Cover & Details For Haynes USS Enterprise Manual + Details On ‘Typhon Pact’ Book Series | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Cover & Details For Haynes USS Enterprise Manual + Details On ‘Typhon Pact’ Book Series April 24, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Books,DS9,ENT,TNG,TOS , trackback

Today we have a couple of updates for Star Trek books for this Fall. First up is the cover and details on the Haynes Guide Manual for the USS Enterprises. In addition there are new details on the first three Typhon Pact novels. Check it all out below.

 

Haynes USS Enterprise Manual

The newly released Haynes company catalog for the rest of the year has the U.S.S. “Enterprise” Manual listed for September. It will be a hard cover of 176 pages with 200 color illustrations and a suggested price of £19.99. (no listing for the US price yet). The catalog also had a cover (may not be final) and some details. 


Cover for Haynes USS Enterprise Manual

And here are the details:

U.S.S. Enterprise Manual
By Ben Robinson & Marcus Riley, Technical Consultant Michael Okuda

This fascinating Haynes Manual features cutaway drawings, technical illustrations and photographs along with comprehensive background information and specifications on the technology used on board the U.S.S. Enterprise, in all its various incarnations.

Seasoned Star Trek writers lift the lid on the most iconic spaceship of all time, while accuracy and authority are guaranteed by Technical Consultant Michael Okuda.

This is one book no Star Trek fan should be without.

Key Content

  • NX-01 (Star Trek Enterprise TV series).
  • NCC-1701 (Original TV series plus Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock, in which it was destroyed. A reinterpreted version of this Enterprise featured in the 2009 film).
  • NCC-1701-A (The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country).
  • NCC-1701-B and 1701-C (featured briefly in Generations and in Star Trek: The Next Generation episode ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’).
  • NCC-1701-D (Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series and Generations).
  • NCC-1701-E (First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis).

U.S.S. “Enterprise” Manual is available for pre-order at Amazon.co.uk (no listing at Amazon.com yet).

Typhon Pact Book Details

David Stern’s Pike-era novel be "Star Trek: The Children of Kings" has just been released, and now the world of Star Trek books goes into a period of reprints and SCE e-book compilations until the Fall with the beginning of the 24th century Typhon Pact series. Each book focuses on a different ship/crew (Enterprise E, Aventine, DS9 and Titan). Blurbs for the fist three books have been released by Simon & Schuster from their online catalog. Check them out below, but note that sales catalog text is not the same as the book jacket blurbs. All three are available for pre-order at Amazon.

Star Trek: Typhon Pact: Zero Sum Game [10.26/10]
David Mack, Author

A spy for the Typhon Pact—a new political rival of the Federation—steals the plans for Starfleet’s newest technological advance: the slipstream drive. To stop the Typhon Pact from unlocking its secrets, Starfleet Intelligence recruits a pair of genetically enhanced agents: Dr. Julian Bashir and Sarina Douglas­—for whom Bashir has long harbored passionate feelings. The two must infiltrate a world controlled by the mysterious species known as the Breen, find the hidden slipstream project, and destroy it. Meanwhile, light-years away, Captain Ezri Dax and her crew on the U.S.S. Aventine play a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse with a Typhon Pact fleet that stands between them and the safe retrieval of Bashir and Douglas from hostile territory.

Star Trek: Typhon Pact: Seize the Fire [11/0810]
Michael A. Martin, Author

Shortly after making the stunning revelation that it has joined with Federation’s newest adversary—a coalition of galactic powers known as the Typhon Pact—the Gorn Hegemony suffers an ecological disaster. Fortunately, the Gorn had already been investigating traces of an ancient but powerful “quick terraforming” technology left behind by a long-vanished race — a dead civilization that may be responsible for habitability of many of the worlds on the Gorn frontier and beyond. When the U.S.S. Titan begins pursuing this potent technology as well, in the hopes of using it to heal the many grievous wounds sustained by the Federation, it is unclear how dangerous such planet-altering technology can be, even when used with the best of intentions….

Star Trek: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts of Empire [12/06/10]
David R. George III, Author

Still on Romulus in pursuit of his goal of reunifying the Vulcans and Romulans, Spock finds himself in the middle of a massive power struggle. In the wake of the assassination of the Praetor and the Senate, the Romulans have cleaved in two. While Empress Donatra has led her nascent Imperial Romulan State to establish relations with the Federation, Praetor Tal’aura has guided the original Romulan Star Empire toward joining the newly formed Typhon Pact. But numerous factions within the two Romulan nations vie for power and undivided leadership, and Machiavellian plots unfold as forces within and without the empires conduct high-stakes political maneuvers.

Meanwhile, four years after Benjamin Sisko returned from the Celestial Temple, circumstances have changed, his hopes for a peaceful life on Bajor with his wife and daughter beginning to slip away. After temporarily rejoining Starfleet for an all-hands-on-deck battle against the Borg, he must consider an offer to have him return for a longer stint. Beset by troubling events, he seeks spiritual guidance, facing demons new and old, including difficult memories from his time in the last Federation-Tzenkethi war.

 

Comments

1. Weerd1 - April 24, 2010

I hope it’s more specific than the Haynes Manual for my Fiero.

2. That One Guy - April 24, 2010

Ah, so Sisko joined Starfleet again to face down the Borg. So THAT’S what happened to him.

These are definitely on my To-Read list.

3. Doug Skywalker - April 24, 2010

I’m just glad they are incorporating ALL versions and ships to carry the name of ‘Enterprise’. friggin’ sweet!

4. MagicDan - April 24, 2010

I have a fiero too…… it’s all ok.

5. Kempec - April 24, 2010

Ahhh…. This brings back memories of me reading from the old Haynes books for my father who couldn’t read. He had manuals for his old Triumph TR-6. I would read off the specs that he needed to know and he did the actual work. Good times. Maybe he and I can build one of the ships!!! LOL!!!

6. Weerd1 - April 24, 2010

4- She’s my baby. Occasionally my fussy oil burning baby.
5- Triumph TR-6: nice!

7. The Gorn Identity - April 24, 2010

Gotta get that Haynes book!

8. Odkin - April 24, 2010

Is Pep Boys going to carry the parts catalog? My Enterprise has a busted turn signal. :-)

9. Jonny Boy - April 24, 2010

I thought this was supposed to include the nuEnterprise. If it doesn’t I’ll be pretty disappointed. I’ll still buy it, but I was really hoping for some tech talk on the new Enterprise.

10. ryanhuyton - April 24, 2010

Looking forward to the Haynes Manual. Glad to see the NX-O1, NCC-1701-B and C get some attention.

11. CaptainDonovin - April 24, 2010

Jonny Boy – The nuEnterprise is mentioned here: •NCC-1701 (Original TV series plus Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock, in which it was destroyed. A reinterpreted version of this Enterprise featured in the 2009 film).

I am looking forward to this one as well as the Typhon Pact novels. Must read about The Sisko’s latest adventures.

12. S. John Ross - April 24, 2010

Normally I avoid the techy swag-books, but that Haynes one looks pretty cool :)

13. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - April 24, 2010

I hope they don’t give the TOS Enterprise a warp core in that book, because that would be inaccurate to TOS. Warp core tech wasn’t developed until TMP (ENT’s inaccuracies notwithstanding).

14. NuTrek - April 24, 2010

#3–except for last year’s film’s remade version…and #13…the NX-01 didnt have a Warp Core…it had a Warp Reactor like Kirk’s ship (60s Version); albeit smaller, and it was occasionally called a warp core…

15. Hat Rick - April 25, 2010

Awesome Haynes book.

16. CarlG - April 25, 2010

@13: Umm… but if it didn’t have a warp core, how did it go to warp, exactly?

That’s like wishing that the manual for your car doesn’t mention your transmission cause it offends your sense of historical inaccuracy.

17. CarlG - April 25, 2010

Will Mr. Okuda do any work on the sections on the 2009 Enterprise, I wonder? I hope so, he’s my graphic design hero.

18. Hat Rick - April 25, 2010

Possible advertisement for the Haynes manual:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LQtZsmCAqAs/S9B-QxCaCJI/AAAAAAAAC7I/EDh9FTk-nNo/s1600/Haynes+Enterprise.jpg

19. Hat Rick - April 25, 2010

Given an arbitrary length of time, an actual working 1:1 model of the Enterprise can be built regardless of whether warp technology is actually invented. Such a ship could include all the accoutrements of the Enterprise, except for interstellar flight.

It could be powered by some future technology that is actually possible in the real universe.

For example, there is mention of fusion reactors in use in the Trek universe. Such reactors are theoretically possible under known laws of physics.

In a few centuries, some large company or other organization with deep pockets could decide to build a version of the Enterprise as an actual working spaceship using the technology we have available then, even if only for use as an attraction as part of a theme park-type operation.

20. Syd Hughes - April 25, 2010

#13: The pre-refit Constitution had a horizontal warp core, like the NXs, but naturally in the secondary hull. (How else could it get to warp?)

http://drexfiles.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/tos_cutaway_drexler_2.jpg

The Constitution Class cutaway used on-screen (and thus the only canon Connie schematics) for ENT “In a Mirror, Darkly.”

21. Buzz Cagney - April 25, 2010

Damn I’ve been waiting for Haynes to do this. The Heisenberg Compensator in my ship’s transporter has been on the blink. It only does the compensating thing when the windscreen wipers are on. It can be a bit embarrassing I can tell you.
I’ve been down to the Haynes Motor Museum in Somerset here in the UK, where they display many vehicles that they’ve dismantled in the course of compiling the models manual. I can’t wait to see the 1701 join the Museum’s fleet!

22. shadow - April 25, 2010

Is the Typhon Pact before or after the events of Destiny? Because I’m confused on what Sisko is doing…

23. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

It looks like the bullshit that got the STXI novels cancelled has also gotten the alt-1701 cut from the Haynes manual.

If I want to read about the prime 1701 I’ll read Franz Joseph’s manual and look at the amazing deck-by-deck floorplans he made.

If I want to read about the refit 1701, I’ll read Mr Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise.

If I want to read about the -D I’ll read the TNG manual.

I want to read about the 725 meter monster Enterprise from the new movie with a whole freakin’ beer brewery for an engine room, six warp cores, pulse phasers designed to defeat 24th century Romulan missiles, a feet of shuttles in a gigantic hangar and the shiniest bridge in the universe.

I loved that movie and I love that ship.

But what will it get? A microscopic mention at best. Technical info? None.

I’m giving the Haynes book a miss.

The Typhon Pact novels will be great!

(and #22: The novels are set in 2382, a year after Destiny)

24. RK - April 25, 2010

A must buy!!! Hope they will translate in German since Tech Babble is quite hard to comprehend for me in English…ANYWAY its allready on my wish list

25. Mark Lynch - April 25, 2010

ROTL @ 21

This would seem to be one of those rare times when being a Star Trek fan in the UK is of a benefit. I am going to be all over this book.

I must try very hard not to get oil stains on the pages though…. Anyone who has “really” used a Haynes manual will know what I mean!

26. RTC - April 25, 2010

Umm… are people somehow failing to read the summary that indeed mentions the JJ Enterprise will be included in the Haynes book?

I for one hope it puts to rest the silliness that the vessel is half a mile long….

27. Mark Lynch - April 25, 2010

@26 According to the Blu-Ray commentary on ST: 2009 I believe it was mentioned the Enterprise ended up over 720 metres long. However I think this ended up that way due to the stupid shuttle bay sequence and the ship being scaled up to accommodate the width needed to fit all those shuttles.

My understanding is that it was going to be around 365 metres long, which I think puts it somewhat longer than the TMP Enterprise.

However, for the definitive take on ship size and comparison, you could do worse than try here > http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size

28. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

The new Enterprise is 725 meters long. Stuff like the shuttlebay (which wasn’t a mistake and wasn’t stupid, Mark Lynch. Best looking shuttlebay ever, actually), the brewery, the bridge deck (there’s a whole deck behind it now) wouldn’t fit in a smaller ship. The bridge window wouldn’t fit. When Kirk’s pod is launched to Delta Vega you can see tiny people at the huge viewscreen-sized windows.

Most of these points are glossed-over or totally ignored in that rubbish and bias EAS article which would have you think every shot in the film bar the shot of the ship under construction (in which the visible people wouldn’t even fit in the exosed decks) is a VFX error. Denial on an epic and bewildering scale.

Upscaling the ship wasn’t a mistake, it was a choice they made.

Please stop crying over your size-comparison charts, people.

29. Yojimbo - April 25, 2010

The Typhon Pact books look awesome! Looking forward to a review of Stern’s new novel as well.

30. philpot - April 25, 2010

£20!!

fwok that!

i’ll wait a while and pick it up for about a fiver

31. ety3 - April 25, 2010

#26 – The description ofhandedly mentions that the JJ Enterprise was a reinterpreted version of the movie refit Enterprise. It doesn’t say that there is a section dedicated to the alt-Enterprise.

Now, that’s not to say it’s not in there, but I’m not encouraged by the meager descriptions here. I want something more explicit.

32. Captain Rickover - April 25, 2010

I’ve allready ordered the Haynes-Guide. That’s a book I was long waiting for – more than ten years by now!

# KingDaniel
What happens with the new movie-Enterprise is what happend, if you don’t invest much attention to your technological aspects or worse – the ship. Ryan Chruch designed a 360 meters ship (so he himself said in his blog). ILM just boosted it up to 720 meters (for what reasons ever), but keeped the 360 meters design, because the producers liked it. The outcome was a bit chaotic – to use friendly words. EAS is perfectly right on that matter!

I’m glad the Haynes-Enterprise-guide left the new Enterprise out – or they have to left it out, because Bad Robot and Paramount stopped every other movie-based book.

33. Holger - April 25, 2010

The Haynes guide is a must-have for me.

34. kmart - April 25, 2010

28,

Sad to see you here too, you’re one of the smaller reasons i gave up posting on trekbbs. Geez, even some of the artists and vfx guys who worked on the film acknowledged at various points that the scale changed drastically DURING production, so your making excuses and denying the reality that filmmakers screw up (and/or don’t know or care what they’re doing at certain points) is just ever-more pathetic.

Next you’ll probably be ‘explaining’ that earlier scales of the Abrams turkey (ship, not movie, though that sucks worse than the redesign) were just fakeouts designed to mess with the minds of viewers.

As for ‘best looking shuttle bay ever’ … compared to what, the series version of LiS with its LEM knockoff tucked away in a mysterious lower deck?. The Abrams thing looked like the ‘design’ for the swing set we had in the backyard as a kid, a lot of colored angled metal, but in this instance without function and utterly lacking in style.

It’s not even the total disconnect between the various parts of the ship that bother so much (though in another film that’d be enough in itself to dismiss the whole effort) … but each of these areas is such a total failure in terms of relating to TOS or TREK, let alone the fact that bright spotlights shining in your eyes on the bridge makes it impossible to do work. I don’t think this part of the design will ever become dated, though; I mean, who the hell would want to ride/rip off this sillyass look?

Still kills me that more intelligent and IINFORMED conversation about TREK can be found on Bond sites than Trek ones.

35. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

32: The article on EAS is, as I said, misleading and bias, and has sadly ruined EAS’ credibility as a reference site for Trek info. If they’ll deliberatly ignore or gloss over stuff about the lead ship in the most successful Trek film ever, how can you trust anything written there? It’s become Trek though the eyes and mind of the writer, not Trek as it actually is on-screen.

Bad Robot and ILM are well within their rights to make the ship as big or small as they want to. There is nothing in canon to say larger ships couldn’t have predated the TOS Enterprise, or that the TOS ship was the biggest they could build.

Yes the ship was scaled-up. It was done for a logical reason: so that the innards would fit inside.

36. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

28: Me personally? Care to fill me in on what I said that offended you so much?

I’m sorry you don’t like what the Enterprise looks like, or how big it is, or what the film was like. But that’s personal opinion and everyone’s entitled to their own, right?

I’m aware the size of the ship changed. But the larger one makes the most sense to me, because the innards fit, wheras they don’t on the smaller one.

I admit I get wound up when I see something like the hangar bay on the last film and then read “that doesn’t count, they got it wrong” or similar. Who doesn’t get annoyed reading someone trashing something they like?

37. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

Oops, I meant #34 kmart.

38. Hat Rick - April 25, 2010

I’m totally down with a larger nuEnterprise. It’s supposed to be an alternate universe, after all. The fact that the nuEnterprise is much larger than in the Prime Universe is consistent with that idea.

39. Ashley - April 25, 2010

I am soooo looking forward to that manual! :D

40. Weerd1 - April 25, 2010

@20- Wow, you know in that cutaway the shuttlebay on the TOS Enterprise looks to be about the size we see in the new movie- just add the racks.

41. MorbidGorn - April 25, 2010

@22

yes the Typhon Pact series takes place AFTER Destiny. The last novel that has Sisko in it was the brilliant, Soul Key. Great, great book.

I cant wait for these novels to come out. I am so looking forward to them.

42. Imrahil - April 25, 2010

I don’t think the JJverse enterprise will be in this. They’re just mentioning it to grab some attention.

Which I’m fine with. That ship is fugly. :)

I’d want to see this before I thought about buying.

43. philpot - April 25, 2010

so is it a fact that the nuENT is alot bigger than the previous ones (including the ENT D)?

its odd to think pouty baby nuKirk commands a much larger Enterprise than ShatKirk or PIcard

just odd…and ….wrong

44. NCC-75010 - April 25, 2010

King Daniel…..You are a DOLT!!!! How in the hell can you judge this publication before it has even made it into stores. Guess you can see the future from mammies basement, just cool off before you soil your p.j.s. DAMN!!

45. philpot - April 25, 2010

oh and if this dosnt include any stuff on 2009 Trek then theres very little point in picking it up as someone has already mentioned – its all been done before

46. jas_montreal - April 25, 2010

I’m sooo getting that Hayness tech manual ! Gosh thats soo cool.

47. VOODOO - April 25, 2010

I could never understand the appeal of a technical manual to an imaginary space ship… WHO CARES? It’s a cool looking ship that Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock drive around the universe. That’s all you need to know.

This is the type of stuff that gives the general public the idea that Star Trek is for nerds… What ST needs is more of Zoe Saldna taking her shirt off on camera and Kirk’s green lady girlfriend in her bikini and less technical manuals for make believe space ships that are designed for people who live in their parents basements : )

P.S. I’m only kidding…well kind of

48. Hat Rick - April 25, 2010

Yeah, the nuEnterprise is pretty much for sure a helluva lot bigger than the Classic Enterprise. And so what?

Look, the Classic Enterprise is still there — in its own universe. And probably, if the gods are willing, humanity will build a version of it in a few centuries hence.

The nuEnterprise is bigger, but it’s in a universe somewhere/somewhen next door. In a universe where Vulcan no longer exists.

Besides, it’s all fiction anyway. Sorta.

The reality of it is that we need to support our current, real-life space program. I’ve written about it in my blog, and here’s some cool stuff about how Constellation might still live.

We need to support Constellation in order for anything even vaguely Trekkian to continue to live.

In 1969, I watched man launch Apollo 11 to the Moon. There’s even a PHOTOGRAPH of me watching the launch on television, for God’s sake.

I never thought that that would be the last time we’d see America shoot the Moon.

I still don’t.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers, to coin a phrase.

Get off your duff. Do something. Help NASA achieve our joint destiny in space.

It’s what Spock would do.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2928166/obamaspace_is_dead_long_live_constellation.html?cat=15

49. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

NCC-75010:
If the Haynes manual was going to feature the current Enterprise in detail it would be the one shown in all the advertising, and get more than “this ship was reimagined for last year’s movie” after the 1701 entry.

I would like to be proven wrong! The stuff I’ve seen does look very nice, but as I said before, it’s already been done.

And call me a dolt? Say I live in “mammies basement”? You’ve got a registry number for a name!

50. Hat Rick - April 25, 2010

Technically, Apollo 17 was the last manned launch to the Moon.

As corrected.

51. Captain Conrad - April 25, 2010

LOL!!!!!!!!!! That just made my day!!!

52. I am not Herbert - April 25, 2010

EXCELLENT!!! =D

This IS a pleasant surprise! I thought the Haynes Manual was going to show the red matter Enterprise, but now it’s just a footnote! GOOD!

I’m going to pre-order mine now! =D

The red matter Enterprise looks not *TOO* bad from the outside…
…but the inside, and the scale inconsistencies are a disaster!
VERY glad it’s left out! =D

Also glad they used a very qualified Technical Consultant on this!

53. guest - April 25, 2010

The basis for size of the E, and everything else for that matter, in the new movie is a shift in thinking from the story being written to fit the tools vs the tools being ‘rebuilt’ to fit the story/vision. Visually, I’ll take the older refit E-A anyday over any of the other versions. Size wise, although I’d never actually considered it until this debate came about, I couldn’t imagine a spaceship of any capability depicted in Star Trek being as small as 1200 or so feet long. I always imagined them as much bigger.

54. CmdrR - April 25, 2010

So, where’s brewgeneering?

55. RTC - April 25, 2010

To clarify: I don’t have a problem with a larger Enterprise. But, in my humble opinion, 725 meters does not mesh with any of the visual evidence in the film–to my mind, not even the shuttlebay sequence, and not even the brewery/engineering. The shuttles would have to be the size of a couple of houses. The windows would themselves be house-sized, including the one on the bridge. And it would have been nearly impossible to see people working on the ship at the distance Kirk had to be in the motorcycle scene to take in the entire length of the ship onscreen.

Didn’t intend to spark a debate, just sharing my perspective. In the end, either way matters little.

56. Mr.Scotty - April 25, 2010

I think NASA is a scam, I think we have a secret space program thats far in advance of anything the public see’s or knows about, and it aint NASA who’s running it either so they are obviously clueless.

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity….. anything you can imagine we already know how to do.”
Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works

57. Imrahil - April 25, 2010

Yeah, how’s that tinfoil hat?

58. Mr.Scotty - April 25, 2010

#57: ?? Look it up yourself, you think the guy who developed the SR71 R F117 stealth fighter is a wacko???

Talk about delusional. Hows that media propaganda doing for ya?

59. I am not Herbert - April 25, 2010

#56: AGREED.

60. Mr.Scotty - April 25, 2010

The guys obviously a WACKO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rich

“Benjamin Robert Rich (June 18, 1925 – January 5, 1995) was the second director of Lockheed’s Skunk Works from 1975 to 1991, succeeding its founder, Kelly Johnson. Regarded as the “father of stealth,”[1] Ben Rich was responsible for leading the development of the F-117, the first production stealth aircraft. He also worked on the F-104, U-2, SR-71, A-12, and F-22 among others, many of which are still classified.”

Moron..

61. richpit - April 25, 2010

Can i order the Hayes manual from the UK Amazon if i live in the US?

62. I am not Herbert - April 25, 2010

Here’s the link for the US:

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-S-Enterprise-Manual-Ben-Robinson/dp/1844259412/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272212746&sr=8-3

63. Lord garth, Formerly of Izar - April 25, 2010

Wow

Are there still some dudes (apparently eating the peeling paint from their sanitarium walls and doing far too much paint fume sniffing) in here actually still trying to dispute the new Galactica-prise’s 720 M + size?

1. Why?

2. Stop eating leaded paint chips and don’t sniff paint fumes anymore and take your meds from the nice nursey

3. It’s official, get over it. I would think Original Trek fans would be happy that Kirk and Spock have the biggest baddest ass ship. I could see where next genie fans might be a bit sad but you dudes still have the biggest kindergarten in the fleet so chill (well until Picard rammed it to smithereens in Nemisis (without ordering an evacuation?)

I’m buying this puppy. I always loved the tech guides, especially Mr. Scott’s guide

64. Scott B. here. - April 25, 2010

To anyone knowledgeable about TOS Enterprise, I have a question: how do the various attempts to show interior plans of the Enterprise compare? I’m thinking of Franz Joseph’s blueprints, the Doug Drexler version at the link in #20 above, the cutaway model that was released in the 90s by AMT/Ertl, the SciPubTech cutaway poster … are there others? Is one considered definitive? Which of these does it look like the Haynes book is going to adhere to, or does it look like a new interpretation?

Thanks!
Scott B. out.

65. philpot - April 25, 2010

is there a size chart showing the various ENTs? (incl the nuENT)

66. I am not Herbert - April 25, 2010

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise/monsterprise.jpg

67. Holger - April 25, 2010

The only “logical” reason I know of for this overblown supersize E is that JJ Abrams is a Star Wars fan, not a Star Trek fan, and so he wanted huge ships, like in Star Wars. Someone has called it a bad case of Starship envy in this forum :-D

68. philpot - April 25, 2010

that didnt work:

maybe these?
http://geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2009/05/2009-05-16-space_craft_size_comparison.jpg
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/new-enterprise-size-comparison-chart-2.jpg

69. I am not Herbert - April 25, 2010

There is no logical reason. It was a lazy F/U.

70. Rocket Scientist - April 25, 2010

I’ve got to have this! Dear God, I’VE GOT TO HAVE THIS!!

71. NuTrek - April 25, 2010

#28–LOL…several VFX and other shots in the film WERE errors, such as flipping the E upside down at Vulcan right before Pike launched the shuttle…that shot that panned out the bridge window and flipped upside down, making it appear that the bridge was on the lower half of the saucer when every other shot of the film proves otherwise…

#23–the ship doesn’t have 6 warp cores…someone screwed up the dialogue and mis-referenced elements of the warp system… what was ejected from the E at the black hole was actually the equivalent of the E’s batteries… meaning the actual chambers containing the dilithium (the equivalent of the center part of the 24th century warp cores)…not the actual complete core containing the matter-antimatter storage tanks, the reaction chamber, the coolant tanks, etc…if they had done so, they’d have had to eject something much much bigger…. something so large it wouldve looked like the E was taking a huge dump into the black hole…LOL

72. Rocket Scientist - April 25, 2010

The 2009 E grew on me. It really did. Unlike many, I never disliked it. Nowadays I find the exterior design to be very appealing. The interiors? Not so much.

As far as size goes, I *PREFER* it to be comparable to the original and refit. Whether or not that is the case, well…it is what it is. Its existence in an alternate timeline will have to suffice as the reason.

73. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

70: What are you talking about? Try watching the film – the camera flips over quite obviously as the camera pulls away from the bridge window. At no point is the bridge at the bottom of the saucer. The *camera* turns upside down. The idea is that there is no “up” in space, thus the ship appears at strange angles sometimes. What gives you the impression this was a mistake?

And those things shooting out of the ship at the end? Watch TMP. Six intermix chambers, that make up the warp core.

74. Polly - April 25, 2010

looks cool

75. KingDaniel - April 25, 2010

#64 Scott B: Franz Joseph’s old 70’s blueprints are based on somewhat outdated premises: the engine room is at the back of the saucer section, and there is no warp core (the nacelles were self-contained) being the biggest ones. Since every other Trek has had a warp core of some type the later blueprints included a warp core and moved the engine room to deck 19, behind the hangar deck. Pretty much everything else is slightly different on later digrams and blueprints too, although the essentials remain roughly the same.

FJ’s blueprints were used as background graphics in the early Trek movies, and Drexler’s was used in the Enterprise episode “In a Mirror, Darkly”.

I think the Haynez blueprints are based on Drexler’s diagram.

76. Anthony Pascale - April 25, 2010

I am still waiting for final confirmation from CBS, but it appears that the new movie Enterprise will not be featured in the Haynes Manual.

77. Scott B. here. - April 25, 2010

Re: #75 – Thanks for the run-down, King. I had noticed the different location of engineering between FJ’s blueprints and the Drexler plan — that’s the thing that had me wondering how many different versions were out there. :-) Your warp core explanation makes sense for the move; I never understood why FJ put engineering in the saucer, as it was implied and said in early episodes that engineering was in the bowels of the ship — in the engineering hull.

I’m looking forward to getting the Haynes book. Wish I could flip through one before purchasing it though.

Scott B. out.

78. philpot - April 25, 2010

76 – holy shit! no way!

*stunned*

79. MikeTen - April 25, 2010

#48 HatRick, Most of Constellation was fine but Ares 1 was a incredible waste of money. It was years behind schedule and over budget by Billions of dollars and was 30+ year old solid rocket technology.
The people who support Constellation and bash Obama’s plan to use private launchers forget that NASA does not build launchers and space hardware, NASA puts out bids and private industry builds the vehicles. Private companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin who are NASA’s major contractors are developing versions of Orion to launch on Atlas V vehicles and intend to bid on providing these vehicles to transport astronauts to Low Earth Orbit. Check out Aviationweek.com for the facts.

As for the Haynes Manual, it would have been nice to see what the layout and scale is of the JJprise. I guess we will have to wait to see if something comes out for the next movie.

80. DJT - April 25, 2010

Oh, baby!

81. Jonny Boy - April 25, 2010

#76 – Anthony, you just put a sad face on my… face. Having the schematics for the other Enterprises IS cool, but they aren’t exactly brand spanking new. I was hoping to get our first real look at the Trek-Tech of the nuEnterprise. That was the big draw for me, and I was under the impression that that was the primary objective of this book. Really disappointing in CBS and Paramount.

82. Kirk's Revenge - April 25, 2010

But then again, are any of us here really surprised in CBS/Paramount mishandling of this book? It’s just another missed opportunity from the studio where missed opportunities are the norm (i.e. new Trek TV show in the wake of Trek ’09’s success, anybody?).

83. ryanhuyton - April 25, 2010

I’m guessing the reason the new Enterprise isn’t featured is because CBS/Paramount doesn’t want to spoil anything that J.J Abrams has in mind in regards to parts of the ship we haven’t seen yet. Since it has only been seen in one movie so far, it doesn’t make sense to start detailing the Enterprise before J.J and crew has a chance to come up with their own ideas of what is inside the ship. Plus, we need some surprises for the sequel. :-)

84. richpit - April 25, 2010

I Am Herbert – Thanks for the link!

85. THX-1138 - April 25, 2010

#72

I’m with you.

I think that the NuPrise isn’t in the Haynes book because nobody really wants to confirm or deny the size of the ship for some reason. Like it or not, there is a debate among the fans that are into the ships. And even though there have been some somewhat cursory statements from ILM that the NuPrise is 1/2 mile long I just get the vibe that they themselves aren’t all that comfortable with the huge jump in size from TOS to NuTrek. But they had their marching orders and they ran with them.

After about a year I have come to my own conclusion that since I identify so strongly with the universe established with TOS (sort of subconsiously accepting it as the fictional future of my universe) I have a hard time identifying with the characters and events in NuTrek. Not that it’s a bad movie per se, but that I don’t really care whether anyone lives or dies in it. Vulcan is gone in NuTrek but it lives on in my made up universe. Amanda Grayson is dead in NuTrek but in the universe I identify with she lived a long life with Sarek. I’ll go see the subsequent films but I won’t care about the characters. The ship is nifty looking but to me it’s an anomoly. In my fantasy of Trek the first Kirk E is 900-1,000 feet long.

86. Will_H - April 25, 2010

I’m glad they’re not putting the new Enterprise in honestly. Why? Well because it seems like those that designed it never really thought beyond its outside appearance. They gave it an official size, yes, but they never had that size match anything really. I hope they get that right in the next movie, though. I’ll at least give the old Trek people this, for the most part their Enterprises matched up in size and such. We knew how big the TMP Enterprise was, they made that clear with a nice fly by, and the size of the D was made pretty clear to. As for the book, well if I have the money when it comes out I’ll probably buy it because the nerd in me can’t resist cutaways.

87. I am not Herbert - April 25, 2010

The reason (I surmise) that Edsel-prise is not in the new book, is that the inside was never “designed”, which also gave rise to the eventual need to scale it up 2X. It must have been just an external surface model, with not much thought given at the time for the internal workings (shuttle bay / warp pylon problems, etc…)

As for the size (scaling) issue: sure, go ahead and scale it up to get a good picture, but don’t make it official just because the shuttle bay wouldn’t fit. I can overlook that a lot easier than I can the ship being TWICE as big as it should be!

88. ety3 - April 26, 2010

I’m disappointed that JJ’s Enterprise won’t be in there.

As for those smelling conspiracy on that point, don’t bother. I’m sure it’s probably related to Pocket’s shelving of alt-verse novels … some sort of directive from Bad Robot or licensing issue.

89. Weerd1 - April 26, 2010

OK- I am not smelling conspiracy theory, but let me again rail about how poorly this film is STILL being marketed. If you didn’t like the film, fine, there’s 43 years worth of other Trek goodness out there for you. I loved the new movie, I want product, I can’t get it. I got a novelization which hit stores two weeks AFTER the movie came out. I have some comics. I have an art book which hit stores five months AFTER the movie came out. I have one of the most poorly produced toylines in recent history. I have a canceled series of books. I had to special order the Hot Wheels JJPrise- which had been delayed about eight months, and wasn’t nearly the quality of the other ships in that set. Now, after waiting nearly a year since the announcement of the Haynes guide, it’s not about the JJPrise at all. Why has it been so difficult for Paramount, CBS, JJ, Chris Pine’s agent, John Locke, or anyone else who might ever have been near the production of this film or something like it to get something out there for me to waste money on? Daddy needs his fix, and these marketing gurus are screwing it up for me!

90. Gary - April 26, 2010

WHAT? No Abramsprise in the Haynes Manual?! THERE IS A GOD!!!

91. philpot - April 26, 2010

88/89 – i was really disappointed the novels got canx. was looking foward to reading Hazard of Concealing…it had all the signs of being a really great Trek novel.

and this is coming from someone that normally dosnt bother reading the novels – just the recommended ones like First Adventure, Prime Directive, To Regin in Hell etc

damn it

92. Jorg Sacul - April 26, 2010

I want the Chilton’s manual version. Like in the one for my 1978 Chevy Nova, when removing the fender to get to the fan blower motor, “fabricate a tool using a block of wood…”. I’d swear that manual was written by a ancestor of Scotty.

“When servicing the warp core flow when traveling at runaway speeds of Warp 14 or above, use magnetic probe to manually (bare-armed) reach into the plasma stream and disrupt the anti-matter delivery. However, make sure you’re correctly polarized, or else you’ll vaporize the ship in a nova-sized fireball. This will result in loss of vessel, all hands, and a lengthy paperwork session.”

93. Gary - April 26, 2010

I posted an advanced look at the cover awhile back, Here is the original link I posted.

http://www.licensing.biz/company-profiles/133/Haynes

94. Mark Lynch - April 26, 2010

@28
IMO It was a stupid decision to scale up the ship just to accommodate a shuttle bay sequence that lasted a few scant seconds. If you take the upscale at face value, then there are only windows on every other deck and they are about 2 metres or more higher. It’s just not how it should be.

If JJ Abrams cared about any sort of accuracy he would have had his team make changes that reflected, properly, the ‘new’ size of the vessel. As I said, it is my opinion, nothing more.

But when one takes into account the care that was taken with fitting what was inside to the overall scale of the Enterprise for ST:TMP, the difference is obvious. JJ and his team just cared about the ‘wow’ factor, nothing more. And I think that is a bit sad.

But if you liked the JJ’Prise, more power to you. I don’t.

95. Alex Rosenzweig - April 26, 2010

#77 – “I never understood why FJ put engineering in the saucer, as it was implied and said in early episodes that engineering was in the bowels of the ship — in the engineering hull.”

Actually, the dialogue in the show was vague enough that different episodes suggested different locations for Engineering, depending on the needs of the story. Franz Joseph put it in the primary hull, I’m fairly sure, because that was where The Making of Star Trek (Whitfield & Roddenberry, 1968) said it was, and FJ followed that book’s descriptions of the Enterprise’s interior very closely.

In later years, people did rethink some of the early assumptions of TOS, and the idea of a large reactor system in the secondary hull took hold, but in 1975, FJ was being very true to the prevailing thinking about the ship at the time.

96. Holger - April 26, 2010

89 Weerd1: I’ve seen the big Playmates model toy of the new E in stores. It looked quite good to me (I mean the model, not the spaceship design ;-) Didn’t you like it?

97. Nomad - April 26, 2010

OK – who’s going to be first to do a Photoshop mockup of Scotty in the Jeffries tube, screwdriver in one hand and this book in the other? :-)

98. Holger - April 26, 2010

97: This could be a nice easter egg in Phase II.

99. Jorg Sacul - April 26, 2010

@98 Wrong quantum universe. The Prime Universe book would be sci-fi to the JJVerse. Still, the title appearing on a monitor would be humorous. :-)

100. The Dwayne - April 26, 2010

I can only image how much it will cost here in Canada !

101. KingDaniel - April 26, 2010

Can anyone else see Simon Pegg’s Scotty, in the middle of the brewery engine room, tasked with repairing the ship at a time of crisis, frantically flipping though the Haynes manual as the ship explodes all around him going “This ship’s not bloody in here!”

102. Tough Little Ship - April 26, 2010

The Typhon Pact is going to be awesome, especially since the DS9 characters FINALLY get brought back to the forefront of Star Trek literature.

103. Weerd1 - April 26, 2010

@96- Not much- nowhere near the quality even of stuff they put out in the 90s, much less any of the DST stuff. Since most stores were selling it new between $30 and $35, it cost nearly as much as the DST stuff too. I got one on clearance later, and was amazed at how small it was compared to the earlier stuff as well… for that price especially. Lots of very visible screw holes. I understand it’s supposed to be a toy for kids and not a collectible, but look at the quality Hasbro has put into Star Wars vehicles. With the exception of the misplaced torpedo tubes, the Target exclusive Enterprise Blu-Ray case was better… and came with the movie… for less money.

Don’t get me started on the paint jobs on the figures. Oddly, some of their head sculpts were dead on (McCoy in particular) while I couldn’t tell you Kirk and Pike were supposed to be Chris Pine and Bruce Greenwood.

PLAYMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATES!!!!!

104. Magic_Al - April 26, 2010

It’s been a LONG time since I bought a book like this. Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise was the best, thanks to Andrew Probert’s source material. Probert famously over-designed his version of the ship with features the filmmakers would never use, but in book form they were all explored. Of course, subsequent films completely ignored the book nor even paid much attention to how new sets were supposed to fit inside the established ship exterior (where are the various windows we see in Star Trek V and VI?).

105. DJT - April 26, 2010

Must….have….book!

106. Boris - April 27, 2010

If this is an updated version of Mike Okuda’s canceled project about ships named Enterprise (which is quite likely – why not reuse the research if you’re working on a book with exactly the same description?), it should be fairly original since the planned publication was supposed to feature schematics by model researcher Gary Kerr, who was instrumental in developing accurate miniature blueprints of the 1701 for use in “Trials and Tribble-ations” and TOS-R, and also created accurate blueprints of the 1701-C and the redesigned 1701.

However, in terms of ship descriptions, I doubt it can include original and accurate information unless all of the original designers are also involved (Doug Drexler, John Eaves, Andrew Probert, Rick Sternbach), with the obvious exception of Matt Jefferies. Bill George designed the Excelsior-class, possibly along with Nilo Rodis, but I’ve never seen either of these artists make detailed comments on the design, probably because they never really worked it out in detail, so their involvement is much less likely.

107. LordEdzo - April 27, 2010

I can’t wait to get my big, grubby hands on this Haynes manual! However, although I realize that it’s titled “U.S.S. Enterprise,” I still wish that, for the sake of completism, DS9’s Defiant and VGR’s Voyager were included (as appendixes, maybe).

108. DS9 Forever - April 27, 2010

The DS9 Technical Manual covers the Defiant in pretty good detail.

109. Bernd Schneider - April 27, 2010

#28 King Daniel
I hope the what you’re writing isn’t a mistake but is a choice you made. ;)

“The article on EAS is, as I said, misleading and bias, and has sadly ruined EAS’ credibility as a reference site for Trek info.”

I won’t be sad if you stay away in the future. :P

“If they’ll [EAS] deliberatly ignore or gloss over stuff about the lead ship in the most successful Trek film ever, how can you trust anything written there?”

In other words, just because the new movie and the new ship is soooo successful, it is either heresy to criticize it or it has to be technically better than everything ever made before. This is your logic. And just because you disagree with EAS regarding this one topic, you call into question the remaining 99.9% of the site as well. As I wrote, I can do without small-minded people like you.

“Upscaling the ship wasn’t a mistake, it was a choice they made.”

I have consistently labeled any upscaling of any *finished* design as an error (without people calling me names), and the Trek09 is no different. Once you have a design, it has a definite size (especially in the age of highly detailed CGI!), and anyone who touches this fundamental property makes a mistake. In case of alien-of-the-week ships it may be still excusable, but youn don’t make the same mistake with the lead ship of an ambitious franchise reboot unless you have no idea of that franchise.

“There is nothing in canon to say larger ships couldn’t have predated the TOS Enterprise, or that the TOS ship was the biggest they could build.”

There is nothing in canon that would forbid Starfleet ships to be pink, and still you wouldn’t endorse that, would you?

“Bad Robot and ILM are well within their rights to make the ship as big or small as they want to. ”

Agreed. They have the right to make any error they want. And I have any right to criticize them for it. And you have the right to say that everything is fine in spite of everything.

“Yes the ship was scaled-up. It was done for a logical reason: so that the innards would fit inside.”

In other words: to cover up one error (insufficient communication) with another one.

110. Rocket Scientist - April 27, 2010

96. Holger

I found it priced for clearance and it, more than anything else, has turned me from merely accepting the new E to really liking it quite a bit. Yes, it’s a bit small and I don’t care for the dialogue clips. Would prefer ship sound effects. But it’s a neat toy! I’m glad I decided to buy it.

111. Steamblade - April 27, 2010

Yes! No Ugly-prise in the book, a must-have!

112. KingDaniel - April 28, 2010

Bernd Schneider: I have no problem with people disliking the artistic direction the film took. If I did I would have made a lot more angry posts on this page alone!

What annoys me is when you spend such effort analyzing the size of the ship and totally ignore some obvious evidence that indicates how big the ship is (the corridor network behind the bridge, the tiny people visible at the viewscreen-sized windows when Kirk’s pod launches to Delta Vega) – it makes a joke out of your conclusions.

If you mention them and say “I’m dismissing this” like you did with the shuttlebay, fine (annoying and IMO silly, but fine). But any analysis should always consider *all* evidence, even if it points the “wrong” way.

I think it’s fair to say that if you can’t do a proper analysis on the lead ship in a Trek film, it casts doubt on the everything else you’ve written. This would be just as true if you ignored evidence indicating the size of any ship in any version of Star Trek.

113. Trekboi - April 28, 2010

sometimes i think JJ is an idiot- instead of building sets- or redressing old ones he films in a beer factory- which is huge particuarly the scene where kirk is running away from the security guards- this did not require the embarasingly obvious real location shots & then he changes the leangth & scale of the ship to compensate for an internal beer factory?
a clostraphobic corridor would have been much better for the scene & not require redesigning the ships scale ect ect

it’d ridiculess

114. Bernd Schneider - April 28, 2010

#112 KingDaniel
Sorry for my perhaps disproportionate reaction. Yes, there are various pieces of evidence that would support or require a huge ship that I may have missed. My bad. But just as well you ignore that the ship has been designed to be 366 meters long and was evidently not changed on the outside other than squeezing in innards that just wouldn’t fit. Well, we may apply the criteria differently. I’m a technical designer myself, and I can’t accept if people who have no idea of what they are doing are changing decisive technical parameters of the almost finished product.

But there’s a contradiction that you fail to acknowledge apparently just because you happen to like the ship so much, because it is so popular and because an authority (that casts doubt on its own reputation when it doesn’t respect Trek’s legacy of starships in my firm opinion) tells you it is 725m long. You more or less admit that your judgment is based on your motivation, rather than on the facts. You love that movie, and you’re against everything and everyone that could only remotely “damage” it. It’s just the same with your misgivings about the Haynes Manual. I personally think that a manual just focusing on the Prime Universe is much more consistent and credible than if it would try hard to include the reboot.

Well, you call my approach “biased” and you may even be right about it. But you keep promoting your own idea of the movie with just the same passion, with the clear advantage that you are not running a huge website that a certain brand of fans have discovered as an easy target lately.

115. KingDaniel - April 28, 2010

Bernd Schneider:
I too apologize for overly harsh and inflammatory language.

When it comes to Star Trek’s changing premises I’m very forgiving. I don’t see a strict canon of right and wrong, I see it more like a mythology which can be reinterpreted – and that goes for the technology as well as the stories (that said I do enjoy nitpicking!) I don’t see design features like patterns of windows being the same on the enlarged ship as on the TMP Enterprise as being any different to (for example) the TOS shuttles having warp nacelles that are smaller yet otherwise identical to those on the mothership.

Rather than “that’s wrong it conflicts with the way prior Treks did it”, my thinking’s more along the lines of “that’s different. I wonder how they’re doing it now?”

Nontheless I can see why such changes (both in the finished movie and during production) would upset a technically minded long-time fan.

116. Bernd Schneider - April 29, 2010

KingDaniel: I wish I could settle all conflicts so easily. Thanks for your understanding, and you have my blessing on your approach as well. :-)

117. Kylandor - October 16, 2010

I really need this manual, I am having a hard time keeping my ship in Orbit and hidden from Radar. The Check Chambers Coil light keeps coming on, yet the engineering panel shows it is working fine. So I guess I have a phase out in the transtator. The problem is there are 24 transtators connected to the Chambers Coil Loop.

118. Zelda Mcleroy - April 21, 2011

Hey there! This post could not be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.