RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,519
Posts: 5,511,993
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 508
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 18 2012, 08:53 PM   #31
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

To me, it's an Occam's Razor thing. There was a ship called Enterprise, then it's blown up. So its crew are assigned a new ship. Also called Enterprise. Its a new Enterprise. If it was simply a refit, why wouldn't they call it by its old name? They didn't change the name of the previous Enterprise in TMP, despite its extensive refit.

I mean, okay, there's nothing onscreen to say one way or the other but the other explanations seem awfully convoluted to me. And TFF certainly seems to support the idea that it's a new ship, with all the associated teething problems.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:02 PM   #32
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

There was a ship called Enterprise, then it's blown up. So its crew are assigned a new ship.
Nope - the ship is blown up, and her top officers are assigned a new ship.

Basically never happens in the real world; crews don't get to hold together like that, not even small groups of top officers. But here we were rather explicitly shown that the troupe was transferred as a package because they were public heroes who deserved a reward. And part of that reward appeared to be that Starfleet agreed to paint a new name on a starship.

In reality, ships don't get successors, not in the one-on-one sense. And ships certainly don't get replaced by new ships of the same name. Not in military tradition, and not for military reasons. But everything here fits well with the concept of a PR stunt, which then overrides all other considerations and negates the value of evidence.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:06 PM   #33
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

^ Bridge crew, then. And yes, we all know that ships' crews don't stay together like that in reality. But it if was all a PR stunt, why did they send them to deal with the hotspot on Nimbus III?

As for the ships not being replaced with new ships of the same name, well, even if you disregard Jonathan Archer's ship, Starfleet went on to have Enterprises B-E (and beyond, according to Enterprise's third season). And the Defiant was also replaced with a namesake, when destroyed in the Dominion War.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:21 PM   #34
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

But it if was all a PR stunt, why did they send them to deal with the hotspot on Nimbus III?
That much was also pretty clear in ST4: Starfleet wanted to keel-haul the mutineers, but the public wanted to beatify them. So, they get a replica starship and avoid jail, but as soon as they have had their fifteen minutes of glory, they have to face reality again: they don't get promoted and they don't get good assignments.

Starfleet went on to have Enterprises B-E
And clearly the E-D was not the replacement of the E-C - there was a significant gap in between. We are given no reason to think there wasn't a gap between B and C as well. And the ship type represented by B was not retired when C was introduced. The ship type represented by E in turn is of humbler size than that represented by D. So essentially we only get a bunch of ships with the same name but no other connecting factor.

And this is with regards to the Enterprise, which everybody seems to agree is a venerable special case. Nothing of the sort seems to happen to the Hood or the Yorktown or the Intrepid. So, a PR stunt. (Much like the one with the Defiant, which was elemental in the early stages of the Dominion crisis and is likely to have achieved fame even outside the Starfleet circles.)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:23 PM   #35
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post

They didn't change the name of the previous Enterprise in TMP, despite its extensive refit.
Nor it's registry number.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:24 PM   #36
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
To me, it's an Occam's Razor thing. There was a ship called Enterprise, then it's blown up. So its crew are assigned a new ship. Also called Enterprise. Its a new Enterprise. If it was simply a refit, why wouldn't they call it by its old name?
Most likely because the ship had a new name. Whatever she was before, she was the Enterprise now. Crewmembers who served on the ship under her previous name would really be the ones who would refer to that. Scotty would know her original specs, but even he would likely just refer to her as "the new Enterprise." Ships being renamed isn't totally unheard of in real life. The very first U.S.S. Enterprise (18th-Century) was a renamed ship.
They didn't change the name of the previous Enterprise in TMP, despite its extensive refit.
They were keeping the name, so they weren't changing it.
I mean, okay, there's nothing onscreen to say one way or the other but the other explanations seem awfully convoluted to me. And TFF certainly seems to support the idea that it's a new ship, with all the associated teething problems.
The same was true of the old Enterprise after her refit. She had teething problems too--the transporter was unsafe to use and the warp drive created a wormhole moments after it was engaged.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; May 18 2012 at 09:43 PM. Reason: add-ons
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:25 PM   #37
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

@Timo^ The E came soon after the D and the Defiant also followed its predecessor immediately.

Ultimately, it's all in one's personal continuity or belief and there's nothing to prove anyone right or wrong. But I don't find the version you suggest convincing. I'm sure the reverse is true too!
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 09:29 PM   #38
RyanKCR
Vice Admiral
 
RyanKCR's Avatar
 
Location: RyanKCR is living here in Allentown
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

For me I always believed that it probably was a rush build from existing segments (abandoned new build because of Excelsior class) due to Scotty's line about the ship being put together by monkeys. I don't think that makes sense if it is a repair or refit on an existing ship.
__________________
"I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to.....I guess."
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."
"Not all treasure is sliver and gold, mate."
RyanKCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2012, 11:34 PM   #39
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Would it help or hurt the issue to mention the USS Hornet and USS Yorktown, two WWII carriers lost in battle and then the namesakes re-used in new Essex-class carriers?

Sure, different classes of carriers. But the names were given to new vessels right away. Something similar could have happened with Enterprise here?
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2012, 03:00 AM   #40
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

RyanKCR wrote: View Post
For me I always believed that it probably was a rush build from existing segments (abandoned new build because of Excelsior class) due to Scotty's line about the ship being put together by monkeys. I don't think that makes sense if it is a repair or refit on an existing ship.
It would if the refit was a rushed job and not all of the systems were fully tested (or even fully integrated) when she was commissioned.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2012, 03:42 AM   #41
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Timo wrote: View Post
But it if was all a PR stunt, why did they send them to deal with the hotspot on Nimbus III?
That much was also pretty clear in ST4: Starfleet wanted to keel-haul the mutineers, but the public wanted to beatify them. So, they get a replica starship and avoid jail, but as soon as they have had their fifteen minutes of glory, they have to face reality again: they don't get promoted and they don't get good assignments.
Yeah, even from the first time I saw the movie (and for the record, I like STV) I got the feeling that it was meant to be a failure.

All three govts. didn't give a damn about the place; Starfleet sent one of the one commander guaranteed to cause a shitstorm in a busted ship and the Klingons sent in a trigger happy glory-hound who gets a woody at the thought of taking on a Federation starship. It was like both govts. were trying to trip off a war, just a race to see who pulled the trigger first.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 03:21 AM   #42
Uxi
Lieutenant Commander
 
Uxi's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I liked the idea of Ti-Ho, but Yorktown just makes more sense. My thinking was that it was retired because of a mix of damage and treaty considerations while at least a few other Connies were still up and going, slowly getting replaced by Excelsiors.
__________________
---
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Uxi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 07:27 PM   #43
Marc
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: An Aussie in Canukistan
Send a message via ICQ to Marc
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
@Timo^ The E came soon after the D and the Defiant also followed its predecessor immediately.

Ultimately, it's all in one's personal continuity or belief and there's nothing to prove anyone right or wrong. But I don't find the version you suggest convincing. I'm sure the reverse is true too!
But there's a difference.

After the Enterprise-A, the name has only passed on when there's been a new ship class.

Original Enterprise - Constitution Class
1701-A - Constitution II (depends on one's canon).
1701-B - Excelsior
1701-C - Nebula
1701-D - Galaxy
1701-E - Soverign
__________________
Gentlemen you can't fight in here - this is the war room.

Pres. Merkin P. Muffly
Marc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 07:35 PM   #44
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

...Which might simply be because each individual ship named Enterprise has survived exceptionally long, long enough to become so outdated that when the name is freed for use, there are no further ships in the original class or even in any closely comparable classes in service, and the name must go to the "next generation".

This might be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts: Starfleet sees symbolic value in Enterprises, so it gives them preferred status in repairs and upgrades, and perhaps even keeps them from the most destructive missions. This makes the ships long-lived and adds to their symbolic value, closing the feedback circle.

A related but subtly different factor would be that the name no longer ends up on small ships, which by default lead shorter lives because there's less room for refits and a greater risk of total loss if the enemy gets in a good punch.

1701-C - Nebula
That one was an Ambassador, a smaller and older type.

I wonder what sort of a lineage the Yamato vessels had. They were up to -E in "Where Silence Has Lease" already... Did the -nil, -A, -B, -C and -D all represent a monotonically rising curve in terms of size and capabilities? (Not that the Enterprise curve would have held that steady: the -E is definitely a step down in size.)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2012, 08:14 PM   #45
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Marc wrote: View Post
Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
@Timo^ The E came soon after the D and the Defiant also followed its predecessor immediately.

Ultimately, it's all in one's personal continuity or belief and there's nothing to prove anyone right or wrong. But I don't find the version you suggest convincing. I'm sure the reverse is true too!
But there's a difference.

After the Enterprise-A, the name has only passed on when there's been a new ship class.

Original Enterprise - Constitution Class
1701-A - Constitution II (depends on one's canon).
1701-B - Excelsior
1701-C - Nebula
1701-D - Galaxy
1701-E - Soverign
Well, the other difference is that each time they came up with a new ENT for a tv show or movie, they clearly wanted to distinguish it from its predecessors or successors, either to make it easier to see what was going on onscreen (eg Yesterday's Enterprise) or simply to sell more toys.

Whereas in DS9, by the time the original Defiant bought it, the show was cash-strapped and was re-using stock footage for some space scenes. They couldn't afford a whole new ship to design action sequences or computer programmes around, which is why the next Defiant even had an identical registry; 'in-universe', we were told that they got a special dispensation because the original ship had perished before its time, after being so invaluable to the war effort.

In-universe, I also like Timo's explanation that each ENT lasted so long that by the time it was destroyed or decommissioned, it was time for a new class of ship.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion 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 01:41 AM.

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