castles in the sky, a psychotic is a person who moves in to them.

Jonathan Archer
Guest
May 12, 2012 10:22 PM

I know that!! the combination between both of them is called: International Space Station

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 11, 2012 10:19 PM

What absolute nonsense!
The design is made for warp drive and artificial gravity plating. It also has a more important device – a deflector shield so it can move at high velocities without being damaged. Imagine what happens if something small hits it. I.e. Mass times velocity squared.
Seriously, you would need some kind of ablation disk, then you need a large mass, and therefore more energy to drive it. The bigger the spaceship, the more the mass and energy required.
Name of the company; Space Dummies Inc.

Yea cannot change the laws of fhysics!!

Peter Eng
Guest
May 12, 2012 12:52 AM

“…a deflector shield so it can move at high velocities…”

Define ‘high velocities,’ then write up a calculation that shows that the ship he’s built in twenty years will reach that speed. (Okay, you can’t do that – his specifications are so vague that I can’t tell what he’s using for the triple-layer hull. But burden of proof is on the accuser, right?)

Don’t get me wrong; I think the Enterprise body is being used for show, and that a more practical design is probably available. But vague declarations of the impossibility won’t convince “BTE Dan” to stop trying. Hard numbers will.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 7:46 AM

~1 to 50 km/sec seems reasonable for interplanetary craft, and I’d thought that was just a given. The faster you go the more protection you need.
USS Enterprise is designed for warp, where the deflector shield protects the ship from whatever is directly ahead of it.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 11:25 AM

You have misunderstood me. The fictional Enterprise has “…a deflector shield so it can move at high velocities…”, not this adopted design. The point is you have to protect the ship from high velocity meteors, dust or gas.

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:43 PM

Some of the early designs included the ship upside down, and a globe instead of the saucer section. The prewarp ships look more like submarines ins in space. (Check the ship in “Space Seed” and “The Ultimate Computer.”)

Christian Guggenheimer
Guest
May 12, 2012 1:41 AM

What is up with the change the laws of physics. What law your law?. Laws are highly subjective because they change as we better understand them. Then we learn about NEW laws that make possible what old laws did not. We are continuing to learn and reassess our possibilities. we are far from LEARNING every law out there. Another person who is trying to pretend to be a scientist.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 7:38 AM

“What is up with the change the laws of physics. What law your law?”

Just quoting Scotty, Christian. (We are considering creating a actually spaceship here under laws presently established…)

kiljoy616
Guest
kiljoy616
May 12, 2012 4:04 PM

But just outright saying it can be done is a losers mentality. Everything is impossible until you try. We are not even trying just dropping bombs on primitive people and spending till it cripples us is a better idea. I don’t think so.

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 4:57 PM

“But just outright saying it can be done is a losers mentality.”

Where did I say this, please?

Olaf
Member
Olaf
May 12, 2012 11:43 AM

So what? They have to tweak it a little bit?
And it only moves at snail pace?
It is still very cool to travel in it.

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:44 PM

I see it as the first of the ISS capital ships of the Holy American Empire. If they don’t choose the triangular Star Destroyer design first.

imma
Guest
May 15, 2012 8:18 AM

Star Destroyers are a much more practical design smile

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
May 14, 2012 1:59 AM

I wrote a discussion on warp drives above.

NDowd
Member
NDowd
May 11, 2012 11:07 PM

The gravity wheel needs some revisiting. Actually scratch that the whole concept needs revisiting.

Think: Why spend hundreds of millions to billions of $ trying to emulate a fictional spacecraft from a TV show? Instead of sitting around making a detailed website which, frankly, is really just a dressed up book report on some disparate technologies, why not devote that effort into designing an entirely original means of space transportation? At least that might hold some actual merit and credulity.

.. .__.
Guest
May 12, 2012 12:16 AM

Coriolis torque would demand something that big have two counter-rotating rings.

Why not just build the Dye-class Sleeper ships and spend the research money on cryogenics?

Luke Parrish
Guest
Luke Parrish
May 12, 2012 2:01 AM

Yeah cryostasis tech would be better if you want to actually be around when we develop this kind of stuff. Otherwise we’ll all be six feet under (well those who aren’t heads in cryonics dewars) by the time we have anything remotely resembling a starship.

Alexia Death
Guest
Alexia Death
May 13, 2012 8:39 AM

why cyrostasis? Just cure the damn aging.

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:41 PM

That’s coming, too.

(Though in some cases, like a 200 year sub-light interstellar voyage, I’d still rather sit it out in some form of suspension, even if I *could* simply live out the trip.)

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:39 PM

You mean ‘cryonics.’ And talk to Alcor and other cryonics providers, they’d be happy to point you to those doing relevant research.

Rob
Guest
Rob
May 12, 2012 2:58 PM

Human response to gravity is a big hole in our understanding of space travel, or habitation on Mars and the moon. We know zero G causes muscle atrophy and bone loss but we don’t know the effects of fractional G. What is the minimum diameter of a gravity wheel that would provide healthy artificial gravity and what is minimum G to stablize muscle and bone loss? Right now no one has a clue.

Wade Scott
Guest
May 13, 2012 2:21 AM
Good point. I have some problem with the constant acceleration from the ion engine. If the thrust is at 90 degrees to the axis of rotation of the gravity wheel, then whatever acceleration its thrust creates will be added to the local gravity as a point on the wheel moves “aft” and be subtracted as it moves “forward”. Seems likely to cause some disorientation, at least. “Down” would still be down, and “Up” would still be up, but we would feel alternately lighter, and heavier, as well as needing to lean alternately toward and away from the direction of rotation. I feel seasick… Now, if the thrust were in line with the axis of rotation, and the floors… Read more »
changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:45 PM

We either need to be able to produce an artificial gravity field or a treatment to stop the changes that Zero G makes to the body. Long term exposer can permanently damage the organism.

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:43 PM

You can have 1 gee at any diameter you want, if you spin it fast enough.

But people don’t do well in small diameter wheels, due to Coriolis Forces…

Porno Avenger
Guest
Porno Avenger
May 13, 2012 11:54 AM

Credulity is the willingness to believe that something is real or true, despite a lack of any evidence or reason to do so.

I believe you’ve misused the word.

henk
Member
henk
May 11, 2012 11:10 PM

why the size of the enterprise. Is it not cheaper to make smaller ships. this guy is very optimistic about it. in his 4 generation ship it can create a wormhole drive. If that really be possible than in 500 years we will control the galaxie

Allen Taylor
Guest
May 11, 2012 11:12 PM

If you want a large, ion drive spacecraft for interplanetary travel, this design is far from optimal. The engine nacelles are for warp drive, which this design does not have, making them an unaffordable extravagance. Instead start with a blank sheet of paper and build a ship optimized for the missions to be accomplished, with the technology available. However, any idea like this is dead on arrival because it will never fly politically, or in terms of economics.

kiljoy616
Guest
kiljoy616
May 12, 2012 4:07 PM

So true our economics right now is for war not space exploration, maybe in 100 years we will have outgrown the war part but I am not holding any idea that will be so.

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:24 PM

It’s irrelevant, anyway. If we ‘spent less on war,’ all that it would mean is that we spent less on war.

It does not automatically follow that we’d spend more on ‘space,’ or whatever your preferred activity is…

And NASA’s present state shows that not all of its problems would be solved by throwing more money at them, anyway. (sorry, Dr. Tyson) Bad policy, some of it imposed from outside the agency, doesn’t become good policy merely with more funding.

Joe Strout
Guest
Joe Strout
May 15, 2012 4:09 AM

For a ship this large to fly at all, it needs wide public support. A clean-sheet design might be better technically, but an Enterprise-like design is likely to be superior in its ability to excite the public. For that reason, I think this is an interesting approach and deserves consideration.

J. Nick Enders
Guest
J. Nick Enders
May 11, 2012 11:20 PM

Kick Starter GO: http://www.kickstarter.com/

Shiagur
Guest
Shiagur
May 12, 2012 12:19 AM

Really? If we’re not getting much funding for plausible NASA missions/projects, why on Earth (no pun intended) would we get funding for this? I can just imagine the conversation before Congress:
“We would like funding for a new project.”
“Oh, really? What is it?”
“The starship, ENTERPRISE! grin
-_-

This makes advocates for worthwhile space exploration look like a bunch of romantics or crazies. If you’re going to build something space-worthy, please make it useful. Nothing against Trekkies; I’m all for building a “starship”, but nothing says it has to look like the Enterprise. It’s already a symbol for Star Trek. Let’s build something that symbolizes real, human space exploration.

Bobr
Member
Bobr
May 12, 2012 12:29 AM

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

Albert Einstein

interI0per
Member
interI0per
May 12, 2012 2:10 PM

^bump
ever notice how often a pic of A.E. shows him smiling?
imagination is the most powerful force in the universe – today.

squidgeny
Member
squidgeny
May 14, 2012 1:27 PM

Basing a real spacecraft on a fictional one displays a startling lack of both.

imma
Guest
May 15, 2012 8:14 AM

everything’s fictional … until it’s real wink

Steve Bilyue
Guest
May 12, 2012 1:29 AM

The motivation and design are in the hearts of Trekkies already as a launching pad. It may not end up looking like Enterprize, but it is a jump to start with; & American ends with I can.

kiljoy616
Guest
kiljoy616
May 12, 2012 4:08 PM

Could we not start a war with Mars? That would get the money moving. We need a war with Mars!

SJStar
Guest
SJStar
May 12, 2012 6:26 PM

Plainly stupid!

Mason McMann
Guest
Mason McMann
May 12, 2012 1:16 AM

Don’t we need to fix things here, before we trash things out there!!

Aaron Kingery
Guest
Aaron Kingery
May 12, 2012 2:53 AM

When Have then ever been fixed here? What is the likelyhood they will ever be? We are an unnoticeable drop in space and we cannot even try trash any significant amount of space.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
May 12, 2012 11:47 AM

Please turn in your satellite reciever your GPS receiver and stop watching the weather news if you oppose space exploration. And also stop using Google maps and Google Earth.

kiljoy616
Guest
kiljoy616
May 12, 2012 4:11 PM

Fix what, or has our history show we will not be fixing anything in the next century just like we did not fix them in the last century. Humans move forward and do war very well, everything else we have no brains for. Our technology is war driven or greed driven and that is about where it ends. Sure a few things are done for humanity sake but its minuscule.

brandalwhi
Guest
brandalwhi
May 13, 2012 7:32 AM

IMO, thats like saying one should change a baby’s diaper before taking it out of the crib, or telling a kid that he has to learn how to ride a bike before he can get on one, Or maybe like cleaning up before taking a bath.

We have learned much in our short ventures into space I am confident we will be more capable of fixing things here if we go out there.

Greg
Member
Greg
May 12, 2012 1:53 AM
The number one problem is shileding. Cosmic rays and solar flares are a constant threat, and I do not know of any satisfactory way around that, especially for something this size, with current technology. There are many more. Working out the propulsion, power scheme and supplies for extended missions for example. And just what use are warp nacelles with no warp engines? I for one would rather wait for antimatter propulsion (which means collecting enough fuel and a much better specific impulse) to build something this size and a power plant based on small and efficient fusion reactors. This is a pie in the sky topic, but at least worth of discussion for a reality check as these… Read more »
Ivan3man_At_Large
Member
Ivan3man_At_Large
May 12, 2012 4:49 PM

The number one problem is shileding. Cosmic rays and solar flares are a constant threat, and I do not know of any satisfactory way around that, especially for something this size, with current technology.

Then I suggest that you acquaint yourself with these articles:

Scientists Designing “Ion Shield” To Protect Astronauts From Solar Wind;

“Star Trek” Shield May Protect Astronauts;

Magnetic shield could protect spacecraft;

Overview of active methods for shielding spacecraft from energetic space radiation (PDF).

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:48 PM

A few things we need to fix first is that in the Star Trek future, after many years of war and 130 million deaths they were working all over the world together not on war but on making life better for all and then turning to the stars. Ion power is one way. We may never be able to synthesize enough antimatter to use if we can even harness it. (Hint: Don’t do your research on a planet or moon you don’t want to lose.)

damian
Member
May 12, 2012 2:31 AM

All power to him, perhaps the Hollywood could fund it. But as a spaceship design its totally impractical (to my way of thinking). Perhaps the best designs will come not from Earth bound dreamers, but from the practicalities of humans living in space. Such designs are likely going to be quite different from what we can imagine down in a gravity well.

damian
Member
May 12, 2012 2:31 AM

All power to him, perhaps the Hollywood could fund it. But as a spaceship design its totally impractical (to my way of thinking). Perhaps the best designs will come not from Earth bound dreamers, but from the practicalities of humans living in space. Such designs are likely going to be quite different from what we can imagine down in a gravity well.

Jason Hill
Guest
May 12, 2012 2:34 AM

Let the man dream, dammit! We need dreamers in this world. Don’t knock him down for his vision. Even if this isn’t practical, it’s a great step in the right direction.

John Stock
Guest
May 12, 2012 12:58 PM

I agree 100%.

Jonathan Archer
Guest
May 12, 2012 1:43 PM

1000 % from me!!

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 3:52 PM

Jonathan Archer? I guess I should not be surprised…!

Jason Hill
Guest
May 12, 2012 2:34 AM

Let the man dream, dammit! We need dreamers in this world. Don’t knock him down for his vision. Even if this isn’t practical, it’s a great step in the right direction.

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
May 12, 2012 2:55 AM

If you are looking for a concept for a spaceship from science fiction I think the “Discovery” on 2001 A Space Odyssey is a better choice.

LC

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:49 PM

I agree.

Vernon Whetstone
Guest
May 12, 2012 3:22 AM

WOO HOO….I’m in….. smile smile smile

Nick Ryan
Guest
Nick Ryan
May 12, 2012 4:04 AM
Practical? what’s not practical is a world where countries are tearing themselves and each other apart. impractical would be NOT in the very least attempting something like this. sure, it sounds a bit far-fetched, but then again in the 1800 noone believed that humans would or could attain flight, and in 1950 or 1960 if someone said “one day, man will set foot on the moon”, everyone thought that person was crazy. Guess what – we have done both. we attained the ability of flight in the early 1900s, an in 1969 we successfully landed the first persons on the moon. who is to say that this is impractical or improbable? I say go for it, just be… Read more »
Nathan Schramm
Guest
May 12, 2012 7:21 AM

The part about the first enterprise date was wrong. NX-01 was launched on April 12, 2151.

John Stock
Guest
May 12, 2012 1:00 PM

True, but his diagrams are from the TOS era. Maybe thats why they picked that year

Shawn Fink
Guest
May 12, 2012 5:27 PM

Also.. ST:Enterprise really shouldn’t be considered canon.

Jonathan Archer
Guest
May 12, 2012 10:26 PM

Quantum torpedoes? just in case we’re encounter the borg cube in sector 7
#kidding

delphinus100
Guest
delphinus100
May 13, 2012 4:36 PM

Why any less than any of the other live series?*

Indeed, one of the biggest problems of ST: Enterprise was that it was constrained to not violate continuity with what we knew would happen in their future. (Thus, they could never see a Romulan, that had to be reserved for Kirk.) And for the most part, they did.

(*Note: I first heard Kirk’s middle name in the animated series, but not again until the movie ST6)

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:53 PM

From the start the Enterprise series ignored canon.

changling
Guest
changling
May 13, 2012 9:52 PM

They got that TV series all wrong. The Romulan/Terran war should have been fought or just starting. Messed up the time line royally.

wpDiscuz