Building the Enterprise D Out of LEGOs.

CleverNickName writes "A self-proclaimed "dork" has built one of the best models of Enterprise D I have ever seen (and I think I speak with some authority)...entirely out of LEGOs. I can see my house from here!"

Comments

Why bother starting from scratch

[Anon0mous]

when there are lots of kits and plans to choose from http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/trekship.htm

Sheep.

[Trusty Penfold]

Sheep -> Sheep

Bonsai -> Bonsai

Species -> Species

Lego -> Lego

NewsFlash: Lego Starship NOT exact scale!!!

[Tsar]

Before any rabid Trekkers reading this story decide to email him, let me point out that he's already been informed of this: "Within hours of posting, someone named Medic e-mailed me with the dimensions: 'Enterprise-D is a Galaxy Class Starship, which are supposed to be 2,103 feet long by 1,542 wide by 476 tall.' Which means, ratio-wise, my model is a little taller than it should be. I think I can live with that."

Bet it's the tallest one in four counties, though!

Re:Poor Bastard

[Anonymous Coward]

farking is the same thing as slashdotting. fark has almost as many viewers as slashdot, and is certainly a lot quicked than slashdot with most storys :P

Re:I may be a geek, but I'm out of touch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enterprise NX-1 - Earth's first ship capable of (relatively) high warp speed.

Enterprise 1701- Main TOS ship.

Enterprise 1701 - Upgrade, refitted Enterprise. New class named: Enterprise class. Seen in ST:TMP

Enterprise 1701- A - Recommisioned Enterprise Class after Kirk destroyed the upgraded original in Star Trek 3 (Originally USS Atlantis before recommisioning)

Enterprise 1701-B - Excelsior II-class, seen in Star Trek: Generations

Enterprise 1701-C - Ambassador-Class, seen in TNG episode 'Yesterday's Enterprise'

Enterprise 1701-D - Galaxy-Class, main TNG ship

Enterprise 1701-E - Sovereign-class, newest ship, seen in every movie past Generations where 1701-D was destroyed.

God I'm sad.

Re:Captain, we have a breach in the Warp Core!

[lvdrproject]

That's GEORDI, you uncultured swine!

Millennium Falcon

[Gogo Dodo]

The coolest movie-to-Lego-model that I've seen is this Millennium Falcon (had to use Internet Wayback Machine as the original site's pictures are down).

Re:LEGO, not LEGOs

[tangledweb]

This is one of those topics where people who are wrong are not going to change.

Stupid is as stupid does and all that, but for what it matters, the official word from Lego is:

1. The trademark LEGO should be written in CAPITAL letters.
2. The LEGO trademark should not be referred to in a generic way such as "LEGOS" of "legos", or as plural or possessive words like "LEGO's".
3. When using the LEGO trademark as a noun, please never leave it alone. Always add and extra noun, e.g. LEGO sets, LEGO products, LEGO toys, LEGO building bricks, LEGO universe, etc.

   (Quote from: http://www.lego.com/info/pdf/presskituk.pdf )

   So there you have it.

   "This is my Lego" is wrong.

   "These are my Legos" is worse.

   "These are my LEGO bricks" is correct.

Perfect?

[goldfndr]

It's actually impossible to make a "perfect" cube out of anything.

When modeling or building, there's an accepted 5 to 6 ratio on stud vs height. See my dimensions guide. So a 6 studs by 6 studs by 5 bricks (or 4 bricks, 2 plates, one tile) should do the trick (within accepted Lego tolerances).

You might get a slightly different ratio if you use calipers, but wouldn't that apply to any discrete building material? Think "tolerances".

Re:Big deal...

[tsangc]

It's actually impossible to make a perfect cube out of Lego. The ratios of lengths of the sides of the pieces are such that there is no integer multiples which are identical.

Sure you can. This design is pretty damned close to being near perfect.

Re:More Easy lego models...

[Speare]

Get the "Statue of Liberty" model, or the similarly sized Yoda. Then you're flush with light green parts.

Re:Does this really count?

[stwrtpj]

FYI, almsot all "Grand" lego creations (homegrown and the 'pro' creations at the Legoland parks) use glue in their construction. The blocks themselves just don't provide enough support to hold a large model together.

In some models that's the reason (expecially large structures that are mostly shell with no interior details, such as replications of skyscapers). In other cases, the glue is used so the model will stand up to being moved from place to place, and so that it can withstand the elements or abuse by tourists, depending on where it is set up.

Using glue to hold parts together is not considered to be "cheating" in constructing a model if you're simply gluing them together in the same positions that they would normally go together without the glue.

As an aside, what consistently amazes me about LEGO products these days is quality. The parts are molded to a very high degree of accuracy to insure they will fit together, and the colors used in today's LEGO plastics take a very, very long time to fade. And in all the years that I have been collecting them, I have never had a set with a missing piece. I've had some with extra pieces, but never missing.

The only problem I have with LEGO sets today is that they're damned expensive. It's quality, all right, but you definitely pay for it.