FA status

Nomination (23 June - 30 June 2004, Success)

Self-nomination. A very detailed history (and alternate histories) of this very important vessel. --Steve 21:40, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. Good references! -- Redge 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • I'm big on the references. ;) --Steve 07:22, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Approve. -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST)
  • Steve has done an excellent job on this article, and I was preparing to nominate it myself! -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Reconfirmation (08 June - 29 June 2012, Success)

FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - Archduk3 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Much of the bg info seems to be more suitable for the NX-class page. --Defiant 23:12, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Also, am I right in thinking we consistently should be using the 8 June format (rather than the June 8 format)? --Defiant 23:15, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

I've never really been sure why this wiki uses the international dating format when the show uses the American format. The format for the dates is like that on this page because that's the format they used in the show. If anything, the rest of the wiki should change, but I doubt that's going to happen. - Archduk3 00:03, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

As an editor elsewhere in the world from the self-centered U.S. of A., I'm personally happiest to use the format currently in usage. However, I'm obviously not a consensus, and I do see merit in changing it to the method used most in the show (as you were saying). --Defiant 00:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I meant to have ", particularly ENT" at the end of the second sentence in my last post, but for some reason didn't write it. That should make me sound like less of an ass hopefully. Changing the dates wiki wide would require multiple bot runs, several template changes, not to mention just plain old eyes on the page for a few of them. While all that is doable, it would require several people over the course of a few days at least to complete, which is why I doubt anyone would seriously consider it, since there isn't anything particularly wrong with the current system. That said, I do tend to write in universe dates in the American standard though, with real world dates using the international one. - Archduk3 00:27, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to oppose this article, due to the lack of bg info and with so many images apparently randomly placed (thereby lending not a lot to the article). --Defiant 15:24, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the number of images, though the relevance to the text could be improved by finding better ones. As for the bg info, is it just the lack of bg info in general, or do you know of some that isn't currently there? - Archduk3 15:32, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

The general lack of bg info is what I mean. Also, the relevance of the images is what I find problematic, rather than the quantity of them. I meant, "so many of them are randomly placed," not "there's so many of them." --Defiant 15:38, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
Comment--I'm a bit undecided on this one...I do not share Defiant's concerns about the imagery, but I do think that some of the text is better situated on the corresponding NX-class-page, especially the first three paragraphs of the "Development" chapter--Sennim 11:54, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

This article is a bit unique since it covers the ship that was the first of the class, so there is bound to be some overlap between it and the class page. That said, if you're talking about the blurb, the next section could be used. - Archduk3 12:10, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I concur that there will necessarily be some overlap, though much of the text in the first section doesn't even refer to the starship (despite the ship apparently being what the page is meant to be about), so I agree with Sennim on this. Maybe it'd be better if we started with a sentence like "After Humanity's first warp 5 engine was created, Humanity was ready to build its first true starship. In 2151, Enterprise was completed," then continue as is. --Defiant 12:17, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
I actually had the main text in mind, but I concur to the overlap. As for the blurb I agree to a partial re-write to have it more pertinent to the ship itself--Sennim 12:46, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've used the next section for the blurb, but I believe that a brief history, as in one longer than a sentence, of the development of the warp 5 engine is prudent here because this ship was the prototype for the entire class. The fact that the engine was new affected this ship more than any other one, so spending some time on it sounds like the right thing to do here, and breaking warp five wasn't even proven when Enterprise was launched. That said, I'm not married to the current wording. - Archduk3 13:27, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with that with your argument in mind; Perhaps an added note in the fourth paragraph, that Enterprise is the first tangible product of the warp-5 project, hammers home the point--Sennim 14:03, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
I agree that talking about the warp 5 engine is appropriate, as it's the first vessel to have that engine, but I still feel the text could be edited down somewhat, so there's not so much superfluous language. As an example, I think we could remove the fact that work started on the ship, as this can be easily assumed if we just said the next bit – that work was completed in 2151. --Defiant 14:11, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

It might be best if you make the changes and them the rest of us "edit [it] mercilessly" as needed. - Archduk3 14:24, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a shot at it. (I was actually editing it in such a way when you made the above suggestion; I guess it goes to show that "great minds think alike"! Lol!) --Defiant 14:30, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if the sentence "Thus, Humanity was ready to build its first true starship. In 2151, Enterprise was completed.", isn't a bit too contentious. It does not take into account for example an older design like the Intrepid-type, which, while undoubtedly not having the range and endurance of the Enterprise, was still warp-capable and thus, at least in my book, a "true starship", albeit a slower one--Sennim 15:06, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] - I've tweaked the wording, mainly to stick with hard dates instead of generalities forced by conflicting info, since there's no need to go into the problems with when warp drive was invented here. - Archduk3 15:08, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked it further, attempting to account for the efforts that were made at life prolongation during space travel from Earth, and remove some assumption of prior knowledge, re: Cochrane. The use of the word "reasonable" is a bit overly subjective, IMO, similar to the problem with the phrase "true starship". --Defiant 15:20, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

"True starship" might be better as "deep space starship" or "long range starship". - Archduk3 15:29, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it as a more neutral "warp 5 capable starship", perhaps a bit too prematurely--Sennim 15:31, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
To be more specific about what I mean by irrelevant images, there's 2 in particular – the Enterprise at warp image and the one featuring Enterprise flying above Earth. Also, shouldn't the in-universe info about the picture in Archer's ready room be placed in the in-universe section, rather than the bg info? It would seem to be a more appropriate placement, at least IMO. --Defiant 15:48, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Oops, edited as bg-info, before I read your comment--Sennim 16:13, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion for the pics placements; the warp-pic where the launch-pic is now (ties in nicely with all this talk about warp), the launch pic moved down to the Launch section (left and the klingon one to the right); the earth-pic to "After returning home", since this is what the pic is about...Should go a long way to assuage your concerns--Sennim 16:33, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those suggestions. However, the right-and-left method of displaying images looks particularly cluttered. Furthermore, I noticed the Klingon image wasn't really adding anything significant to the article, either, so I opted to remove it. I've also noticed that the page is currently missing info from the fan-favorite episode "Similitude". --Defiant 17:21, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Well I'm satisfied, so let me be the first one to cast a support-vote--Sennim 14:23, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. - Archduk3 03:02, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see how this page is supportable, yet. As I've pointed out, the page is currently incomplete. If we note that a few little areas of the ship were quarantined in "Observer Effect", don't you think we should also say something about the fact that the entire ship essentially gets covered in gunk in "Similitude"? Also, the pages for the bg sources should be created before this article is accepted. --Defiant 08:15, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

The number of red links in an article has nothing to do with that article, so those pages do not have to be created for this to remain featured. - Archduk3 14:54, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I know that for red links, generally, but during the FA nomination process for the Gorkon article in September last year, there was some complaining that sources quoted from had not been created yet. I agree that this is a valid complaint, since it's not at all difficult to create at least a stub, in most cases. So, while you're technically right, it's probably preferable that info about the cited sources is available (not a hard task, usually). --Defiant 21:42, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • With the "Similitude"-related info now adding to the page's completeness, I'm very happy to also Support the article (a massive thanks for adding that relevant info, Archduk). --Defiant 21:49, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

The bridge set of Enterprise (NX-01) has 80 plasma screens built into it.- B-101 02:08, 24 Oct 2004 (CEST)

See if this needs to be added as bg info here (after confirmation), before adding as a DYK. -- Cid Highwind 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

USS Prefix

USS Columbia + USS Enterprise

Apparently, it's USS Enterprise NX-01 and USS Columbia NX-02 now. *raises eyebrow* -- 16:13, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Explain. --AC84 18:44, 14 September 2006
In "Divergence" a graphic was seen showing the two ships labeled as USS:
More discussions concerning this can be found here: Talk:USS.

--Jörg 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

initial Enterprise weapons

This article does not indicate what energy weapons (if any whatsoever) were utilized on the vessel before the phase cannons were installed. I'm trying to get some basis, one way or another, for the content at Plasma cannon, but cannot find any confirmation anywhere. -- THOR 23:15, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I thought the Enterprise only had 1 Phase Cannon, then Archer ordered a return to Jupiter Station to add 2 more, Trip and Reed added the 2 before the ship made it back to the station. but it had no other energy wepons before Phase Cannons.

Actually, the NX-01 did have weapons before phase cannons. As seen in "Broken Bow", the phase cannon was preceeded by a weapon which fired some form of energy burst, most likely plasma. --From Andoria with Love 16:50, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree ENTERPRISE does have weapons before the installation of the phase cannons...its called spatial torpedoes...as seen in fight or flight. Lt. Reed & Ensign Mayweather were running simulated test, until it had to be deployed to destroy the enemy vessel that was about to drain their fluids-bonn09

Forum:Where's the NX-01?

Does anyone have a plausible explanation as to why Enterprise NX-01 is not displayed with the other Enterprise vessels on the recreation room wall in Star Trek: The Motion Picture? --Shran 11:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I guess not. Oh, well. Maybe it was there, we just didn't "see" it. It's also nothing some computer editing can't fix: just take the image of the starship Enterprise, put it above the other images, put the NX-01 where the Constitution-class starship was, and voila! --Shran 06:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think its that big a deal. In TMP Decker says "all these ships were named Enterprise" not that these were ALL the ships EVER named Enterprise, which it clearly isn't. They just didn't choose to include that particular ship in the display.

Here's your explanation. TMP was made in 1979, Enterprise came out in 2000 or 2001. Can you believe the nerve of those producers; not predicting 22 years into the future. What a bunch of lazy jerks ;) Jaz 04:23, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This is why I think enterprise shouldn't have been "enterprise". There are several occasions when "previous ships named enterprise" have been displayed : his scene on TMP, the small models in Picard's ready room, and so on (not to mention STVII Generations). Since Archer's ship supposedly made lots of historic achevments, we can't explain her absence. To avoid creating lots of continuity problems, NX-01 (and the show) should have reveived another name. If they had ask to me, I'd have advise the to name it Pathfinder. --Rami 10:05, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the EVENTS IN ST:FC changed history and Zephie wanted to name the Warp 5 ship Enterprise after the crew that saved his butt (and the butt's of all Human life) maybe Archer's daddy wanted to just name it the NX-05, or he named it the NX-05,SOL but Zephie being the creator of the Warp Drive overruled him -- --sithlord

because the federation didn't exist until the last episode of enterprise!--B4stinks (talk) 02:16, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

These are the Voyages...

Would someone like to add the appropriate information? We know from a line of dialogue spoken by Troi that the NX-01 exists in the 24th century as a museum, something like "Those museum ships all look the same."

Is there any canon evidence that shows the Enterprise being decommissioned, (ceremony, orders, etc.) or that clearly states the NX-class of starships being discontinued? I ask this because I never had a chance to see "These Are the Voyages..." and I do not know what was specifically said. For all we know (from what I've read on Memory Alpha, at least) the Earth ships Enterprise and/or Columbia could have been either decommissioned or reconsituted/refitted as a new, improved class of Federation starships (NX-class derived, no doubt) with roughly the same capabilities but deisgned for multi-species crews of the new Federation. (Or, perhaps, incorporating various technologies from charter members of the Federation which the Earth ship Enterprise did not have.)

The one nagging thing about "Star Trek: Enterprise" which concerns me is the notion of the ship being able to achieve Warp 5, and supposedly being succeeded by a new class of Federation starships capable of Warp 7. Captains Pike's NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise appeared, canonically, to have a top speed of only Warp 7 about 90 years after "These Are the Voyages..."

Can anyone reconcile this? Ol' Horta Face 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there is no canon proof that all NX-class vessels were decommissioned, the Enterprise herself was destined to be put "in mothballs" following the Federation Founding Ceremony. Since the ship is known to be in the Fleet Museum by the 24th century and since there's no evidence to suggest the Enterprise somehow received an extension, we should assume that it was, indeed, decommissioned as planned.
As for the warp 5 concern, it was never specifically stated that Pike's Enterprise was only limited to warp 7; indeed, by Kirk's time, it was capable of warp 9, so I see no reason why it couldn't go that fast under Pike's command. If it didn't, then it might have something to do with the mysterious time barrier phenomenon mentioned in "The Cage". --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd also add that speeds do not necessarily need to constantly be increasing. They can go for long periods with no change. For example, the fastest conventional aircraft aircraft built to date flies at Mach 3.5, and has since 1966. That is 40 years with no increase. The fastest manned non-conventional aircraft flew at around the same time. Again, 40 years, no increase. Technology can grow in other areas, or there can be some hurdle blocking advancement for a long period of time. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any canon evidence that the first class of Federation starships were definitely capable of Warp factor 7? If not, perhaps they were only marginally more capable than Earth's NX-class of starships. The reason I ask is that the NX-01 Enterprise had a Warp 5 engine, but seemed to struggle to make it to the point, with almost disastrous results (ENT: "Fallen Hero"). As for Pike's NCC-1701 Enterprise, looks like there's a lack of clear evidence. His announcment on the PA system that the ship was diverting to Talos was conspicuous to me because he made the point of telling the crew that the ship would be going to Warp 7. As far ahead as TOS: "Obsession", Scotty told Kirk "We'll blow up any second" if the ship were to sustain Warp 8. It's true that Kirk ordered the ship to Warp 9 in "The Enterprise Incident", but that was only for a brief sprint to evade the Romulans. Ol' Horta Face 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see how we might be guilty of adding an assumption:
  • NX-01 returns to spacedock, word is that a new ship is being built that has warp 7 capability --> (what would be a likely conclusion?)
  • NCC-1701 returns to spacedock, word is that a new ship is being built that has transwarp capability --> transwarp fails, the Federation warps for another century before discovering Borg transwarp.
The possibilities are either
  1. the 'warp 7 project' worked as expected in 2151 or
  2. the 'warp 7 project' stalled and took decades (possibly right up to pike's time) to succeed.
we weren't told. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Beautifully put, Capt. MKB! Only the Warp 7 project didn't have to fail; it took over 30 years for the Warp 5 Complex to come out with NX-01Enterprise's Warp 5 Engine. I'm assuming that since Warp factors are geometric quanta, making a Warp 7 engine actually *sustain* Warp 7 could take at least as long, if not longer. (see my talk-page contributions to the Constitution-class article) Ol' Horta Face 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Starship designation

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise NX-01 was referred to as a starship sometime throughout the series, but was that really an official designation? After all, the ship's dedication plaque designated the ship as a "spacecraft". Also, the Enterprise-A was designated as the "second starship to bear the name", with succeeding ships being the third, fourth, etc. So would it not be better to call it a spacecraft, or perhaps make a note that the term "starship" is not an official designation? --From Andoria with Love 21:09, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC) People do pay attention to this ship... don't they? :\ --From Andoria with Love 10:39, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) I guess not... --From Andoria with Love 09:52, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I pay attention! You're right, and also there was no way that they could have predicted when they were creating TOS and The Motion Picture, that in the future, Paramount would release a show about a ship before the original Enterprise. What was the NX-Alpha? A prototype starship, or space ship? zsingaya 09:57, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! :) So should a note be added that Starship is more-than-likely not an official designation? Or should we replace the term starship with spacecraft? Since the vessel was likely called a starship in several episodes, I think the former would be more... reasonable, for the lack of a better word. --From Andoria with Love 10:01, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I was disappointed that they used the term "starship" at all for a pre-Constitution class ("Starship" class and all that) ship design. the first time Archer said it was in the premiere, so it was continuous throughout. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:05, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you there. But since the designation on the dedication plaque was spacecraft, shouldn't we note that as well as the possiblility that starship was not an official designation? --From Andoria with Love 10:07, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

starship is a term like aircraft the current Space Shuttles have been called starships at one time since the 1980's, Apollo space program was once called the ship to the stars, starcraft, starship, spacecraft and spaceship by news people. the ENTERPRISE is part of the NX class ships (NX-01, NX-02 and in the mirror universe NX-05) the class was more then likely named after the NX Program (NX-Alpha, NX-Beta) because it was all part of the same Earth Starfleet - --sithlord

Removed info

For the record, I removed a paragraph that was added to the end of this article which stated this ship wasn't canon, using the ships seen in the Enterprise's recreation deck as proof. Since Enterprise is canon here, with Paramount, and within the Trek universe, and since the recreation deck images hardly prove anything, I removed the false statement. --From Andoria with Love 08:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

removed text: speculation

I removed the following text from the Background section of the article because I felt it was needless speculation. It appeared immediately after the sentence "Throughout the series, the ship was mostly referred to as simply "Enterprise", rather than "the Enterprise"."

This may have been one of the creators' early attempts to distance the series from the rest of the franchise, such as the exclusion of the name "Star Trek" from the main title sequence during the series' first two years. Alternatively, it may have been the result of habit on the part of the writing staff, many of whom had worked on Star Trek: Voyager. There, the ship was initially referred to as "the Voyager" in a similar fashion to how Enterprise had been referred to as the Enterprise in the other incarnations of Star Trek. They soon began referring to the ship simply as Voyager, presumably because "the Voyager sounds awkward. They may simply have continued that line of thinking into the new series. -- Renegade54 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

removed Borg text

I removed assertion that NX-01 made first contact with Borg. First contact, historically, belongs with Lily Sloane, if you want to find the earliest Human in history to meet them. But even in "Regeneration" it's the A-6 excavation team that really made first contact.

In a broader context, though, first contact still belongs to E-D, because that's where the time loop starts. Or you could make a case that the earliest contact belongs to the crew of the E-E. Those particular Borg in "Regeneration" had been encountered by the E-E first, and, for all we know, were originally E-E crew members. And inasmuch as "the Borg" is really the Borg Queen then first contact still belongs to the E-E.

Point is, NX-01 were latecomers to the Borg, even if they were historically "before" the PIcard-led crews. CzechOut | 01:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, first recorded contact (of which there is likely reliable evidence) will always belong to the Enterprise-D in 2365. Anyone who suggests otherwise, doesn't seem to understand the diplomacy and such involved.--Tim Thomason 03:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Trek always seemed to consider the meeting with the Ferengi in "The Last Outpost" as first contact between the Ferengi and the Federation, despite the Battle of Maxia. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"The" Enterprise

All the other Enterprises (1701s) were usually refered to as "the Enterprise," and the NX-01 was usually refered to simply as "Enterprise." Does anyone know why this is? Also, is there any time the NX-01 was refered to as "the Enterprise?"--NME 06:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that is what the writers wanted. It might have come from habit during Star Trek: Voyager, where the ship was almost exclusively called "Voyager", and not "the Voyager" (no one mention Parallax, I remember :P) --OuroborosCobra talk 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"The NX-01" was referred to as "the Enterprise" quite a few times. Here's some examples:
from "Dawn"
TUCKER: ...First things first. I'll try and get the transceiver working, contact the Enterprise.
TUCKER: Chief Engineer's log, supplemental. It's been two hours since we started signaling the Enterprise...
from "Bounty"
ARCHER: Open a channel. This is Jonathan Archer of the Enterprise. What can I do for you?
from "Shadows of P'Jem"
T'POL: My assignment to the Enterprise was only supposed to last eight days.
Just to name a few.--Tim Thomason 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Akiraprise? or olderprise?

I've just found this page: Star Trek: The First Adventure. there you can see the concept art of an enterprise. is it just me or does the concept art of that enterprise look very familiar to the Ent-(NX-01)? if the producers for Star Trek: Enterprise would have looked at the abandoned concept art... would that not be a more correct source for the enterprise? especially when it came a few years before the first on-screen akira? does anyone agreee?--Örlogskapten 09:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

here is a picture of the sketch i'm talking about.

Star Trek The First Adventure, USS Enterprise concept.jpg

--Örlogskapten 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the thin saucer being at the same level as the engineering section, those ships barely look anything like the NX class. Besides, I think the producers already stated they based part of the design on the Akira-class. --From Andoria with Love 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea I would say that the NX-01 does look alot like an upside down Akira Class ship. Funny wonder if the people who made the 'Akiraprise' ment to do that like got their insperation from it. But where did the Intrepid class inspiration come from? Now thats a weird vessel. (the one i'm typing about is the one seen in ST:E) ---> Rift Fleet

Removed speculative text

Removed the following as there is no basis for such speculation:

  • Time travel has a tendency to change the course of a timeline, so it is most probable that a ship of the 2150s was formed with the design of the 2360s Akira-class line of ships when a Starfleet officer from the 2360s or 2370s went back in time with Akira's schematics and accidentally left it there when he went back to his own time. Therefore, a starship designer found his schematics and went on to base the NX-01 off of the said futuristic schematics.

Such a passage could be on every article explaining some inconsistency or oddity away. Unless there is some basis for it(a mention in an episode, by a writer/producer, or even a non-canon book) it shouldn't be listed. I have copied it here in case such a basis is found.--31dot 14:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that Zefram Cochrane was the one who named it "Enterprise", naming it after the Enterprise that came from the future and helped him. If this is true and the enterprise lineage was named after the NX-01, then this is a temporal paradox in which the tradition of naming ships "enterprise" has no origin.
Very speculative and removed. – Morder 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


I need help, their are some things for my fan based story of a nx class vessel, the NX-08, and I require acceleration speed (rest-onset critical momentum, onset critical momentum, and the acceleration speeds from warp1-warp 4 and warp 4- warp 6), mission duration (both standerd and recommened yard overhaul), propulsion systems (both warp and impulse), weapons, primary computer system, primary navigation system, deflector systems, and typical embarked craft minues the 4 shuttlepods. It must be based on the NX-01 or NX-02. I do not want the specifications on the NX-01-A Dauntless that was a false ship from ST:V.

I would really aprecitate it or if you do not know can you recomend a web site where i might find all (if not most) the infomation I require. --->Rift Fleet

I can not get on the Waxing Moon website that has the info I need so if someone could please find a non-personal website that may have the info I require. I would appreciate it.Rift Fleet 12:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Rift Fleet-Added 5-23-08 @ 8:15 A.M.

Can you see this? How about this? I hope it helps, --TribbleFurSuit 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rescue hatch

An exterior shot during "Shadows of P'Jem" clearly shows a sign indicating a rescue hatch to the right of Archer's ready room (on the port side of the ship). I feel like this info should be added here, but I'm not sure on where. Suggestions? Twilder 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably over at Captain's ready room#NX-class. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks! Twilder 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Removed from background

  • Throughout the series, the ship was mostly referred to as simply "Enterprise", rather than "the Enterprise," possibly because of the USS Voyager simply being called "Voyager" throughout that particular series, as well. Warships are often referred to just by its name without "the". This practice may have influenced the writers for Voyager and Enterprise.
  • Though it was said to be inspired by the USS Defiant, the NX-01 looks very similar to the Akira-class, first shown in Star Trek: First Contact. Indeed many Star Trek fans say that the NX-01 is nothing but "an upside-down Akira-class." Some other, more negative, comments, refer to the NX-01 as the Akira-prise.

The first needs to be cited, the second comes across as speculation, either due to the "fans say" or the uncited quote. --Alan 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember seeing the second in TV guide, before the series aired, when I first saw the model. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe Cobra is correct.--31dot 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I realize that the second essentially states the obvious, it still boils down to being "fan-wank". The only thing that addresses this that I can immediately find is from interviews with Rick Sternbach(X) and Geoffrey Mandel(X), which could be adapted to this, but would be an almost entirely new entry. The fan reactions seem to stem from EAS. --Alan 21:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First contacts?

Apparently, the crew of the Enterprise made first contact with the Na'Kuhl (ENT: "Storm Front"), but technically they didn't. In the original timeline it was much later than 2154 when Daniels and his people had contact with them. Daniels sent the Enterprise back to stop them, but they were only known in the alternate timeline, and then the crew would have kept the knowledge of them after that, although Starfleet wouldn't have because no-one else took part in the alternate timeline.

Does that make any sense?! Dave 22:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On a semi-related note: Did not Enterprise make first contact with the Klingons in Broken Bow (episode)? Satyrquaze 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say first contact with the Klingons wasn't made by Enterprise but by that crusty old farmer. --TribbleFurSuit 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But Enterprise traveled to the homeworld... or is there a first contact listing under the crusty old farmer's page? Does shooting an alien count as that first contact for the Human race? Satyrquaze 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

TFS, as has been pointed out any number of times on MA talk pages and such, Star Trek generally does not seem to treat "two people, one from each race, sort of seeing each other," as first contact. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So, who gets first contact rights with the Klingon Empire on behalf of Earth? Satyrquaze 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well anyway, I have to agree with OC that a person meeting another person from a different race as being first concact, but then who made First Contact with the Klingons? I see it like this: After that Klingon was shot by that Human farmer, he laid in a hospital on Earth in a coma as most of the leadership of Starfleet sat in the next room, No First Contact there, but we find out that the Human race hadn't even heard of them until then and the Vulcan contigent gives them the name 'Klingon'. As Enterprise took him back to the homeworld he was partly conscience and delirious before he was kidnapped by the Suliban, yeah... no First Contact there. The crew of Enterprise manages to get the Klingon back and successfully get him to the heretofore unknown to humans homeworld of the Klingon people. They take a shuttlepod down and turn over the Klingon along with evidence that the Suliban are trying to destablize the Empire. Pleasantries are exchanged with the help of Hoshi and the crew of Enterprise is asked politely to leave. I think that is the best we could hope for as far as meeting the requirements for First Contact by the Klingon Empire. Am I completely off? Satyrquaze 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you've got it spot on. The Vulcans had already made first contact long before, and as Archer and the other Humans thought it was a "Kling-ott" and didn't understand what Qo'noS was, it's fair to say that first contact hadn't been made. The crusty old "farmer" couldn't communicate properly with Klaang, so that's defo not first contact. I think it was the meeting with the High Council that was the flashpoint.
Oh, and I found this on the episode page for Broken Bow:
  • This episode describes the first contact between Earth and the Klingon Empire. The Klingons were, of course, seen on all of the previous Star Trek series, all taking place either one or two centuries after this episode. Other alien races seen on other Star Trek series who were first encountered by the NX-01 Enterprise include Andorians, Nausicaans, Ferengi, Romulans, the Borg, Tholians, Coridans, Orions, Organians, and, in the mirror universe, the Gorn.
So it was the Enterprise. DaveSubspace Message 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's "first contact" (generic, plain-English, commonsense concept) and then there's "First Contact" (proper noun, specific Starfleet philosophy and protocol). "...the first contact between [humans] and the Klingon [race]" was not made by the Enterprise. I'd argue that a proper "First Contact" between Earth and the Klingon Empire was never made, since the First Contact protocol to be followed on Starfleet's exploratory missions didn't exist that early. It's kind of like the concept of somebody's birthday, back before there were any such things as dates or calendars. --TribbleFurSuit 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Picard spoke of the 'disastrous First Contact between Earth and the Klingon Empire which lead to over a century of hostilities' (I'm paraphrasing and don't recall the episode). Are you calling the great Jean Luc Picard a liar? It may have been 'disastrous', but it was made. I think when it comes to the Klingon Empire that this is close as one comes to a proper First Contact without open warfare. I mean otherwise, why even have the whole First Contact section on the NX-01 page? Satyrquaze 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the hypothetical "disastrous First Contact between Earth and the Klingon Empire which lead to over a century of hostilities" the same one as we're talking about in ENT? I don't think so, because Archer avoided a disaster and hostilities. So if nothing else, if Picard really said that, then it proves me wrong, but it doesn't make the NX-01 the First Contact vessel. As such, I agree with you when you say "First Contact" wouldn't quite belong here, so I'd change it to "first contact". Anyway: it would be worth it to find out what Picard really said. --TribbleFurSuit 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I remembered the episode, it was (ironically enough) "First Contact"; and while I don't have the exact quote I pulled this from the episode page: "Picard explains the Prime Directive after Durken asks why the Federation would not offer their superior technology to his people. Picard says that it would be irresponsible and destructive. Durken agrees and goes back to his family on the planet, deciding to tell his children that he had a good day." Not sure if anyone has that particular episode on tape or dvd... Satyrquaze 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, there are scripts and transcripts on the Web. [1], [2]. Picard might indeed have said "Centuries ago, a disastrous first contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war." The script at Trekcore includes "first", the transcript at chakoteya omits it. So it might not have been said onscreen. Anyway, even if it were, all it would show would be that I would have been wrong about whether there had been a capital-F First Contact with the Klingon Empire. It doesn't make NX-01 the First Contact vessel. The Klingons didn't go to war with Earth during ENT, so that's not what Picard was talking about. --TribbleFurSuit 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Picard never said "first" contact, although it was implied that he was talking about first contact given the situation in the episode. --From Andoria with Love 05:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)



"Orions, May 2154 (ENT: "Borderland")" There is a scene in Borderland, where the Enterprise orbits an Orion colony world or outpost. In this shot you can clearly see an earth frighter orbiting the planet as well and near an Orion interceptor, indicating that earth had knowledge of the Orion syndicate before Borderland.-- 23:24, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

And? - Archduk3 23:40, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
And thats a big F***ing deal. Or the Earth Cargo Authority is in the slave buisness. It could also bee a pleasure cruise or a captured ship. Plus it could be a Tellerite Freighter because They seem slightly similar. Plus only one type oof freighter has been seen from the Tellarites and it look a lot like a J-class. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Nx-01 Refit

Is anybody gonna mention the NX-01 refit? http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/nx-01-refit-diagram/-- 07:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

There is a mention on the Star Trek: Enterprise page, and this is more about the NX-class being refitted than just this one ship. - Archduk3 07:22, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


"It's been a hell of a run... I never thought it would come to an end."

- Commander Charles Tucker III, 2161

Based on the other quotes chosen by the anon who added, this isn't about the ship, it's about the franchise, and shouldn't be used here. - Archduk3 20:54, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Missing info

This article does not seem to be as complete as it could be. I'd personally quite like to see a listing of shipwide medical emergencies, such as virtually the entire crew being unconscious in both "Acquisition" and "Doctor's Orders". --Defiant (talk) 23:31, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Archer's command date of Enterprise

Archer didn't get command of Enterprise until 2151, Enterprise launched in 2151. So Archer can't be in command in 2150. Enterprise launched in 2151. This page is wrong. On Memory Beta they have Archer's command date of Enterprise as 2151 not 2150.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 00:41, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

See "First Flight". - Archduk3 00:54, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
What Archduk3 means by referencing First Flight is we see that a year before Enterpise is launched Archer was chosen to take command of it. But still the ship wasn't launched until 2151 so would that not be the start of his command? --BorgKnight (talk) 09:14, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
It was roughly six months according to dialog, though we know Archer was involved with the construction of Enterprise before she was launched ("Broken Bow"), and that Hernandez was involved with the construction of Columbia before it was launched as well ("Home"), so there is no reason to assume that his "command" of the vessel didn't begin when he was selected. Memory Beta, and TyphussJediVader, are simply wrong about this. - Archduk3 10:22, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
The US Navy also selects ship commanders of ships under construction, for a real-world parallel. 31dot (talk) 11:08, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
The way I go about it is this. 2150, he is selected to command the NX-01. However, we don't see Archer participate in the construction of Enterprise until 2151 in Broken Bow along with commanding the ship at her launch. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:32, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Split suggestion

The alternate timeline Enterprise from "" is commonly referred to as "Enterprise-2" in the final draft script of that episode. So, I'm interested in finding out how popular it would be to split the relevant subsection of this page to Enterprise-2. --Defiant (talk) 20:26, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

The can of worms this might open is separate pages for Harry Kim and his duplicate, and the same for Naomi Wildman. Even Voyager itself. Prepared to make that leap? --LauraCC (talk) 20:30, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The closest thing we have is Jonathan Archer (alternate reality), which violates policy and I maintain should be merged back into the article proper. There are too many worms in this can. - Archduk3 20:35, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If it makes linking easier, I think it's something we have to consider, yes... especially if there is a script/production source for a longer name. This is very similar to how we have longer names for characters from script sources, such as Keene and Jonathan Archer (alternate reality), as well as names that distinguish between the prime universe and the MU as well as the AR. --Defiant (talk) 20:43, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think we should be more consistent regarding this issue; we should either have separate articles for separate timelines (such as James T. Kirk (alternate reality) and James T. Kirk)... or not. --Defiant (talk) 20:47, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the sheer volume of information available. --LauraCC (talk) 20:49, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that solution. And in that case, as can be seen from this article, there certainly is enough info about the alternate Enterprise to warrant its own page (it clearly wouldn't be a stub, for instance). --Defiant (talk) 20:52, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

In response to Defiant's second to last post, I think the (unofficial, de-facto) rule we've been following is that a separate article has been done for Mirror universe and Alternate reality characters and ships, but not for anything else (planets or species, tech etc), and never for realities besides those major two. The initial justification was practical, in that we have too much too say about alt-Kirk etc to make him a section in regular Kirk's article, but then it was followed through even for people for whom that would not be an issue, out of a sense of consistency. You can debate the logic, but that seems to be the logic currently in place. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:08, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
[edit conflict] - I don't think anyone has understood the issue I was mentioning, since it doesn't have to do with timelines or realities, but the article's subject. Jonathan Archer (alternate reality) violates policy in that all the relevant information about him is deliberately not included on that page, making it a "sub-article." MA is explicitly flat, in that we don't have sub-articles, except that one because of "reasons", so articles should not be created unless all relevant information to the article's scope can be placed there. We can have articles with scopes that include other articles, like how Galaxy class decks could be part of Galaxy class, but creating an article for Enterprise-2 means duplicating all the parts of this article that apply, which is everything from "Broken Bow" to "E²", and all the relevant info after that too. That's why this won't work as suggested, because the scope of that article includes bits I know you don't want to include. - Archduk3 22:12, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never thought of it in those terms... that, like the AR articles, an "Enterprise-2" article would have to include a lot of info before the timeline change. Realizing it that way clears it up for me why the split suggestion would not be a good idea. So, thanks for explaining. :) --Defiant (talk) 22:27, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

You could have the pre-split section say "see (link to the sections of EnterpriseNX that predate the split)" and the rest detail only what happened to E2.--LauraCC (talk) 14:57, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Number of docking ports

How many docking ports are there? At least three, according to "Shockwave, Part II"; yet in "Future Tense" Reed talks of both of them--Archer4real (talk) 08:58, August 8, 2016 (UTC)


Many pages, including our POTD for 16 April, list that date as launchdate of Enterprise. Howver the log entry of Archer made on April 16th takes place sometime into the episode, after Rigel X and Klaang's abduction and after trailing the Suliban for ten hours, so the exact date very probably wasn't the 16th. Kennelly (talk) 14:28, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

Twilight Timeline

I really should have done this before reverting the change, but the Parasites in that episode didn't change history and create a new timeline, Phlox erasing them from history changed the timeline creating a new one. From the perspective of us, the viewers yes it "restored" it to what we know as the 'real' timeline, but from the perspective of the universe, it is a new timeline, a timeline where Archer was never infected and leads to the rest of the TV series --Tuskin38 (talk) 12:39, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

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