Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Las Vegas Missed Out on a Life-Sized Starship Enterprise

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the oh-the-the-huge-manatee dept.

Sci-Fi 240

T-Kir writes "Apparently 20 years ago, instead of the Fremont Experience, downtown Las Vegas was actually close to building a life sized version of the refit USS Enterprise, and would have — had it not been for the then studio chairman Stanley Jaffe nixing it at the final meeting. The project had support from Paramount licensing and then-CEO Sherry Lansing, the Las Vegas Mayor, and the downtown redevelopment committee, but not opinion of Mr Jaffe: 'I don't want to be the guy that approved this and then it's a flop and sitting out there in Vegas forever.' As a Trek fan, I'm saddened that this never got built because I feel that this would've appealed to a much wider audience than science fiction fans. Props to io9 for picking this story up."

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RAGE! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614103)

KAHN!!!

Re:RAGE! (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614177)

Which Kahn? Bob Kahn?

Re:RAGE! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615239)

> Which Kahn? Bob Kahn?

The late great Madeline.

WHICH ONE?! (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614137)

Enterprise A? Or Enterprise D?

The images from the site aren't showing up. :(

Re:WHICH ONE?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614199)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k2Rv2wZrj-0#t=30s

Re:WHICH ONE?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614951)

This exact scene is what I thought of when I read this article. something along the lines of "I bet that's without the bloody A, B, C, or D."

Re:WHICH ONE?! (4, Informative)

eobanb (823187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614207)

D. The article makes reference to Ten Forward. Plus TNG was currently on the air at the time so it would have made the most sense.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (1)

RubberDogBone (851604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614417)

IIRC the concept of a 10 Forward lounge was an idea leftover from the aborted Star Trek Phase II TV series.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (3, Informative)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614561)

1701-D would have been huge, perhaps too large to be feasible, the !701-A was 289 M long, 72 M high and 127 meters wide which would make it a lot more feasible

Re:WHICH ONE?! (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614615)

1701-D would have been huge, perhaps too large to be feasible, the !701-A was 289 M long, 72 M high and 127 meters wide which would make it a lot more feasible

" Feasible" isn't a word that comes immediately to mind as a limiting convept while walking around in Vegas.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (1)

madprof (4723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614969)

Those dimensions don't tally with the movies.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (4, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615235)

1701-D would have been huge, perhaps too large to be feasible....

This is a point worth emphasising. The actual ships in Star Trek really are on an space age scale. The ship supposed to be over 1km long.

Rather than quote statistics, I'll just link to a Minecraft Megaproject video [youtube.com] of a virtual 1:1 scale model of the ship (to 1m resolution). It's a lot bigger than the impression given by the Paramounts sets in the show. Seeing shuttle-bay 1 was an experience in itself, and illustrative of just how infeasible building such an object would really be.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614219)

CVN-65 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:WHICH ONE?! (3, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614277)

The images loaded for me -- it was the Enterprise A. And it looked great in the pics, it has to be said.

Can't really see the issue they had. Everything in Vegas gets blown up after a decade or so. It would have paid for itself in that time -- especially if it looked as good as it does in the pics, and did inside too.

If they installed working phasers they could have taken a lot of work out of demolishing casinos!

Re:WHICH ONE?! (3, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614303)

Enterprise NCC 1701-A and NCC-1701 are different ships. But they are the same design and look exactly the same on the outside. But have very different bridges. The 1701-A is filled with the backlight touch panels. NCC 1701 was destroyed in STIII. I vote for Enterprise 1701-A, since I thought it had the coolest looking interiors and exteriors, and was featured in Star Trek VI ( as well as ST-V, but that should not reflect badly on the ship, it was a fine vessel). If the Las Vegas 1701-A is staffed with a crew, have them wear the Star Trek II-VI uniform style which I liked better than any other style used on the entire series. It was very distinctive but not too cheesy.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614599)

Did I miss a book? Where did NCC1701 go from active service (TMP, newly refit) to training cruiser (TWOK)?

Re:WHICH ONE?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614775)

Think they explained it in the original movie book. Admiral Kirks fav ship got a refit but at a cost of being a training ship (he wanted it close so he could pop by and play capt again). Not 100% sure if it was that book or not. But there was one where they explained it that way. There were better more capable ships out there for the type of work it was originally doing.

God did I really read all those books *AND* remember that?....

Re:WHICH ONE?! (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615243)

This would have been in LasVegas. All females would have worn the mini-skirts from TOS.

Re:WHICH ONE?! (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615437)

Why is this downvoted? I totally agree, and I'm guessing that's what would sell the most!

Re:WHICH ONE?! (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614369)

Enterprise A? Or Enterprise D? The images from the site aren't showing up.

They're building a cloaked ship, whaddya expect?

Re:WHICH ONE?! (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614583)

TFS says "refit Enterprise". So that'd be the one from TMP (1979). No bloody A, B, C or D. As Scotty once said (TNG: "Relics". God I'm a nerd).

Really just as well (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614139)

While it sounds awesome, the guy who cancelled it is right on the money - it would have just sat there for some time languisingh after the novelty wore off for people.

Vegas already had the coolest Star Trek exhibit/show I've ever seen (Qwark's bar and two really well done shows). That is gone now. If those great shows could not survive, no way the Enterprise would have lasted.

Re:Really just as well (5, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614173)

Just like the novelty of the Eifel Tower, Liberty Statue, Tower of Pisa, etc. have worn off?

They are timeless and universal (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614269)

I would argue that each of those are more timeless and universal than the Enterprise would have been.

All of them except for the Pisa tower are far larger than the Enterprise would have been.

You know that the Enterprise would not have been built nearly as well as any of those things.

Also ALL of the things you list are nationally beloved monuments to the respective countries they are in, meaning there is money from a whole nation to take care of each of those national treasures. Can you honestly say with a straight face that a crumbling Enterprise in Vegas would draw the nation in to repair it as was done with the Statue of Liberty?

I mean, if you're going to go there then the parallel is that it would have been repaired by now, but you wouldn't be able to go to the bridge anymore. Well what the hell good is THAT???

Re:They are timeless and universal (4, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614291)

The other guy was probably talking abut the REPLICAS of those things.

It's like you've never been to Vegas ever.

That and the guy from Paramount too. They're fine with blowing up a local landmark and puting a redundant Italian themed casino in it's place.

Re:They are timeless and universal (1)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614301)

There's a Tower of Pisa in Vegas?

Re:They are timeless and universal (4, Informative)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614447)

All of them except for the Pisa tower are far larger than the Enterprise would have been.

I had to google the exact measures but the Eiffel Tower (320 m) is way bigger than the other two monuments (I've seen the three of them with my eyes). It's a little taller than what the Enterprise is long (286 m). The Statue of Liberty (93 m) is much smaller and the statue alone (46 m) without the base would be shorter than the Pisa tower (58 m). Check this [garygoddard.com] for the relative sizes (Pisa tower not included).

Re:They are timeless and universal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615371)

The monuments in Vegas are scale models. The Eiffel Tower is only 140m to the observation deck and Lady Liberty is also about half sized (45m overall).

Re:They are timeless and universal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615603)

So, what you're saying is that Pisa is the smallest of the 3. And the other two (you might say all of them except for Pisa) are far larger than the Enterprise would have been?

Re:They are timeless and universal (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614501)

Also ALL of the things you list are nationally beloved monuments to the respective countries they are in, meaning there is money from a whole nation to take care of each of those national treasures. Can you honestly say with a straight face that a crumbling Enterprise in Vegas would draw the nation in to repair it as was done with the Statue of Liberty?

Why not? We did it for the Washington Monument which is nothing but a giant rock dildo.

Re:They are timeless and universal (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614633)

Can you honestly say with a straight face that a crumbling Enterprise in Vegas would draw the nation in to repair it as was done with the Statue of Liberty?

Actually, yes. It's Nevada. It's a giant desert... nothing is ever going to 'crumble' out there... There are cars out there that were parked in the 1930s and except for damage caused by the sun are still exactly the way they were left. If you build something out there and right after civilization ends, it would take hundreds of years before it started to show traces of weathering beyond what you'd expect from being sandblasted. -_-

Re:They are timeless and universal (1)

Mike_EE_U_of_I (1493783) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614637)

I would argue that each of those are more timeless and universal than the Enterprise would have been.

All of them except for the Pisa tower are far larger than the Enterprise would have been.

You know that the Enterprise would not have been built nearly as well as any of those things.

...

You really think the builders would have done a worse job than the guys who built the tower of Pisa? That's a joke, right?

Re:They are timeless and universal (2)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614851)

Also ALL of the things you list are nationally beloved monuments to the respective countries they are in, meaning there is money from a whole nation to take care of each of those national treasures.

I think he was talking about these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/nyregion/liberty-statue-in-las-vegas-stands-among-many-replicas.html [nytimes.com]

http://3dpariseiffeltower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Eiffel-Tower-In-Las-Vegas.jpg [3dpariseiffeltower.com]

http://www.finehomeslv.com/blog/project-city-center-las-vegas-towers-resemble-leaning-tower-of-pisa/ [finehomeslv.com] (there is actually no Pisa Tower replica in Las Vegas, it's more of a leaning high-rise)

Re:They are timeless and universal (1)

madprof (4723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614989)

Sorry, why would the French or Italians put money in to help Las Vegas keep their versions of the Eiffel Tower or Tower of Pisa standing?
Seems a very random thing to do.

Re:Really just as well (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614299)

I don't recall those items ever being novelties, or casinos with poker tables and slot machines
While the engineering and architecture to make a life sized Enterprise may have been a feat, it's raison d'être would have been as a mere attraction based on pop-culture.

Re:Really just as well (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614337)

They could have hooked up laser lights to it. Then, have a helium-filled borg balloon in the sky, and a "phaser" would shoot out from the Enterprise. Pyrotechnics ensue.

WHY DID THEY NOT BUILD THIS.

Re:Really just as well (4, Interesting)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614675)

Each one of those was an original masterpiece designed to be something different and never seen before. Usually it was built from state-of-the-art materials and construction techniques. The Eiffel Tower wasn't even intended to be a permanent structure.

A replica life size model of a TV series starship might work if it were part of an office block, startup incubator, luxury hotel or cinema multiplex. The exterior wouldn't diminish the functionality of the inside space, but the functionality would pay for the maintenance.

The best location in my opinion would be as part of an airport hotel or conference center. Imagine having your flight coming in through the fog or haze and the first thing you see is a spaceship coming into view like something out of the Wrath of Khan.

port.

Re:Really just as well (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614185)

You're more right than you think. Downtown Las Vegas until VERY recently(within the last 5 years or so?) has languished BADLY.

If they built a giant Enterprise, it'd just sit there and become a giant eyesore.

STILL, it would've been cool as fuck the first few trips down.

Re:Really just as well (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614251)

If they built a giant Enterprise, it'd just sit there and become a giant eyesore.

If they built a giant Enterprise, they'd probably have trekkie fans all over the world visting downtown vegas. And moving to the city.

You know that would still be a big attraction today. But in 40 or 50 years, yeah, it would eventually become a giant eyesore.

Re:Really just as well (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614259)

Where, I am sure, some eccentric billionaire would buy it. I mean, it would be the ONLY life sized complete Enterprise in existence.

Re:Really just as well (3, Funny)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614581)

Where, I am sure, some eccentric billionaire would buy it. I mean, it would be the ONLY life sized complete Enterprise in existence.

That's the first good reason I've heard for wanting to be filthy rich!

Re:Really just as well (4, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614893)

You know that would still be a big attraction today. But in 40 or 50 years, yeah, it would eventually become a giant eyesore.

TOS debuted in 1966, that's 46 years ago. It's as popular today as it ever was. At this point, it's safe to say it's a hallmark of science fiction. A life-sized replica would remain culturally relevant for much longer than 50 years. It's hard to imagine that people would ever look at it and say "what's that supposed to be?" and even if they did, it would be like looking at the Great Pyramid. Even though we don't really know what it originally meant, it's simply too large to be ignored.

People often bring up the idea that a megastructure may become an eyesore over time. I can't think of an example where that's been true. As far as buildings go, if it's huge and strange looking, people will be impressed buy it. It doesn't matter how old it is.

Re:Really just as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615287)

People often bring up the idea that a megastructure may become an eyesore over time. I can't think of an example where that's been true.

I can. Just looking at the concept art and I find it an eyesore... and I'm a pretty big Star Trek fan, overall geek and would have loved to have gone to see it.

This is a fictional spaceship from a popular science fiction TV show. Any kind of huge large vehicle would be an eyesore as it just doesn't fit in.

People trying to claim a spaceship is on par with the pyramids, Eiffel tower or other things are letting their fandom get in the way of reality.

Re:Really just as well (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614255)

"it would have just sat there for some time languisingh after the novelty wore off for people."

Much like the manned space race itself...

Re:Really just as well (2)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614461)

I dont think so. First part of it at least could have been a hotel and restaurant, casino, etc, and those things dont wear off. But i really think that the interest would have held up and would have become very popular, if it was lifelike enough,.

Re:Really just as well (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614959)

I checked out the exhibit and bar several years after it came out. It was still packed with fans. Pretty cool to see all that stuff up close.

Right decision (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614149)

I'm saddened as well, but we trekkies may love this but it would probably still have flopped. The submitter says it would have appealed to a much broader audience but I don't think so. When you're a fan of something you always think that everyone will find it the coolest thing on earth, but experience has taught me that when people come upon things outside their bubble of interest, they'll just go "meh". It would have met the same fate as "Star Trek: The Experience". But it still makes me sad that it wasn't built. Oh well, one day we'll build real spaceships and even though they might look nothing like the Enterprise, they'll be much closer in spirit.

Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614167)

If they're too cowardly to give the go-ahead to a licensing project where they're not even fronting the cash, but just collecting royalties, to hell with them. I'd rather have the Galactica, anyway.

-jcr

Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! (4, Interesting)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614187)

Galactica was pseudo religious military wank with a dash of body horror and a vague stab at challenging social issues like racism to be honest, an homage to the Bush era.

Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614547)

I agree. The Star Trek universe is one I would love to visit. The Galactica universe, not so much. Not that I didn't enjoy them both, but really, Galactica is fucking depressing at all times.

Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! (2)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614751)

That's as true as saying that Star Trek is just a long story about people in pajamas.

Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614243)

"— had it not been for the then studio chairman Stanley Jaffe nixing it at the final meeting."

It's like slashdot was inciting for a angry nerd mob to show up at this guys place, armed with phasers, spock ears and bat'leths.

Backroom land deals? (2)

ScooterComputer (10306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614169)

Next we'll have an informer tell us that Mr. Jaffe has been busy secretly buying up property in Iowa.

I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (4, Insightful)

flogger (524072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614175)

But if there was a "Life-Sized" enterprise in which I could book passage (rent a room) and visit 10-Forward or see the bridge, I would make the "trek" to vegas. I am sure I am not the only tight ass that would do this... Flop? I don;t thin it would be, espesially if they built the Emporer's imperial cruiser next door and they had weekly geek fights to see which would win. :-)

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614267)

And all the Orion slavegirl hookers.

And Romulan ale.

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (2)

thygate (1590197) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614323)

And Klingon Gagh and Bloodwine .. oh wait ..

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (3, Informative)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614543)

Damn, you just made me realize how little men have been objectified in Star Trek compared to women. I demand equality! Chris Pine needs to go shirtless the entire next movie to help make up for it.

Women:
  * At least one major character per series whose job included being sexy: Counselor Troi (TNG), Yeoman Rand and Uhura (TOS), Seven of Nine (VOY), T'Pol (ENT), and Dax (DS9)
  * Orion slave girls as in TOS: The Cage [memory-alpha.org] and ENT: Bound [memory-alpha.org] (three at once there)
  * Kirk's various women
  * Dabo girls throughout DS9
  * Numerous other women in skimpy outfits, eg. Vanessa William's character in the horrible episode DS9: Let He Who Is Without Sin... [memory-alpha.org] , Tasha's seduction scene in TNG: The Naked Now [memory-alpha.org] , Uhura's sexy dance in the movie that does not exist, ....

Men:
  * Trip saving the ship in his underwear in ENT: Aquisition [memory-alpha.org] and a few other shirtless scenes, usually with T'Pol
  * Several scenes with Kirk at least partly shirtless for very little reason in TOS
  * Scattered shirtlessness as in the Edo episode (also had women in skimpy outfits), the horrible DS9 episode above (brief), Sulu in The Naked Time
  * (Counts negative) Leonard Nimoy shirtless on Nazi-episode-planet

Actually, The Naked Time reminded me of something. There's a hilarious moment at the end of the episode after McCoy develops a serum to cure everyone. He goes around the bridge injecting people, and when he gets to Kirk, for no apparent reason he grabs Kirk's shoulder and rips his shirt open before injecting him like everyone else. It's so gratuitous--I would absolutely love a brief parody of that scene in the next movie.

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614801)

I dunno, I think, just to mix things up, they'll have Kirk be bisexual and get a bone for Bones :D He'll no doubt rip the shirt after Spock makes some comment about the mating rituals, perhaps of Vulcan, and Bone's will no doubt comment on how despite Vulcan being hot, a vulcan can't be as hot blooded as a human.

Then y'know it'll turn into a giant orgy, no doubt gratuitous for all the female trek fans. (Because really, what sort of homosexual man would be caught dead ANYWHERE near that show, other than, y'know, Sulu.)

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (1)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615487)

If it was Troi's job to be sexy, she did a piss poor job of it. I never saw her as the least bit attractive. Mostly annoying.

Dax wasn't a blatant sexy character, though both Jadzia and Ezri were very attractive actresses. I think they got the balance really right with that/those character(s).

Rand / Uhura were attractive, but I don't know if the show went out of their way to sexualize them. I wasn't a fan of TOS, so perhaps I'm wrong.

Seven of Nine and T'Pol were definitely blatant ratings grabs. The characters were down right insulting, and one of the reasons I think Trek jumped the shark after DS9.

The Dabo girls, I'll give you. They were essentially the modern version of the Orion Slave Girls / hookers / strippers / etc. But they weren't characters. The objectification of them was intentional and conscious. You were supposed to be aware of it, and the characters in the Trek world were aware of it.

Being a heterosexual male, I don't recall much in the way of "sexy" make scenes. Q cuddling Picard in Tapestry? The many Klingon show of strength scenes with Worf in TNG / DS9? Picard nude in Cardasian custody in Chain of Command?

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614275)

But if there was a "Life-Sized" enterprise in which I could book passage (rent a room) and visit 10-Forward or see the bridge, I would make the "trek" to vegas. I am sure I am not the only tight ass that would do this... Flop? I don;t thin it would be, espesially if they built the Emporer's imperial cruiser next door and they had weekly geek fights to see which would win. :-)

That was my thinking. An Enterprise hotel that looked just like the sets on the inside would be a huge attraction. If you could build something as massive as the D model, then wow at the hotel possibilities, with a Ten Forward bar and restaurant, and quarters that looked like the ones from the series.

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614307)

It wasn't a full life sized one, but the Hilton in Vegas had a fully built full size STTNG bridge as an attraction, along with turbolifts and such. It looked pretty much exactly like the TV show and they had actors in full costume. There was a bar and restraut with it as well, but it was more like the Star Wars cantina with Star Trek decorations.

They shut the entire thing down about 2 years ago, it had been there for a long time before that.

Geeks and Vegas don't mix (1)

hweimer (709734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614569)

There's a rumor that the American Physical Society is banned from hosting their conferences in Vegas because physicists don't gamble, don't have champagne parties with hookers, and drink considerably less then the average Vegas-goer. I'd assume that these points also applied to anyone getting excited about a Star Trek themed hotel.

Re:Geeks and Vegas don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614899)

Why wouldn't Star Trek fans need hookers and booze?

Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614819)

yea every nerd would do it a time or two and once the novelty wore off your left with a undesirable building sucking up space

oh forget that (4, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614225)

sure it would look like the Star Trek Enterprise on the outside but once you get inside it then it will be like any other Las Vegas casino = full of slot machines, roulette wheels, blackjack tables etc...etc...etc... which would ruin the whole thing

http://i.imgur.com/kezWj.jpg [imgur.com]

Re:oh forget that (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614283)

The it couldn't be a hotel or a casino, as that would take business away from the downtown area (which it was intended to help).

Re:oh forget that (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614499)

They add new casinos and hotels to vegas all the time. I dont think it would necessarily take away business as it would bring in more people. For a business perceptive, it would be just another resoirt, which many have been added over the years. the Primary attraction of vegas is the resorts, otherwise, its just a desert.

Re:oh forget that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614785)

I'm a resident of Las Vegas. They USED TO add new casinos and hotels to Vegas - now a thing of the past. Look up Echalon and Fountainebleau and discover the truth about today's 'Sin City'.

Re:oh forget that (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614305)

...which means that you could just get the same effect with some mocked up stuff inside of a regular casino. They even kind of did that for awhile but they never took it far enough.

Gambling (2)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614245)

OP said he was saddened it wasn't built, but the real question is would he have actually gone to Vegas and left money there in the casino?
That's all that matters to casinos, Enterprise ships or not.

It would have been impressive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614249)

from an engineering stand point alone. In the photos the entire saucer section is only held up by the neck piece down to the engineering section. Building this thing would be a feat all on its own.

Re:It would have been impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615393)

I remember thinking of this back when I got the original "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise," how cool it would be to build a life-size replica somewhere.

The way I imagined it, the saucer section and nacelles were on the ground, and the secondary hull dug into the ground. I wasn't concerned how it would look from the outside; I just wanted to wander around the interior. :)

You know what would help? (2)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614281)

What size we are talking about here. I don't know about you, I don't know offhand the "real" size of the Enterprise.

From wiki:

Length 642.5 Meters

Width 467.0 Meters

Height 137.5 Meters

This is not trivial. There are no structural integrity fields in the real world. 150M$ for that? Doubtful.

Re:You know what would help? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614441)

They were talking about the original Enterprise, which would only have been 305 meters long.

Re:You know what would help? (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614489)

The 1701-A is smaller, only 200 meters or so. Which would be more doable. the D would just be enormous.

Re:You know what would help? (2)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615259)

For comparison, the Pentagon (the world's largest office building by square footage) is 23 m tall, and each of the five sides of the building is 281 m long. Which works out to the saucer section being about as big as the Pentagon. That would definitely be a sight to see. Even the original Enterprise would probably take up about the same footprint as the Pentagon. I say we build it.

He doesn't undeestand how Vegas works (3, Interesting)

sprior (249994) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614325)

Nothing sits for long after it stops being popular/profitable, they implode it and build something else.

"Las Vegas Missed Out on a Life-Sized Starship, " (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614341)

"Fapping Slashdot dorks hardest hit"

Let fans accept some of the risk (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614343)

They should have opened investment to fans. Fans are more likely to invest in a risk (boondoggle) because they are thinking with their hearts instead of just their minds.

I vote for 1701-A (2)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614347)

I think 1701-A of 1701-B would look best with a crew staffed in ST II-VI uniforms. There could be a hotel inside, as well as restaurants, all themed like the real ship.

I was never fond of 1701-D or nor the crews unform from that era, though, the STNG series was well written and well executed. I always wished they could couple the story line quality of STNG with the styles of the 1701-A or 1701-B era. I found the tight fitting uniforms of D to be cheesy and the ship too cheesy as well.

Another factor is the 1701-A was a much smaller ship than the D, the D is just a huge thing that might be completely infeasible to build, if they want to build the thing to spec, it would be enormous.

I imagine this thing could have rather than a mock up, could have been an entire building, including a built in hotel and so on. But the saucer section raises quistions on structural support, I am not sure if it would be possible to construct an unsupported, hanging saucer section without some sort of supports from below, in a feasible way. Having support columns from below for the saucer section would take away from the whole thing. Probably the main hull could be fully occupied hotel and attraction space and they might have to settle with a shell for saucer, with some places inside being built, such as the bridge and so on, unless a way can be found to build the saucer.

Re:I vote for 1701-A (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614799)

But the saucer section raises quistions on structural support, I am not sure if it would be possible to construct an unsupported, hanging saucer section without some sort of supports from below, in a feasible way. Having support columns from below for the saucer section would take away from the whole thing. Probably the main hull could be fully occupied hotel and attraction space and they might have to settle with a shell for saucer, with some places inside being built, such as the bridge and so on, unless a way can be found to build the saucer.

You realize, of course, that this analysis defeats the whole engineering model for the ship itself - ostensibly designed to handle the stresses of battle, which can easily exceed the pathetic 1G that the Earth would exert on it. :)

I always did think the engineering design of the Enterprise was a bit dicey for a military system - too much weight hanging out on skinny spars. But, having said that, I think it would be doable in the sense that one could build something that could handle the the weight, wind stress, etc. But it might have a problem with swaying and vibration. There are some pretty extreme buildings being built all over the world (mostly not including the US), like that one in China that looks like two upside-down 'L' shapes that meet at the corner.

Re:I vote for 1701-A (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614923)

If you were going to build the "D", I think you'd take advantage of the idea that the saucer section is detachable, and build it separate from the engineering section.

This gives much better vertical support for both sections, and also improves your flexibility with land use footprint.

Re:I vote for 1701-A (3, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615033)

Supposedly the Constitution class could do saucer-sep maneuvers nearly as easily as the Galaxy class.

Don't know if that's canon or not, but I definitely read it in a novel or two back in the day.

better idea (0)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614351)

A better choice would be to build a giant penguin. Then us Linux guys could worship at its feet! Idolatry is so cool!

Re:better idea (1)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614433)

A giant penguin would be cool, and I would go out of my way to stay at a penguin-shaped hotel (which you might guess based on my screen name), but I think a giant flamingo hotel would be more appropriate for Vegas - and would be really cool with the long legs being glass tunnels that the elevators go up. But that has the same structural support questions that an actual full-size Enterprise would have. A penguin would be a lot simpler.

Land is expensive in Vegas; build a TARDIS instead (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614413)

Then you can pack more gamblers inside, than it appears outside. The dream of every casino owner.

And if the house starts to lose big time . . . just skip back in time, to before the bets were placed.

Two compound words: (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614589)

Holodeck Whorehouse.

Quark's @ The Hilton (2)

eepok (545733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614591)

I'm not super-trekkie, but I know from personal experience that the Hilton in Vegas through away massive amounts of convention/conference business when it closed down Quark's. =\

I miss my Moogie's Choice Pasta and Warp Core Breach

Re:Quark's @ The Hilton (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614839)

Yes, I was lucky enough to visit it while it was still there. I miss it and if it was still there I'd be going to Vegas at least once a year instead of once a decade for conferences.

Foolish decision to nix it. (2)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614595)

Seriously this would have gotten me to make regular visits to Vegas just to see the whole damn thing. Also if they bundled this with actual science type things it would have been fantastic. Hell I bet even Neal deGrasse Tyson would have done one of his talks/shows/etc from the bridge if they worked things out right. It'd have been a boon for education, science, and future dreamers. The money draw in would have been huge.

So then DO something about it. (1, Funny)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614601)

As a Trek fan, I'm saddened that this never got built because I feel that this would've appealed to a much wider audience than science fiction fans.

Are you new here? Stop whining about what somebody else shoulda oughtta done and put your efforts where your conviction is: throw a proposal up on Kickstarter or similar and then wait for the millions of dollars to roll in from all these alleged Trekkies-in-the-closet. If you're not just nuts, then you get to build the Enterprise, and if you are just nuts, then you'll have it confirmed in a way you can't ignore....

Someone already created a to scale model... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614741)

Well someone did create a to scale verson in minecraft but it does give you a persective on how big it would have been http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn2-d5a3r94 also here is an update to it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epYmWk9Q3g4

Biggest reason this fell through: (2)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39614787)

The powers that be in Vegas refused to license Fizzbin tables.

So, now: fewer bankrupts-by-gambling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39614933)

...and, on the positive side, -more- venture capital actually found its way to fund the development of the start-up's "secret sauce" and/or the marketing of the resulting product.

Is that so bad? :-/

PS Fewer people coming to 'Vegas (eg, to see a lone Star Trek monument, that might seem out-of-place, in the context) isn't necessarily a bad thing. Better to have it along side some other innovative technologies, so that visitors (to some aerospace-city) can get a look at the -range- of ideas & implementations, including those that may be built in future.

Nah, not downtown Vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615039)

They should still do this; but someplace else. I'm thinking they should do a crashed and burnt version somewhere out-of-the-way. OK, not too far out of the way. Someplace that would welcome the traffic. Maybe somewhere along I-15 on the way to Vegas from LA. There's plenty of dester there. Of course you'd be better off doing it in Nevada because the environmental impact in California would take forever. Anyway, far enough away from the city. Crashed starship, but still oriennted so you can go in side and have a looksie. If you crash it so that saucer section is flat and the nacelles are all burned up and scattered, that's the way to go. If not I-15, the Roswell corridor but it gets much less traffic. Only a few Slashdotters would make that trek. You need bunches of people on the way to someplace like Vegas to make it economicly viable.

Named his price... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39615121)

Captain Kirk's doppleganger [imdb.com] can just name his price and have that internet site [priceline.com] he endorses foot the bill for the construction of this iconic piece of science fiction history! :D

Joking of course, ^^; but realistically I don't see how it could be built without the saucer section or the engines drooping or snapping off due to the weight imbalance. :( Adding external support struts to hold them up in place would destroy the versimilitude of the whole thing.

Geek Paradise? (2)

greggman (102198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39615493)

I wonder if there is a big enough market for a geek hotel in Vegas. Maybe shaped like the enterprise but with as many geek oriented things as possible. Lan parties, demo scene parties, techno music? (maybe that's my bias), arcades, VR stuff, video games, board games, card games, figure games, game competitions, hack-a-thons, maker studios, hi-tech rooms, gadget stores,

I suppose one problem would be keeping it ahead of the tech curve but maybe they could get various corporate sponsors or have the guest themselves help upgrade stuff. (the open source resort so to speak)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>