Origin of class nomenclatureEdit

Where does this class name stem from? Weren't classes named after the first ship build to those specifications? That would make this one the Enterprise class, I guess, unless, the naming convention did not hold at this time. Aliter 15:30, 19 May 2004 (CEST)

Yeah, it was a convention used by the Federation, not Earth Starfleet. We need update pics of the ship's interior now it has been updated for season four. - Stylsy
I was also wondering about that, given that numerous sources (like the tech manuals and such, some definitely non-canon, possibly a few canon sources, I'm not sure) explain that for the registry numbers, "NCC" supposedly stands for "Naval Construction Contract", while "NX" (or possibly "NXC", not sure if I actually saw such a registry) might indicate either eXpansion or eXperiment(al)... --umrguy42 10:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NX is this case probably has no connection to the UFP Starfleet's NX or NCC. I would guess it stands for something about the vessel, in the same way that modern shuttles are OV-101, OV-102, etc., meaning Orbital Vehicle. Perhaps the NX-class is Earth Starfleet's eXperimental vessel number N? But in that case, what were AX to MX? A more realistic explanation is simply that they wanted to make it sound like a Star Trek ship, without having to stick 'USS' in front. - Spatula 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To Answer first question. The NX-class name comes directly from the onscreen dialouge. At least once, in "Fortunate Son" Archer calls Enterprise an NX-class ship Mancubus 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that wasn't the question. The inquiry was with regards to the "in universe" origin of the NX designation, which we don't know, other than to explain that this was during a time when most all of the ship classes had a letter designation (Y class, J class, DY-500 class, etc). With that said, the designation was also used in 'dialog' in "Home", "", and implied in "First Flight". --Alan 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Avenger Edit

How about a mention of the mirror universe NX-Class ships, like the ISS Enterprise and the NX-09 Avenger? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I just noticed the Avenger was placed under the ships in class list. Seeing this is a Mirror Universe ship and that the NX-09 is a long ways away from completion, should this be included? (If it is, I would recommend a note be placed that it's from the Mirror Universe) -- Enzo Aquarius 01:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
It is not certain that they are NX class, they just share the some features. You will remember that the mirror ships had escape pods and shields unlike ours. --Jaz talk | novels 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty reasonable to talk of them as NX class ships. For one thing, they look exactly like them, and for another they both say 'NX' in big yellow letters across the bow. A few minor technical changes do not make them a completely different class. Consider, by contrast, the major structural refits that the Constitution, Excelsior, Miranda and Nebula classes underwent, without changing into entirely new classes of ship (well, the Constitution example is debateable, but that was a major, major refit). It apparently takes a great deal to turn one class of ship into another, new one. - Spatula 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
How can they be the same class when they were built in a completely different universe? They are no more the same class as James T. Kirk and James T. Kirk (mirror) are the same person. Also, having a big NX on it doesnt make it NX class, see NX-Alpha, NX-Beta, NX-Gamma, NX-Delta, USS Excelsior, USS Constellation, USS Bradbury, USS Defiant, and USS Prometheus. Jaz talk | novels 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may chime in here, this discussion is rather pointless. The mirror universe vessels were never stated to be NX class on-screen, therefore they cannot be labeled as NX class here. For all we know, they could have been called something entirely different. (NX type, perhaps?) --From Andoria with Love 23:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Class isn't a matter of who builds it or what they call it, but of what it actually, physically is. And as near as we can tell, the Mirror NX-01 is very similar in both appearance and performance to the regular NX-01. Unless anyone can show that the Mirror vessel isn't an NX class, I see no reason to assume otherwise. - Spatula 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
On Memory Alpha, a class is only a class if that class was referenced in canon. While the mirror universe vessels were most likely NX class vessels, we cannot state this as fact when we have no canon evidence that the mirror universe people designated the class as NX class. Like I said, a background note stating that the mirror universe ships were most likely also known as NX class is the way to go. --From Andoria with Love 00:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems overly delicate to me. The whole point of the Mirror universe (as established in canon) is that it is almost exactly the same as the normal universe, but that people's morality is the opposite. Since NX, as far as we know, has no moral connotations (in the same way that 'Enterprise' is not an inherently good or evil sentiment), there would be no reason to rename it. I see what you mean about it not being explicitly described as an NX-class vessel, but given the similarities between the Enterprise and the ISS Enterprise, as well as the nature of the Mirror universe, it seems to be just a matter of splitting hairs to suggest that the mirror one isn't also an NX. - Spatula 06:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would say thier NX...after all the Avengers patch DOES say "NX-09" like the ISS Enterprise patch says "NX-01" I don't recall seeing numers on the Hull in the MU episodes though.Terran Officer April 2, 2006, 12:04 PM (EST)
That seems to be true. Can't find it written on the hull anywhere either. But that's hardly relevant. What's important is that it's almost identical to the NX class that we know, and that we have no reason to assume it's called anything different. - Spatula 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there didn't seem to be room on the Hull for it, but the mission patches of the assigned crew clearly had NX-01, and NX-09 respectivly. I would say that it is NX cause aside from some technological differences, it seems to be the same ship as the one in the normal universe Terran Officer April 12, 12:57 AM (EST)

Warp 7 Edit

When did Captain Archer state that the NX-01 Enterprise, in 2161, could reach Warp 7? There were several references to Warp 7 - but never a mention that The NX-01 Enterprise could reach such speeds. In addition, the warp reactor seen in 2161 seems to be the same one that Enterprise had when launched in 2151. It's extremely unlikely that Enterprise could reach Warp 7 with the same reactor, since we see that Enterprise cannot maintain Warp 5.2 for very long in Season 4 of Enterprise. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You're right, and I've removed the info. The only mentions to warp 7 were made by Trip: "And now here we are toasting the warp 7" (meaning the replacement of their warp 5 ship with more advanced warp 7 vessels), and Reed's comment that Archer won't be albe to resist "one of those warp 7 beauties." --From Andoria with Love 05:38, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This is a minor case of conjecture and word-of-god. Doug Drexler put images on his blog of an NX Refit he calls "NX-01.5" which he has said was considered for a season 5 of Enterprise. He has put up several designs over the years but the most telling is this technical diagram.(X) It is theoretically possible to consider that these "NX Refits" were warp-7 capable starships --The Accountless Avenger, Not making an account... but never able to remember why...

Drexler never mentions that design being Warp 7 capable, so it has no more basis in fact than anything else. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:26, December 28, 2010 (UTC)


Ok, I found a picture that has measurments of the class, it even has one of the measurment's mentioned on the article in this class page. Canon would you think the picture is? It also has a width measurment. There is two length measurements, the one that measures from front to back says 275, the one that measures part of the saucer to part of the nacells say 225. Terran Officer April 2, 2006, 12:06 PM (EST)

Class HistoryEdit

Can somebody confirm that we only know the ultimate fate of one NX (being the retirement of Enterprise just before the UFP formed)? They only said Enterprise, right? Not all the NXs were mentioned as being retired at that point? - Spatula 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that Myself, I cannot recall a mention of the entire class, just the ship Even then it seems odd they were retiring the ship, due to the speed, unless it's a cerimonial thing, or perhaps the ships only have a 10 year service life? That or the new technology is so radicly differnt, plus the new alliance was putting the ships in service of Earth,Andor, Vulcan, and Tellar under once government but still...what ever, this isn't the point, I would like to know to, if anyone can confirm if the meant the Entire NX Class, or the NX-01 Terran Officer April 12, 12:54 AM (EST)

A 10-year service life is possible. It was, after all, designed primarily as an experimental vessel, and those are seldom designed for long-term use. Obviously, it did quite quickly become a successful exploration ship, but I imagine the Earth-Romulan War and the strengthening alliances with other races would have propelled Human starship design forward to the point that the NXs were no longer that useful. However, it may just be that they recognised the important role that Enterprise had played, and wanted to preserve it, before it had an accident. If that's the case, then the other NXs, assuming they survived the Romulan War, might have carried on serving, perhaps even among the first set of Federation Starfleet vessels. But if they specifically said that they were de-commissioned, along with Enterprise, then we know that's not a possibility. - Spatula 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We certainly can't say the ships weren't built to last longer; the NX-01 from the "" timeline was still going strong after nearly 120 years! --From Andoria with Love 22:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but remember that was after heavy modifications. Though to a degree the orgional intents and structural frame has to be designed to last so long, or problems would occure. It would seem rather odd to make a space frame with a time frame of 10 years, no matter what the class, or the goals for the class, or what ever else you want to say. I think what happened is that in 2161 there was so much new technology (Including the warp 7 engines) that they were retired. Although I can't see why they would retire them all, it would be rather stupid to unless the Warp Seven ships were already in full production and several in service. Terran Officer 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember the USS Dauntless NX-01-A from Voyager. Wouldn't it make sense for them to rename the ship as a warp seven vessel and then give it to Johnothan Archer or another captain. Plus a refit would allow for a bigger warp reactor allowing the vessel to make warp seven. Also during TOS the only ships around were constitutions (I mean pre 2260s so no Miranda or Ecxelsior) it could be that they became like the TNG Ambassador class or Ecxelsior class as standard vessels not as front line starships. Plus the Miranda lasted for 100 years at least and the excelsior for at least that too. The most versitile ship of the time wouldn't be phased out over only 10 years-- 02:29, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


Are we sure it's 12 phase canons and not an F/X mistake? It could be 12 I suppose. Do you think they kept the Plasma cannons after the upgrades? Terran Officer Friday, April 28, 2006. 1:15 AM (EST)

I knew someone would ask this question. Unfortunately, I'm not able to give a very good answer. Whether the phase cannon shots were f/x mistakes is unknown - some of them more than likely were mistakes. Unfortunately, if they were mistakes, they were made in nearly every single episode involving the firing of phase cannons from season two onward. For one thing, in episodes such as "Singularity" and "Damage", phase cannons fired from other areas on the ship other than the three original locations were specifically referred to as phase cannons and used the familiar orange effect associated with the phase cannon beam. Because the earlier plasma cannons seen fired in "Broken Bow" were red in color and composed of short bursts, we must assume that the orange beams were phase cannons – especially since, as I said, many of them were specifically referred to as such. Nonetheless, there are various discrepancies between the special effects and actual dialogue, which you can read up on in the background info over at the phase cannon article. (By the way, if one were to take into account all the locations from which phase cannons were fired, Enterprise actually had 16 phase cannons!) --From Andoria with Love 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the clear mistakes, couldnt it be possible for the Canons to move on an axis and roate? it seem to look like it when we see a shot of a canon 'deploying'. Also, is it possible that the Canons don't just have a bottom port, but perhaps a top one as well? (This doesnt explain ALL the mistakes, but just a thought.... Terran Officer 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the cannons can rotate, but as you said, that certainly doesn't explain all the mistakes. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure it is only 6 launchers? In "Fortunate Son", they mention port tubes 1 and 2, and starboard tubes 3 and 4, giving it 4 forward launchers. Then, in "Civilization" two aft launchers are seen on the back of the saucer, and in "The Expanse" and "Fight or Flight" at least one launcher is seen on the aft pod between the nacelles. That's at least three aft launchers, and possibly four since four torpedoes are seen in "Regeneration" fired from the aft at the borg, and there is no evidence that multible spactial torpedoes could be consecutively fired from a single tube. So shouldn't the number of launchers say 7 or 8? 06:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering this, shouldn't it actually say Torpedo Launchers, instead of just saying photonic? After all, in the very episode we saw them being installed, Spartial torpedoes were still on the launch tracks (IE, the original ones, with the photnics getting a "new" launcher). Not to mention, in season three and onwards, when se saw in the armory, we still saw the spartial torpedoes. Just a thought --Terran Officer 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the Spartial torpedoes are secondary just like the USS Enterprise E uses Both Photon and Quantum Torpedoes-- 02:32, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ship NamingEdit

Isn't also possible that the next names will be Discovery and Atlantis? due to the Registry? the theory of it going by "activation" is sound, but just curiouse....Terran Officer 03:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)User: Terran Officer Monday, June 12, 11:27 PM (EST)

Sure, it is possible. I assume the theory is based on naming the NX class after the Space Shuttles. The problem with including that is that even that theory about naming the NX ships is just that, a theory, not canon. Any names for further ships are therefore pure speculation. --OuroborosCobra 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. You mean going in order of the shuttles' OV- registries? In that case, the first one should have been Challenger NX-01. Either that, or they would have skipped Challenger. Seems messy to me. The first-flight theory may be equally non-canonical, but at least it fits the facts better. - Spatula 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The first flight theory was what I was going on, with Enterprise (atmosphere only), Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. Also, as a side note, that is the order they were built in as well. NASA did not give them the OV numbers in the order that they were built. You are right, though, that either way, following the OV numbers, or the order of flight, are non-canonical. As for skipping Challenger, I was very tired when I wrote my initial response, and forgot about that one. Assuming that they were naming the NX class after the shuttles in order of flight, NX-03 and NX-04 would have been Challenger and Discovery, respectively. We have no canon evidence to support this, though, other than the fact that NX-01 happened to be Enterprise, and NX-02 happened to be Columbia.
Another side note. I don't think when the writers started the series and the NX class that they intended to name them after the shuttles. Enterprise was selected for obvious reasons, being the name of the ship from TOS, TNG, and the movies. The name for NX-02 was not selected until after the Columbia disaster, and the writers named it in memory of the Columbia crew. No one (except maybe them) knows if they would havenamed the others after the other shuttles. --OuroborosCobra 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I was semi going on a number baises, a friend on the same thought suggested that Challanger would be "NX-99" (By that same thought if there was a 'pathfinder' it would be.."NX-98" ? I dunno.... Anyways, if it was named after the shuttles and numbers I had the theory of it being done with the numbers (01,02,03..) but flight order is plusible to I suppoose. We'll never know sadly. (At least as of this date) Terran Officer 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)User: Terran Officer

I think they would have gone like this:
  • NX-01 Enterprise,
  • NX-02 Columbia,
  • NX-03 Challenger,
  • NX-04 Discovery,
  • NX-05 Alantis,
  • NX-06 Endeavour,
Janewayfan4497 16:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As has already been said. Am I missing something? --OuroborosCobra talk 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is speculation in any case, but if we're looking at the Space Shuttle designations:
  • OV-101 Enterprise (matching NX-01)
  • OV-102 Columbia (matching NX-02)
  • OV-103 Discovery
  • OV-104 Atlantis
  • OV-105 Endeavour
Challenger is "OV-099", because it previously was "STA-099" (structural test article, later refit to become a fully functional shuttle). This means, depending on your POV, Discovery and Atlantis can make sense as the names of the next two NX-class ships. As said above, since this is all speculation anyway, perhaps all space shuttle names should be listed in the article, to avoid further edit wars... -- Cid Highwind 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

nobody has taken into account the Buran. it was a soviet replica of the US space shuttle launched the same year as the discovery, if it was a united earth constructing the NXs then they may not have only done US shuttles, but instead all shuttles ever launched. – Kwoosh..x 22:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, but it's only speculation, which is not allowed in articles. As discussed above, the entire paragraph dealing with where the names came from is speculative and may need to be removed.--31dot 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If the names of the NX-class ships continued to match the names of the vehicles from the United States space shuttle orbiter program, possible names for the other NX-class ships might have been NX-03 Challenger and NX-04 Discovery.''
Agreed that it's speculative. We shouldn't have a list of any names that aren't established in canon. — Morder 23:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
it does appear that starfleet is only an American thing beacause their HQ is in the US their captains and Admirals are from the US and THEY ALL SPEAK ENGLISH. Hosi i think is American as she has the accent. The only non-american people on enterprise are A) an Alein, B)British, or C)From the Future-- 02:38, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar info Edit

Defenses: Polarized Hull

Armament: Spatial torpedoes
(Until 2153)
Photonic torpedoes
(After 2153)
Phase cannons
Transportation: Shuttlepods

I removed this info from Enterprise (NX-01). It belongs in the class article instead, but most information is already available here, and I'm not too sure about the rest myself. Feel free to merge this into the article somehow... -- Cid Highwind 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons of the Mirror NX-ClassEdit

In the Mirror universe episodes of enterprise, we saw some sort of weapons, a pulsed weapon, any idea what it could be? Both the ISS Enterprise, and the ISS Avenger fired this weapon. The Columbia in the normal uinverse fired a beam weapon, I guess in the MU, the weapon could literitly be a pulsed beam?

[1] [2]

I was just curiouse, thanks for any responses --Terran Officer 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't look terribly dissimilar to the weapons fired in "Broken Bow" [3] --OuroborosCobra talk 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It could be, seems kinda odd for an Empire ship to use those compared to stronger Phase weapons, wouldn't it?--Terran Officer 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I would expect the Empire to have more powerful weapons, if anything. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting, I can see why Reed used them if they are the weaker plasma cannons, Archer just wanted the ship disabled, but the Avenger? They wanted to destroy it. Then again... it caused a lot of damage...--Terran Officer 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Terrans Probably upgraded them considerably and them had them work at higher yield. Besides Plasma is more painful than a phase cannon. I'm actually supprised they switched from violent and messy pulse weapons to clean and painless Phase Pistols. And they call themselves evil!-- 02:45, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Retirement Edit

There is no canon proof the CLASS was retired in 2161, only that the Enterprise was scheduled to be retired then. She was, after all, the first of her line, and had been through the most.

The development of the "Warp 7 crusier" would not necessitate the mothballing of the entire class. The NX's served alongside older and slower ships in their day.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we did not see the information that said the entire class was being retired, at least to my knowledge, If I am wrong, then retirement can be mentioned for the entire class.--Terran Officer 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo systemsEdit

I am wondering, does anyone know for sure about the torpedo systems? I just watched "Fight or Flight" and Reed mentioned both forward torpedo tubes. I am sure though, there are four tubes? That's what it looks like to me, and seems to have always fire.--Terran Officer 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That episode comes before the upgrades Enterprise received when sent of against the Xindi. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well Four forward tubes are visible during entire series, and are referenced by Archer in "Fortunate Son" also at least three different aft tubes (the one in the pylon connector in "Fight or Flight" and two in the saucer section) in "The Crossing".if there will be no cited source two prove that 6 tubes is correct number i am goinng to change the number in article to 7 Mancubus 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I know this is old, but where does seven come from? The Photonic Launcher? --Terran Officer 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The real question is are we sure they're torpedo tubes...— Morder 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If they are firing torpedoes, what else would they be? --OuroborosCobra talk 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously my point was simply are we sure before we add data that hasn't been cited. — Morder 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In "The Expanse" there is a 5th torpedo launcher between the 4 forward launchers for the Photonic Torpedoes, but I don't think it ever shows up again, Screencap: --Tuskin38 (talk) 12:25, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

NX-class vessels (fandom)Edit

O.K. I've looked online and found at least 9 ships of this class, they are:

  • NX-01-Enterprise
  • NX-02-Columbia
  • NX-03-Challenger
  • NX-04-Atlantis
  • NX-05-Endeavor
  • NX-06-Meridian
  • NX-07-Intrepid
  • NX-08-(unknown)
  • NX-09-Avenger

I would like to use the registry NX-03 and name the ship Gemini or Galileo for a brief couple moments in my fan based story. Their are I think about 36 others plus these names have been changed many times (not counting 01, 02, and 09). Maybe I could use NX-08 for my mystery ship? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You might want to post this in the Reference Desk, a more appropriate place for this type of question, that does not concern the article.--31dot 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's really not necessary either. This is fandom and is not even relevant to Memory Alpha. With that said, as a fan writer you can do whatever you want. --Alan 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NX-class vessels (apocrypha)Edit

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the apocrypha section that Kobayashi Maru Mentions NX-03 to be indeed called Challenger ?? Mancubus 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, since we don't even know in canon that there was an NX-03, let alone its name(no matter how likely it might be).--31dot 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh what? That's exactly what the apocrypha section is for... --Alan 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I sort of glossed over the "novel" part of the entry, I was going by the original posters' mention of several invented names that were not in a book.--31dot 21:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Launch BaysEdit

How many Launch bays are there, would people say? Two, or four? That is, are they counted by actual rooms, or by the doors? The doors would make four launch bays, wouldn't it? I read on the Shuttlepod that it seems to be four bays (thus counted by the doors). --Terran Officer 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

easy: two bays four doors. One door for each shuttle and two for two others. The doors probably act as landing pads when they are closed so four doors means you get 25% more ships in the bay (NERD WAY TO SAY ONE MORE) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Drex Files NX Tech BriefsEdit

I realize that these aren't strictly speaking canon, but Doug Drexler has been from time to time doing tech briefs on various features of the NX class he came up with while designing Enterprise. Would it be permissible to include synopses of this text on the NX class page, in italics under the relevant section as was done on the [D'Deridex] page regarding Andrew Probert's design intentions regarding it?--Praetor Neral 19:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

MU NX Class?Edit

I am curious, what about a page for the mirror universe version of the NX class? I realize nothing was ever specifically stated on screen that Enterprise or Avenger were of this class, aside from the assignment pages mentioning NX-01 and NX-09 respectfully, but my reasoning is along the lines of the alternate reality Constitution-class page, the vessel(s), as seen in these episodes are different (in look and capability apparently), then the class as shown through Star Trek: Enterprise. Obviously, I am not looking to open a can of worms here, and start some sort of president where every alternate version of a class gets their own page, but it's worth a try for this one at least. --Terran Officer 23:41, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose because they don't really seem to be that different. The alternate reality Constitution was a truly different vessel, from the keel up, including size, shape, internals, externals, capability, even time and place of construction. That doesn't seem to be the case with the mirror NX class. They are painted differently, but otherwise physically the same. The internals are the same, the only differences appear to be some equipment changes, which can be noted in a section of this article. --OuroborosCobra 04:00, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Akira classEdit

Is it possible to assume that the Akira-Class starship that was active in the 24th century took some of its design schematics from the NX Class? (Lieutenant Miller 18:14, November 14, 2009 (UTC))

You can assume all you want, and you are also welcome to read previous discussions about this topic, but Memory Alpha sticks to canon. --Alan 18:17, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Two Quick Things Edit

First, the section on the mess hall states "...while elaborate dishes were prepared in the ship's galley." Should it be added that food prepared in the gally was then stored in a cupboard/display at the back of the mess hall for the crew to take from as they wish? The reason I haven't added this myself is because I'm not sure its right.

Secondly, in the episode Vox Sola, Trip asks the captain if he wants to go play some "eight-ball". Is it worth nothing that, as such, Enterprise must have a pool table. --Looq 15:11, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Constitution class more powerful then NX-class Edit

I think the NX class was decommissioned after a decade in service due to it's primitive technology. It was replaced by the Constitution class, which, although looking bulky and 1960's-like, was much more advanced and powerful. The Constitution-class was the first Federation class of ship equipped with photon torpedoes and phasers, much more powerful then photonic torpedoes or phase cannons. The Constitution-class also was equipped with deflector shields, superior to the polarized hull plating. Constitution-class vessels were also larger and had more advanced computer, libary, and scientific systems. The bridge was also easier to manage and more accesible. The engine room was also simplified, and the engines themselves could reach speeds of up to Warp 9, albleit dangesrously. --Calthrina950 17:01, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the point of this post is. -Angry Future Romulan 20:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
All we know is the apocryphal account from Beneath the Raptor's Wing, that the NX-class was phased out and replaced by the Daedalus-class, due to the high cost and time involved in building an NX-class ship compared to that of a Daedalus-class ship. There is some evidence from bg-sources that ships from decommissioned classes are still used by Starfleet, such is the case of the USS Carolina, but presumably in much lesser roles, as the case of USS Republic would indicate, well over a hundred year old Constitution-class ship still used as a training ship for cadets in the late 24th century. --Pseudohuman 01:54, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Source for Akira influence on design Edit

Hi guys, I don't think this has been mentioned here before so I thought I should draw attention to it: A couple years back Doug Drexler posted an entry on his blog in which Alex Jaeger described the process of designing the Akira class (which can be seen here [4](X)). It's a fascinating read, but the important bit for this article is in the intro written by Drexler, who, of course, designed the NX-01 Enterprise:

...As everyone knows, the NX was based on the Akira, in fact the Enterprise producers had decided that they were going to use the Akira as is for the NX Enterprise! Herman Zimerman, the Enterprise production designer talked them in to letting us come up with a version that was across between the TOS ship, and the Akira class.

I know there's been a lot of back and forth on this issue of whether or not the Akira influenced the design of the NX but this authoritative behind the scenes source pretty much settles the debate. Drexler's blog is already used on a few articles here as a reliable source for background information, but I hesitate to add it here without consensus due to how contentious this issue has been in the past. -- 22:34, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid source from behind-the-scenes production staff. Go ahead an add it but make sure you word it in an encyclopaedic way! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:39, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should be added. I am not familiar with the past discussion yet, but I don't see why a statement from a Trek staff person would be controversial.--31dot 22:40, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


The cutaway screen appears to be from a bg source? A similar graphic has appeared in canon [5] and [6] with much less cutawayness and without those pointers on what is where. should the graphic be dropped to the bg-section or has it appeared in canon on-screen in some episode?... --Pseudohuman 14:41, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

It should be moved to the bg section, based on the file description page, and we should get another one to replace it in the canon section. - Archduk3 15:36, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Max warp Edit

This has been going back and forth for some time now, mostly with anons, so let's just place the references here:

"Babel One":

ARCHER: Let's see what those new injectors can do.
TRAVIS: Five point oh two. Point oh four. Five point oh six.
T'POL: They're falling behind.
TRAVIS: The injector's stabilised. We're holding speed.


ARCHER: Take us to warp five point two.
TRAVIS: Sir, we can't hold that speed for long.
ARCHER [OC]: We're out of options, Travis. Five point two.


ARCHER: We have forty seven minutes until our reactor breaches.

It seems by Divergence, they've worked out how to slow down to only warp 5, but that doesn't remove the reference, which was even in the recap, so the max speed referenced is 5.2 excluding alternate timelines. If this keeps being changed back and forth, as it has been for the last year or so, the page should be locked from anon edits to stop this. - Archduk3 23:53, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I thought Trip said something about being at Warp 7 in TATV(Here we are, traveling at Warp 7 or something like that)--31dot 02:45, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
They were toasting to the next generation of starships that could achieve warp 7. or at least that's how i interpreted that line. later on they talk about those ships too... --Pseudohuman 03:59, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Italics in name? Edit

Is it NX-class or NX-class? I nowadays tend to subscribe to the former format (as per our usual formatting methods), though Renegade54 clearly seems to think it's NX (as evidenced by this edit: [10]). The latter method is fine with me, as long as there's a community consensus to support it, seeing as it's so different from the common format. --Defiant (talk) 19:53, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion on this in more than 3 months, I've resumed the formatting method we normally use. --Defiant (talk) 13:04, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

While I haven't been consistent with this, I don't see a reason to change the standard formatting. - Archduk3 03:29, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the NX-class, as it falls nicely in line with the use of the {{class}} template. But that's just me :) -- sulfur (talk) 14:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
There *has* been a consensus, years ago. I don't remember where the discussion ended up, but the agreement was that *only* named classes (i.e. Constitution-class) would be italicized, and that "letter" classes (i.e. D7-class) would not. The NX class would fall into the letter class. Contrary to your apparent conclusions on my actions and motivations, *nothing* I do is arbitrary. Unfortunately, most of the admins active at the time of the discussion are currently inactive (Shran, Gvsualan, etc.), although I think Cid may have participated in the discussion and may remember more details. -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:29, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
The reasoning ("Name" vs. "CODE") does ring a bell and sounds sensible, but at the moment I'm not sure where that discussion was held. If I stumble upon it, I'll leave a link here. :) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:37, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed the edits as well, but, since it is IMO not such a big deal, let it further slide, since I thought Renegade knew something I wasn't aware of. Now that it has come up, my personal preference is to go with Defiant's stance, for the reasons Sulfur stated, my two cents...--Sennim (talk) 14:41, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
Also discussed here, although that is not the discussion Renegade54 had in mind: Template_talk:Class#NX_class -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:47, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
What I have seen in real life is that italics are used when an actual ship's name is used, ex. Iowa-class Battleship. However, when it's like the case here (NX Class), the NX isn't italicized. Throwback (talk) 15:49, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
Is there any real-world precedent for italics being used in a letter/number class designation? If so, I say use it. If not, stick with the current version. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:09, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Wikipedia uses italics for ship classes "only when the class takes its name from a member of the class": [11]. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:19, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Renegade54, leaving aside the issue that there's been a consensus, I think the problem here has mainly been implementing it on any sort of site-wide basis. I personally find it somewhat jarring, and it's obviously grossly inconsistent, if every other page uses the italicized version while this one doesn't (or if it was to be vice versa). --Defiant (talk) 13:17, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

From what I see classes such as the Excelsior, Galaxy and Defiant class are in italics. So the NX class should be in italics as well. I don't understand the problem here as it does seem to be the standard across the classes of starships--BorgKnight (talk) 13:51, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
The obvious difference is that one is a name, while the other is not. Whether that difference is important is what we're trying to find out here. --Cid Highwind (talk) 14:10, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
As far as consistency is concerned, that could easily be achieved by just adding a conditional to the template. On User:Cid Highwind/Sandbox#Italics, a test template italicizes all strings except for "NX". --Cid Highwind (talk) 14:34, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
What about D7 class, DY class (for example)? Are we going to have an enormous conditional in that template? Or does it make more sense to add a new template to handle these items instead? -- sulfur (talk) 14:46, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
We could check for the string length instead and, for example, only italicize strings longer than three letters. If that leads to false positives (I don't think so), those special cases could be handled via conditionals. In the end, the template wouldn't be as big as it might sound. Doing it this way is better because (a) we don't need to manually touch/replace each call of {{class}} with string "NX", and (b) we're enforcing consistency where, otherwise, we'd depend on everyone choosing the right template at the right time. --Cid Highwind (talk) 15:07, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Here's the full list of "problem children" (aka "code classes"): DY-100 class, DY-500 class, J class, NX class, Y class, Y-500 class, D4 class, D5 class, D7 class. And yes, there are other "name" classes with hyphens in them, but none with numbers that I can find. -- sulfur (talk) 15:51, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Ok I have found this example of ship class names. List of naval ship classes in service. In this example ship class names such as the Invincible class and Admiral Kuznetsov class are in italics. Where as then ships classes such as the Type 42 destroyer and Type 45 are not in italics. With this in mind I think then that the NX class should not be in italics along with others as mentioned by sulfur. Another example of this can be found on the Stargate wiki where the ship Prometheus is in italics but its class type of BC-303 is not.--BorgKnight (talk) 17:14, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to change the template, I know a bot run will be needed to remove the italics from non-linked uses of ''NX''-class. - Archduk3 17:35, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Also, months later, see {{class/temp}}. - Archduk3 23:57, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Torpedoes in Broken Bow Edit

According to the original script, the weapons fired in "Broken Bow" are some kind of torpedoes rather than plasma cannons. If that's an acceptable source, perhaps we should add a note saying that the plasma cannons have only been seen on the Imperial Enterprise. - Mitchz95 (talk) 00:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

It's an acceptable source, but i'm inclined to interpret the information in such a way that plasma cannon discharge bursts are simply called "torpedoes". Romulan plasma torpedoes in the original series appeared to be simply extremely large plasma energy discharges and they are called torpedoes too. This would not conflict with the naming of the weapon and the naming of its discharge later on in the series on the freighters. Since it seems likely that they intended the freighters and shuttlepods weapons to be the same tech, since the visual and sound effect is the same. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:15, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Quote Edit

"You're not sneaking up on an old freighter this time. This is an NX-class starship. Take a good look, because you'll be seeing more of them."

- Jonathan Archer (ENT: "Fortunate Son")

Because some people don't know about edit summaries, I removed this because it isn't really that good, and articles don't need quotes if we don't have a good one. - Archduk3 20:05, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Split Edit

Seems like there is enough bg information about designing the model to split it out to a NX class model page. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:01, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk3 22:34, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
Support. - BorgKnight (talk) 21:29, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:04, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - a more suitable name than "model" needs to be found for those types of articles. "Model" describes only the end result used to portray each craft, whether it be a physical studio model or a CGI build; the term does not refer to the overall design of the vessel nor the work that is invested in creating that design. I therefore suggest Designing the NX class as a more appropriate article name, as it refers to designing both the "look" of the ship as well as the model, of which there were multiple (I'm not against the idea of splitting this NX class page, btw). --Defiant (talk) 10:45, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Well, it could be argued that your suggestion suffers from the same "defect" as Model does, albeit from the opposite side of the spectrum; "Design(ing)" can be construed as describing only the beginning of the portrayal of a craft, not referring to the separate stage of building the model nor the work that is invested in building that model. That being said, let me stress however, that I'm open to your idea of a re-naming convention, but following your line of reasoning, neither description quite covers the subject matter. A more encompassing term then needs to be thought off. Since both interlinked, but separate stages are intended to bring a concept onto screen, my thoughts wander toward something like NX class visualization...Just musing...--Sennim (talk) 12:08, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
In any case, we already have several articles named "X class model". The suggestion to rename all of them should be kept separate from the discussion to split this article. So, split this one to the title initially suggested, then discuss renaming all these articles elsewhere. --Cid Highwind (talk) 12:12, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, that thought has already crossed my mind...--Sennim (talk) 12:30, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Can you please suggest where to approach this subject, then? Due to the commonality of topics being discussed in a whole variety of locations, despite the subjects being very closely linked, I'm never quite sure where to post. For the time being, I'll support the split proposed here. --Defiant (talk) 12:54, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Beats me ;) That's why I haven't mentioned it in my first post, but I think, but that's just me talking, the proper procedure is to have, in this case, the page split off, and then add the {{Rename to|...}} template. Back on the subject of the split --Support--...--Sennim (talk) 13:57, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
To suggest renaming a whole group of articles, a Ten Forward thread might be better suited than any single one of the talk pages in question. Perhaps start there, and then only add the template to all pages if there is at least a partial consensus about what alternate title to suggest. For what it's worth, I agree that Defiant's initial suggestion is not ideal - and, at the same time, I personally don't see a problem with the current title. --Cid Highwind (talk) 14:51, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
The studio model category's talk page could also be used for suggesting an overall renaming plan, as it was named to match the naming convention for the pages, and would also have to be updated if we change that. - Archduk3 21:56, August 16, 2013 (UTC)