Warp Coil Edit

What is up with this warp drive/warp coil diffrentiation here? A warp coil is part of a warp drive to my knowledge, and not a totally different thing. Personally, I would remove this part of the noncanon speculation. -- Steve 07:53, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree, warp coils are the large ring type devices that are housed inside the warp nacelles. We saw them in the TNG episode "Eye of the Beholder". They are not a power generation device at all, as this article suggests.--Tiberius 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion Edit

Couldn't the ship shown in TAS be a second Bonaventure- with the first Bonaventure having been what Scotty was referring to as being the first starship fitted with a warp drive; without realising that what he was looking at was a different ship by the same name? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Here is what the script says (with a little before and after to provide some sort of context):

RASMUSSEN: Just checking the time... No problem.

RIKER: getting a bit frustrated)Is something supposed to be happening here?

Rasmussen waves his hand, dismissing the question.

RASMUSSEN: No, no, nothing.(changing the subject)What about you, Commander? What do you see as the most important example of progress over the last two hundred years?

RIKER: (pauses)I suppose the warp coil. Before we had warp drive, Humans were confined to a single sector of the galaxy.

RASMUSSEN: Spoken like the consummate explorer.

I don't see how Riker makes a distinction between coil and drive. Actually, to me it seems like he is using the expansion of Human into space allowed by warp drive to qualify his choice of warp coil. Should have been three hundred years, not two hundred. Possibly Riker had his history wrong. 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just another reason Edit

Just another reason why TAS shouldn't be considered canon. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

TAS shouldn't be canon because the shows that came after contradict it? Seems to me that that's a better case for the later shows not being canon. -- General Grant 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Live action should be canon, but TAS should as well unless live action conflicts with it then use live action, i hate to say this but Star Wars Canon might work for Star Trek

1. main canon -- live action, movies, TV shows ect.
2. 2nd canon -- animated show(s) 
3. 3rd canon -- books, comics anything published that is not fan-fiction
4. non-canon -- fan fiction, RPG universe ect
5. Alt Canon -- alternate universe or what-if's (JJ verse would be here) 20:11, November 21, 2011 (UTC) Marc Chase

This is not the place to debate what is canon. If you must do so, please post at the policy's talk page after you review the policy first.--31dot 22:27, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Registry Number Edit

There's no dispute that the image clearly shows 10283NCC, but any intelligent person knows that NCC is supposed to be a prefix. The cartoon version of mislabelling a model if you will. The registry number should be NCC-10283. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Not really, considering at this point registries were only in the mid-1900s (USS Excelsior, NX/NCC 2000 wouldn't be launched for another few years). Also, please sign comments by leaving four ~ symbols. Jaz talk 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that is such a huge problem, since there is really no evidence from what is seen on screen that the registry numbers are necessarily sequential (ie the low registry numbers of the Constellation and Republic compared to the other Constitution Class ships). -- General Grant 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is a dispute with the is 10281NCC. DVD caps supports that fact. --Alan del Beccio 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The TAS preview Edit

At the preview of TAS at Torcon II, the Toronto Worldcon in 1973, where the first episode of the animated series was shown to the public for the first time, the audiene was told by the Star Trek officials that the Bonaventure in the episode was named for the Canadian aircraft carrier, as all ships of that class were named after carriers. – Rowlandr 04:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Robin Rowland

Year Edit

Please note that according to Spaceflight Chronology, Bonaventure was lost in 2066, which is 7 years after launching not 18. 06:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not an accepted resource and isn't canon. — Morder 06:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
However, if you have a look at the article, the ST:SC story about the Bonaventure is explicitely summarized in a background section. If it really is "7 years later" in the ST:SC, then it shouldn't be "18 years later" in our summary of it. -- Cid Highwind 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First to have Warp Drive? Edit

What about the NX01? Or am i being silly and getting it confused with something? (Lieutenant Miller 21:17, February 23, 2010 (UTC))

Yep. NX-01 was the first to utilize the Warp 5 engine. Earth ships before it were limited to slower warp speeds. --Pseudohuman 02:31, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.