RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,335
Posts: 5,444,693
Members: 24,964
Currently online: 487
Newest member: Borg_from_Org

TrekToday headlines

Trek UglyDolls First Look
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

New Star Trek Select Action Figure
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

Trek Actors In Elsa & Fred
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

The Red Shirt Diaries #9
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Greenwood Cast In Truth
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Cumberbatch In Talks For Strange
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Two New Trek Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Meaney On Playing Historical Figure Durant
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Saldana: Balancing Work And Motherhood
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 17 2012, 08:43 PM   #16
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

It could have been the star drive section from and the saucer section from another. When they put the two together they had a few system issues. Which is why it's back in space dock shortly after TVH.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2012, 08:48 PM   #17
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

^ That sounds a little contrived to me. But as BillJ says, we're unlikely to ever get an official explanation.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2012, 08:49 PM   #18
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
It could have been the star drive section from and the saucer section from another. When they put the two together they had a few system issues. Which is why it's back in space dock shortly after TVH.
If it is the Ti-Ho, its' issues would make sense as they would've had to put a new warp drive and nacelles into the ship.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Last edited by BillJ; May 17 2012 at 11:05 PM.
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 03:52 PM   #19
Captain Mike
Commodore
 
Captain Mike's Avatar
 
Location: Warren, Pa.
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
It could have been the star drive section from and the saucer section from another. When they put the two together they had a few system issues. Which is why it's back in space dock shortly after TVH.
If it is the Ti-Ho, its' issues would make sense as they would've had to put a new warp drive and nacelles into the ship.
I'll stick with the Yorktown theory. Who knows just what exactly "The Probe" did to all it's systems. Could have fried them all out , seeing how there was so much smoke in the Captains transmission to Starfleet Headquarters on Earth. Also it is very reasonable to suggest that the repairs were not fully finished by the time that Kirk and company arrived on board, although we are not sure what time has passed since they got back from the past.
Also because personally I think I like that idea is because TOS in the planning stages the Enterprise was first going to be the Yorktown....
__________________
["Sweet Home Alabama" plays in background]
Define irony. Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash. ~~~~Garland Greene- "Con Air"
Captain Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 04:30 PM   #20
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

...Also, for fans of Ships of the Star Fleet, the Yorktown represents a TOS era vessel initially upgraded to lesser specs than Kirk's original vessel (the so-called Constitution (II) standard, a name chosen by the book's authors for the Phase II interpretation of the Star Trek hero vessel). It would make a great deal of sense for Starfleet to refit that ship one more time, now that the Klingon threat was peaking and budgets would allow for all the bells and whistles that had not been affordable when the Constitution (II) refit was implemented in the early 2270s.

Having had a partial refit already, USS Yorktown would still be in pretty modern shape in the 2280s, so not everything would need to be brought to the latest standard in the second refit - hence the TOS style shuttlebay, the exposed GNDN tubes etc. Some time after the second refit, the Whale Probe would fry much of the computer system, though, and installation of the replacement would entail installing the most modern interfaces as well. Thus, three layers in evidence: TOS interiors, TMP exteriors, modern computer interfaces.

Something built for the purpose would be far less likely to demonstrate layering of that sort...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 05:26 PM   #21
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that it's a brand new ship. Nothing in the dialogue from Star Trek V supports that it was a different vessel renamed Enterprise.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 06:30 PM   #22
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Personally, I subscribe to the theory that it's a brand new ship. Nothing in the dialogue from Star Trek V supports that it was a different vessel renamed Enterprise.
That's my take on it as well. There was a new Connie being built, perhaps the plan was to name it the USS Ti-Ho or something else, but soon after Fleet Admiral Morrow decided to decommission the Enterprise (or maybe after its destruction at Genesis), the decision was made to name the ship in honor of NCC-1701. Kirk and crew had no knowledge of this and were suprised to see 1701-A because they'd been exiled to Vulcan for three months, during which the change in name had occured.

Simple.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 06:44 PM   #23
Nighthawk
Ensign
 
Location: New York City Area
View Nighthawk's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Nighthawk Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Nighthawk Send a message via Yahoo to Nighthawk
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I found this searching the origians of the Enterprise-A

This was listed on Memory Alpha:http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_...se_(NCC-1701-A)

According to Gene Roddenberry, the NCC-1701-A was not a newly-constructed ship, but instead was the renamed USS Yorktown, a nod to the name of the starship in his original pitch for Star Trek. This was based on the fact that it was difficult to believe that Starfleet would build a whole new ship in such a short time, and then decommission it a short while after, and the early retirement of the Enterprise-A could be justified if the ship had been in service for many years under another name.

(I remember reading in Star Trek: History of the Future it also stated the information above)
Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, released shortly after Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, cites the origin of NCC-1701-A as the USS Ti-Ho (NCC-1798), an Enterprise-class starship which was a test bed for transwarp technology alongside the USS Excelsior. The Ti-Ho was rechristened Enterprise after Kirk and his crew were exonerated.

Interseting.....
__________________
General Jonathan Slavin (Starfleet Military Assault Command Operations)
Commanding Officer, N.C.C.74502 U.S.S. Iwo Jima, The Independent Star Trek Fan Group.
www.ussiwojima.net
co@ussiwojima.net
Nighthawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 07:08 PM   #24
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I just don't like the idea of Starfleet laying down new keels on what was already declared to be an old and useless design in a previous movie.

From what we see, the Constitution class indeed disappears right after the movie era. The appearance of a single example in "BoBW" doesn't mean the class would remain in service, as the anti-Borg flotilla seemed to feature quite a few "museum ships" or recycled study models from the pre-movie era. In-universe, we probably did see Starfleet Museum activate its orbital collection for a last-ditch defense...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 07:27 PM   #25
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Timo wrote: View Post
I just don't like the idea of Starfleet laying down new keels on what was already declared to be an old and useless design in a previous movie.
What?

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock wrote:
Jim, the Enterprise is twenty years old. We feel her day is over.
There is no evidence that Morrow is speaking for an entire class of vessel.

The Enterprise herself is closer to forty years old, but the refit was introduced in 2271. Making the design itself around fifteen years old.

In 2286, the Excelsior is still in its test-run phase and there's no way they'd already have them in production without knowing if transwarp drive was practical. So there's no doubt in my mind that Starfleet was continuing to produce Connies until, at least, the early 2290's.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Last edited by BillJ; May 18 2012 at 07:38 PM.
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 08:06 PM   #26
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I would speculate that Connies were being phased out be the early 24th century.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 08:20 PM   #27
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Personally, I subscribe to the theory that it's a brand new ship. Nothing in the dialogue from Star Trek V supports that it was a different vessel renamed Enterprise.
This.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 08:28 PM   #28
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Nighthawk wrote: View Post

According to Gene Roddenberry, the NCC-1701-A was not a newly-constructed ship, but instead was the renamed USS Yorktown, a nod to the name of the starship in his original pitch for Star Trek.
Which means absolutely nothing. Roddenberry was paid a consultants fee for each film after the first and got to scribble notes on each films screenplay which were roundly ignored by Bennett and company.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 08:47 PM   #29
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

^ Yeah, this was around the time that he was decrying the 'militaristic' depiction of Starfleet in the movies and insisting that they film his time-travel story about the assassination of JFK as the next movie.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 08:47 PM   #30
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

In 2286, the Excelsior is still in its test-run phase and there's no way they'd already have them in production without knowing if transwarp drive was practical.
It doesn't appear that "the Great Experiment" was in production, or about to replace anything much (although curiously enough, the "testbed" had apparently been built with full operational gear such as sensor and weapon emplacements). But we know of one new cruiser design from the 2280s already - the Constellation. And we saw the Miranda, which falls between the Constitutions and early Constellations in terms of registry numbers.

In contrast, we never saw or heard of a Constitution that wouldn't have been a refit of a TOS era original.

It's not as if we're left grasping at straws for ships to fill the gap left by Kirk's hero ship class retiring: to the contrary, this is one of the eras where multiple options present themselves. And this is one of the eras where we get the sense of something ending, as the TOS design aesthetic disappears in a very sharp cut. Dramatically, Kirk bows out, and so does his ship - twice! It thus feels wrong on multiple levels to think that nothing changed in the story of the Constitution class at large here.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.