Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)

37,239pages on
this wiki

Back to page

FA status Edit

FA nomination (09 June - 12 June 2004, Failed) Edit

Self-nomination. Ottens 20:43, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Suggested by Ottens (You forgot to add your name). -- Redge
  • Opposed. Still needs a lot of work. Surely there is more to be told of a ship that featured in a series for years... e.g.: what do you mean by ´red line´? -- Redge 20:25, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Opposed. It's a great start, but it still needs to be expanded. This is, after all, the most popular ship of the most popular Star Trek series ever! -- Dan Carlson 20:29, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Hmm... to be honest, you are probably right, yes. There would be probably more to tell about a ship that was featured in seven seasons of The Next Generation. Only I personally don't have that knowledge... ;-) Ottens 20:44, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • True.. the 1701-D has had the most onscreen time of any single vessel in trek history Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:53, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Oppose for now. A great deal more can be added. -- Michael Warren 22:57, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
    • I suggest we remove this entry for now or move it to the archive. -- Redge 16:20, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)

FA nomination (15 Jan - 24 Jan 2005, Success) Edit

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D): I think all information available on the ship is now included, and it makes a great article. Ottens 13:27, 15 Jan 2005 (CET)

  • Supported. Lots of good information from different contributors. -- SmokeDetector47 02:04, 2005 Jan 16 (CET)
  • Seconded. --BlueMars 18:45, Jan 17, 2005 (CET)

Tech specsEdit

Urrgh. I deleted the specs. I'm terrible sorry! :( Ottens 21:36, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Restored. -- Michael Warren 21:51, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Full acceleration time from reverse, sub-light impulse through nominal top warp speed, warp 9, was 0.03 milliseconds.'
I've removed this from the article because I don't recall it being mentioned in canon. I've also paired down some of the POV comments, and the description of a 'typical day' (the celebration of Divali is not a typical event!). -- Michael Warren 21:51, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Thank you. Ottens 21:51, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Construction chronologyEdit

In the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (on pages 15, 16, 17), the "Construction Chronology" of the Enterprise-D is described. Is it canon enough to be included? Ottens 11:45, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)

In my opinion, No. It isn't, and will never be, canon, and contains too much speculation to be considered a valid resource as described here. -- Cid Highwind 11:57, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I noticed an anonymous user added this same information. Is it now acceptable to use stuff like the Tech Manuals as sources? I haven't kept up with the discussion, and the Memory Alpha talk:Canon Policy page is ambiguous on a final decision. -- SmokeDetector47 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (CET)
Thanks for catching that - the policy hasn't changed yet. I reverted that edit. -- Cid Highwind 15:49, 2005 Jan 4 (CET)

"Tribunal" referenceEdit

Was the Enterprise mentioned in the air version of "Tribunal"? I know it's in the script, but I was under the impression that the reference was dropped from the actual episode since I've never seen it mentioned in the Encyclopedia or the web. I don't own DS9 on DVD nor do I believe I have ever seen the episode; anyone else? -- SmokeDetector47 07:30, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I've removed the following bit of text from the article. I can't find any reference to this other than in the script for the episode. Please feel free to return it if the line was actually aired.

  • "When its former Transporter Chief, Miles O'Brien, was captured by the Cardassians, the Enterprise was sent to patrol the Demilitarized Zone, as a warning to the Cardassian government. (DS9: "Tribunal") "

--SmokeDetector47 08:37, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

It was mentioned, along with the Valdemar...IIRC. I remember it quite distinctly from the first time the episode aired. --Gvsualan 08:48, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Could we put the reference back in again? Rebelstrike2005 10:59, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

As I said: "Please feel free to return it if the line was actually aired." -- SmokeDetector47 18:06, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Yes, the Enterprise is mentioned in "Tribunal" Igotbit 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"True Q" power generation estimatesEdit

"gigawatts per second" is a non-sensical unit. -<unsigned>

Perhaps so, but again, that is what was said in the episode and I think it would be best to keep it that way for reference purposes; you're welcome to add a side note about the subject. Furthermore, the unit "exowatt" seems to be somewhat esoteric for the purposes of MA. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
wasn't the line just, Gigawatts per..., with the line unfinished? it could be a unit of time (or more likely, a unit of mass, like gigawatts per kilogram, refering to the energy generated from the M/AM reaction.) -Mithril 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Gigawatt per kilogram doesn't make any sense when referring to a matter/antimatter reaction, because the energy stored in 1 kg of matter/antimatter is measured in joules, not in Watts, which is a unit of power. Also 1kg of mass is equal to about 10^17 J (E=mc²), the value mentioned here is 12.76 Billion Gigawatt, which is about 10^19 W. But of course if the line is unfinished, they could be referring to something else, like how much power they need per crewmember or per warpfactor or per engine weight or per something else... --62.178.241.245 18:56, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but the above post was made in 2006, so they probably aren't waiting for a response anymore. 31dot (talk) 19:03, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Deck 1 Observation Lounge QuestionEdit

I seem to recall that early on (through at least the fourth season), the Observation Lounge behind the bridge had the models of the previous Enterprises on the wall opposite the windows. I noticed, however, that later in the series, those same models appeared to be gone, and the walls had been changed to some kind of paneling/sectioned look (sorry I can't give a better description, but I've only caught it in a couple of re-runs). Can anybody confirm this change, and if it was the result of the lounge set having been redressed for use in Star Trek VI? --umrguy42 14:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, the models were removed by Richard James once the sets were returned to TNG use at the start of the fifth season... he also decided to keep the ribbed light panels below the windows. The models were kept in storage and returned for the flashback scenes in "All Good Things..." -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: How many times was the Enterprise-D destroyed?Edit

Has anyone else noticed that the Enterprise-D has been destroyed a large number of times, although almost every time its been because of a timeline-distortion effect. So far, I've counted 11 on-screen destructions! Here they are:

  • 1 - "Time Squared" - when the Enterprise is destroyed, and then Picard is thrown back into the past to try and stop it happening.
  • 1 - "Yesterday's Enterprise" - when the Enterprise-C is sent back through the rift, the Enterprise-D is on the verge of a core breach.
  • 1 - "Parallels" - One of the Enterprise's is destroyed when it tried to stop the shuttle flying back into the rift, to send all the alternate Enterprise's to their respective dimensions.
  • 1 - "Timescape" - the Enterprise is destroyed in a warp core breach when stopped time briefly resumes, before reversing again.
  • 4 - "Cause and Effect" - The temporal causality loop caused the Enterprise to be destroyed 4 times, before they escaped it 17 days later.
  • 3 - "All Good Things..." - The three Enterprises from Q's altered reality all worked together, but the combined effort destroyed them all.
  • 1 - Star Trek Generations - A Klingon bird of prey finally finished the ship.

I just thought it might be useful to note this information somewhere. If there are other destructions I've missed, feel free to add them! Zsingaya Talk 19:58, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The episode with the temporal causality loop is not "Time and Again", but "Cause and Effect" Igotbit 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise with Three Warp Nacelles (from Reference Desk)Edit

In a TNG episode a grey haired Riker is shown commanding an Enterprise with three warp nacelles. If memory served me correctly, that ship also bore the designation NCC-1701-E. I cannot find any references to this ship on Wikipedia or this site. TV Tome suggests that this was actually the Enterprise D, refitted and recommissioned years after it was destroyed in Generations

I am searching for: A. The TNG Episode where this new Enterprise appears. B. Any information on this new ship fits into the canon.

Thanks, Bill Deaton

Try "All Good Things...". FYI, this was in an alternate (anti-time) future... Ottens 16:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like the description of the dreadnought class ships from the old Star Fleet Tech Manual, from oh, long ago. --Baylink@en.w
in canon: This was an alternate timeline of the USS Enterprise-D in the 2390s -- since they ended up finding out about that future, it was somehow avoided. In the events since the Enterprise-D was destroyed in 2371 -- therefore that future Enterprise-D will probably never exist.
The ship was clearly labeled "NCC-1701-D" in "All Good Things...", indicating that was the same ship as the Galaxy-class Enterprise-D in TNG, refit with the new modification.
The registry "NCC-1701-E" was not used on that ship -- it was used as the number for the Sovereign-class successor to the 1701-D.
that ship did indeed seem to be a homage to Franz Joseph's Federation-class dreadnought, down to the three warp nacelle configuration, depicted in the Star Fleet Technical Manual.
also, internet texts have named this class -- Entente-class -- and indicate that other Galaxy ships might be upgraded with the extra engine. These texts are not licensed or endorsed by Paramount Pictures, they are simply fan fiction. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

DataEdit

Data is listed as a CO in section 3.o Command crew, but not in section 1.2 Commanding officers. What's the deal?--154.20.161.143 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think whomever added this information probably figured that his brief captaincy in "Gambit, Part I" and "Gambit, Part II" was official, but technically, he was only acting captain and was never the formal captain. The only time Data was officially promoted to another duty, with change of uniform, was during "Chain of Command, Part II" when Jellico had him replace Riker. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 00:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

star trek armada pc game Edit

have not been able to log on and play online, states the server is busy....is the patch down or is it overwhelmed with online users. i have never had this problem before, have been gone for six months and now this. plz reply...thx --unsigned

Memory Alpha is not Activision Tech support. They have their own webpage (google it). It is really quite useful, it has helped me, but this is not the place for questions on computer games. --OuroborosCobra 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointing something out... Edit

In "Eye of the Beholder", set in 2370, it is revealed that stardate 40987.2, when Marla E. Finn disappeared, took place eight years prior to that episode. According to its dedication plaque, the USS Enterprise-D was commissioned on stardate 40759.5, which would seem to suggest that the Enterprise was commissioned in 2362 prior to Finn's disappearance. This in turn would suggest that "Data's Day" did indeed take place in 2366, since it is set four years after the commissioning of Enterprise. Granted, stardates aren't the most trustworthy things to go by since they've been known to go backwards from one week to the next based on location, but it's still a reasonable possibility. And sure, the "eight years ago" info was only stated in Troi's vision, but I doubt her mind would associate the stardate with the wrong year. Just thought I'd point that out... --From Andoria with Love 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Acceleration Delay Edit

This was actually mentioned in the episode "The Last Outpost". When Riker and Geordi were down in Main Engineereing, Riker asked Geordi what was the acceleration delay between slow-reverse impulse and top warp speed. Geordi replies that it was .300 milliseconds - From Saiyan1701

Studio model Edit

Why was the registry changed to 1701-E on the model? I was just watching disc 6 of TNG Season 2 DVD, where Penny Juday gives a brief tour of a warehouse. She says that the model was missing for a few years, but turned up when a bar & grill that it had been lent to returned it. Wires had been screwed on top for hanging, and there was a lot of grease underneath from hanging over a grill for so long.

On a related topic, should the information on the studio model be moved to the studio models page? That's the first place I looked for it. -- StAkAr Karnak 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Crew Compliment Edit

Editing the number of the standard crew compliment from 1014 to 1012 -- Data gave the number as 1014 in "Remember Me" (TNG), but that would have included The Traveler and Dalen Quaice. --Pauley 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nonetheless, did Data mention that 1014 even included the Traveler and Quaice? - Enzo Aquarius 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the actual quote from Data? -- Renegade54 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Picard said there were 1,014, including Quaice but not the Traveler. However, in "Rascals" Riker once again gave a number of 1,014. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1,014 is also given in "Genesis". -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Then it is 1,014. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. (I'm going through the DVDs, I haven't got as far as Rascals yet. :)) --Pauley 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RegestryEdit

Is there any canon refrance to what the "D" stands for? I'm guessing Delta, but can anyone confirm that? – 7th Tactical 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The fourth letter. :) There was no canon definition for any of the ship letters. Any. -- Sulfur 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the NCC-1701A was confirmed as Alpha in either Final Frontier or Undiscovered country. – 7th Tactical 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the dockmaster was using radio speak. That's the way things things work over CBs and whatnot, and in docks, train-yards, and stuff. It allows you to differentiate letters and numbers and whatnot. Oh, and STV. -- Sulfur 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
the letters in the registry numbers are simply letters of the English alphabet. If they stood for Greek letters (alpha, beta, etc.), then the Enterprise C would be NCC-1701G for Gamma, the third letter of the Greek alphabet. Borguselinux 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
...and it was Star Trek VI. --Alan del Beccio 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about all of this, I just watched First Contact and i forgot about "there are plenty more letters left in the alphabet." Also, the Gamma 1701-C thing... sorry.– 68.173.12.180 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries, we all make a little 'oopsie' every now and then, 'besides, we're only human'. ;) - Enzo Aquarius 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old one, but the military alphabet uses all letters of the english alphabet and Starfleet is a military... they might use it for the official ships registry... – Fadm tyler 04:30, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

So does the civilian alphabet. ;) - Archduk3:talk 04:33, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Correct date of commissioning Edit

The date of commissioning is listed here as July 24 (with no citation), but the date of commissioning was recently changed from July 24 to October 1 on the 2363 page, with a citation of "Data's Day". Which is correct? -- Renegade54 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither, really. The October 1st date is an incorrect calculation of the Stardate (it's actually supposed to be October 4th), but either way it isn't canon. The July 24th date is based on the assumption that "Data's Day" took place on October 24th, 2367 (given the Festival of Lights reference), and that the Enterprise was launched 1550 days prior as stated in the episode. This is not clear in the episode, either, and should also be considered speculation and removed. (It can be added to the background, though, but I'm too tired to do that right now... so, just... off it goes.) --From Andoria with Love 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deck 8 Battle bridge Edit

I read this excerpt just a few moments ago

"Deck 8 of the ship was a non-finished multi-purpose deck. Additional work spaces were set there when needed. (TNG: "Liaisons") It also contained the officers' quarters and the battle bridge . (TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds")

Is it just me, or is it impossible that the battle bridge can be on deck 8, considering that Deck ten, which is on the saucer section, is lower than deck 8. Did I miss something, or what. Can someone pleas clarify what is going on.– Nmajmani 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

Look at this cross-section. The battle bridge is above deck ten because the battle bridge is located at the top of the separation plane between the saucer and the secondary hull. Zek 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the info. -Nmajmani 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

About the Impulse Engines... Edit

Now, for all of us who saw the aft side of the Enterprise, they saw only the main(middle) Impulse Engine was active, and if they saw a saucer separation, they might had saw that the saucer activated the two others, so the upper 2 were only used after a separation. Good.

Now at the last ENT episode, we saw all 3 engines online. Further more, I suspect that almost any CG Enterprise-D uses all 3...

Why is that? --Captain Pakundo 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No explanation has been given. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
as far as i am aware, the saucer impulse engines have only appeared to be active in the saucer sep sequence from Star Trek Generations and throughout the episode "These Are the Voyages...". Generations used the physical model for that sequence and the engines were appropriately shown illuminated red. TATV used a CG model built by Gabriel Koerner who has stated that the ship was plagued with several problems, including impulse engines that should not have been depicted "turned on". on the Art Asylum website forum, Koerner's model was attacked by the various board members. he responded:
AND YES, I AM AWARE OF THE MISSING DECAL, THE THICKNESS OF THE LIFEBOATS, THE SAUCER IMPULSE ENGINES, THE SHITTY RAMSCOOPS, THE OVER-SHININESS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT I HAVE KNOWN IS WRONG WITH THIS MODEL FOR 2 YEARS NOW [1]
...this indicates to me that it was a mistake. Deevolution 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The impulse engins are located right behind the saucer section of the ship. They are the red objects on the enterprise d.– Enterprise E 14:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We know this. Pakundo was asking why all three engines were active in "These Are the Voyages...", not where they are located. S/he knows where they are located, since s/he was able to tell they were activated. So, yeah... it's already known. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation (which means it is non official and there are no sources for this opinion): Extra engines mean extra boost. So when D is in a hurry, why not also ignite the saucers engines?
And why only for emergency purposes? The saucer's engines are pretty close in front of the warp nacells. So running the saucer's engines might have caused harm to the nacells or at least the bussard collectors.
Just my two cents. 84.138.47.78 11:25, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Forum:Enterprise-D in GenerationsEdit

Did the Enterprise-D go through another refit prior to Generations? I am asking this because in the bridge they have the extra computer terminals on both sides where the compartment things used to be. I know it's small, but even the red alert sound is different and so is all the lighting. Can anyone explain that for me please? It's been bothering the hell out of me. --Josh

Er, well, if it looks different (which it obviously is), then I suppose the only reasonable explanation within the Trek universe is that the D went through a minor refit sometime prior to Generations. - TerranRich 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FlagshipEdit

This statement in the summary

It served as the flagship of Starfleet for the duration of its lifetime."

is unsupported by any references in the article. Is it stated anywhere in canon that this ship was even referred to as the "flagship" for the entire 8 or so years it existed? If so, can we get the quotes? – StarFire209 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

After doing a quick search on "flagship", there are footnotes referencing Star Trek Generations stating that it was the flagship of the Federation. A quick skim and search of the Generations article didn't turn up anything... maybe I'll volunteer sitting thru that drivel again :D --vorik111 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That'd be cool if you did but don't suffer on my account. But you decide to suffer, see if that "duration of its life" bit is justified. :p I think the people who make the claim should back it up with the quotes. But then I think it's all a misunderstanding of the word flagship in the first place. – StarFire209 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The term "Federation flagship" IS used in Generations (I just rechecked). Picard refers to Enterprise as such. It isn't proper military usage of the term, but it is acceptable in the more general sense of "an exemplar of" or "best of it's type'".Capt Christopher Donovan 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It was also referred to that in one of the episodes. I believe the one where Sarek starts to have issues with that vulcan mental illness. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.154.113 (talk).

WTF? Dolphins? WTF?Edit

I admit... I don't have the episode, and I'm not an expert regarding the episode "The Perfect Mate"... but I had to do a double take when I read this:

As of 2369, there were seventeen crew members from non-Federation worlds. (TNG: "The Chase") The ship also carried dolphins. (TNG: "The Perfect Mate")

Is this canon? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hossrex (talk • contribs).

See dolphin. Also:
GEORDI: "Listen... have you been down to see the dolphins yet? You really shouldn't miss them..."
Yes, canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Enterprise's Edit

One Enterprise, from a universe where the Borg had emerged victorious after the Battle of Wolf 359, was lost as she attempted to prevent her return to her own reality.

Should the above be removed or changed, as there are two things wrong with it.

1) The Borg won the battle anyway, The Enterprise stopped them after the battle.

2) We dont actually know why 'The Borg are everywhere' there is no on screen proof that something else didnt happen in this reality, for all we know the Borg could have been difeated but decided to send another cube straight away which Starfleet couldnt destroy this time.--Mattyp48 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystaline Entity Edit

In reference to the "List of First Contacts" section: Didn't the Enterprise contact the Crystaline entity in season one, which would be 2364? That was when the "Datalore" episode aired.--Sunakk 22:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Line Edit

Under the command of Jean-Luc Picard, the ship represented the Federation on first contact with 27 alien species.

I removed this line from the introduction. Picard said only that he had "represented the Federation in 27 first contacts." He did not specify if they were all on the Enterprise-D, or if they were spread out between the Stargazer, Enterprise-D, and Enterprise-E. I'm leaving the note here for future reference. --70.176.184.44 01:25, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Two foot model Edit

There's no way to confirm, of course, but I'm reasonably sure that this could be the two-foot model: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s2/2x13/timesquared261.jpg

First contact section addition Edit

The section about first contact with the Ferengi might add that the Bandi threatened to offer Farpoint to the Ferengi. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.30.189 (talk).

Power consumption Edit

Even if all of the available internal volume of the ship were used for fuel storage, its range and endurance would still be quite limited.

It is not clear, how much power the warp drive would add, so we should just assume the 12.76 gigawatts as lower limit. The internal volume of the enterprise must be small than length x width x hight. I don't know if there are any official sources for the dimensions, but I found two very similar values on the internet: 641.0m x 467.1 m x 137.5 m [2] and 642.5m x 467.0 m x 137.5 m [3]. The volume of a square with this dimensions is in both cases approximately 4.1E7 m³, however because of the shape of the NCC-1701-D the actual volume is much smaller, according to the side, front and top view here I would estimate it maximum at 1/10 of this volume, so I would set the upper limit of the volume to 4.1E6 m³. Howeve, we don't know at which pressure the Deuterium and Antideuterium is stored, so we don't know the density.

So I think, the remark in the article should be removed, or does anyone have data for the density at which the matter and antimatter for the warp drive is stored on large space ships at that time? --62.178.241.245 19:50, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

PS: I know, that the "normal" density of liquid Deuterium is about 160 kg/m³ (Antideuterium has exactly the same density as Deuterium), but the density of any fluid (including liquids) decreases greatly when the temperature is lowered, the about 160 kg/m³ is at the triple point (about 18.7K). Also real liquids are not completely incompressible, so it can also be compressed by using a very high pressure. And I don't know, if the deuterium is really stored in liquid state, it also has an ultra-dense state with about 130 kg/cm³ [4], 130 kg/cm³ = 1.3E8 kg/m³. --62.178.241.245 20:18, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree and removed this nitpick-note:
The power output quoted in the aforementioned episode would appear to be quite questionable based on real world physics. Using the standard mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2, we find that in order to sustain an output of 12.75 billion gigawatts the Enterprise would have to consume nearly 142 kilograms of matter/antimatter mix (71 kilograms of each) every second. This equates to a staggering 12,440 metric tonnes per day. Even if all of the available internal volume of the ship were used for fuel storage, its range and endurance would still be quite limited.
According to the tng technical manual, starships collect hydrogen from space with the ramscoops and convert it to deuterium and anti-deuterium. at warp speeds the amount of hydrogen they can pull in is quite substantial. the ships also supposedly regularly rendezvouses with fuel supply ships, and fill the tank up at starbases. doesnt make much sense to nitpick about fuel storage or consumption when the ship is flying in hydrogen filled space. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:48, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki