RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,674
Posts: 5,429,692
Members: 24,823
Currently online: 567
Newest member: voyagerman49


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 June 21 2012, 07:47 PM   #121
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

those who are high ups at Starfleet Command have served on or commanded their own ships
...So they know the perils of perverse attachment to hardware all too well. That's how it works in the real world, too - if there's an emotional compromise brewing, it's time for some weaning action before it's too late.

It just appears utterly ridiculous that the feelings of the former Yorktown CO would enter the picture in any way. He would have been due to leave the ship in X years anyway; getting transferred at a somewhat different date, dictated by higher-ups who don't take requests or listen to complaints, is what you sign up for when you decide that Starfleet is for you.

...Yeah, we could have some sort of an episode where the crew has difficulty adapting when their beloved series-hero CO gets transferred. Like "Chain of Command". But that episode is widely reviled for its portrayal of Riker, Troi and to some degree even Data as disgustingly unprofessional crybabies who bring shame to their organization.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2012, 09:00 PM   #122
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Timo wrote: View Post
Each of the captains see their vessel as something tangible, almost human and alive.
But due to their profession, they simply have to be capable of transferring their affectations to the next vessel when they themselves get transferred.
Ummm...I think you mean affections, not affectations. The latter would be a weird thing to transfer.

affectation |ˌafekˈtā sh ən|
noun
behavior, speech, or writing that is artificial and designed to impress : the affectation of a man who measures every word for effect | she called the room her boudoir, which he thought an affectation.
• a studied display of real or pretended feeling : an affectation of calm.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin affectatio(n-), from the verb affectare
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2012, 09:45 PM   #123
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I've never believed for a minute that the Enterprise-A and the Yorktown were the same vessel. Star Trek V gives every indication that the Ent-A is a brand-new ship.

The only reason why this debate even exists is because of the Ent-A's decommissioning at the end of Star Trek VI, and why Starfleet would decommission a seemingly brand-new ship after only a few years of service. But there are in fact several reasons:

1. The ship was faulty from the start. If the vessel was found to have a major design flaw after a certain period of time, that would justify a quick decommission.

2. Starfleet's attitude was clearly that the Excelsior class was where it's at, and older vessels could have been decommissioned to be broken up for raw material to build the new ships.

3. Starfleet already had the Enterprise-B under construction and wanted to decommission the older vessel before the new one was completed.

4. To go along with #3, Starfleet could also have recommissioned the Ent-A with another name so as not to step on the toes of its newer namesake, and to still be able to utilize a relatively new ship for some other duty. To me, this seems the most logical idea of what happened to the Ent-A after STVI.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2012, 10:52 PM   #124
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Halliwell wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
Each of the captains see their vessel as something tangible, almost human and alive.
But due to their profession, they simply have to be capable of transferring their affectations to the next vessel when they themselves get transferred.

It cannot be a rare event, and it doesn't seem plausible Starfleet would in any way acknowledge the perverse love its skippers feel towards the government hardware. If anything, any overt expression of such attachment would be followed by disciplinary action, almost certainly beginning with a transfer!

Timo Saloniemi
Um I don't think so since most of those who are high ups at Starfleet Command have served on or commanded their own ships. The Chief Of Starfleet operations gives Sisko special dispensation to change Sao Paulo to Defiant and when Sisko got sentimental about it I didn't see Admiral Ross throwing Sisko into the brig.
Changing Sao Palo's name could have been as much a PR stunt as the "A" in the Enteprise-A registry: The ship had a rep, it survived a lot of shit that put other ships down. The name meant surviving at all costs, the Dominion might be bad ass but we'll keep coming back. Who knows, maybe after the war the ship reverted to Sao Palo (no EU please) and Defiant went on to another ship
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2012, 11:22 PM   #125
Shane Houston
Commander
 
Shane Houston's Avatar
 
Location: Louisville Kentucky - Halliwell
View Shane Houston's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

There is no basis that the Defiant/Sao Paulo's name change was for PR. If you watch the episode you'll see it was to honor the previous ship and her crew. PR doesn't win wars. Sisko would have still won the same way had the name change never taken place.
__________________
"I excel at following the important ones." Admiral Kathryn Janeway answering Counselor Cambridge's questioning her whether she excels at following orders. Star Trek Voyager: Protectors by New York Times Bestselling authorKirsten "Mother F**ng" Beyer
Shane Houston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2012, 11:35 PM   #126
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Halliwell wrote: View Post
There is no basis that the Defiant/Sao Paulo's name change was for PR. If you watch the episode you'll see it was to honor the previous ship and her crew. PR doesn't win wars. Sisko would have still won the same way had the name change never taken place.
I'd say more than a few propagandist would probably debate you on whether or not PR and morale wins wars.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2012, 06:06 AM   #127
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
I've never believed for a minute that the Enterprise-A and the Yorktown were the same vessel. Star Trek V gives every indication that the Ent-A is a brand-new ship.
implicit in the ending of TVH as well IMO: "Let's see what she's got!"
The only reason why this debate even exists is because of the Ent-A's decommissioning at the end of Star Trek VI, and why Starfleet would decommission a seemingly brand-new ship after only a few years of service. But there are in fact several reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Constitutions, a dated design in the process of being replaced, are retired instead of repaired if they are severely damaged. Remember that Spock intended that Valeris replace him:
"This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me."
So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2012, 06:22 AM   #128
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BK613 wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
I've never believed for a minute that the Enterprise-A and the Yorktown were the same vessel. Star Trek V gives every indication that the Ent-A is a brand-new ship.
implicit in the ending of TVH as well IMO: "Let's see what she's got!"
The only reason why this debate even exists is because of the Ent-A's decommissioning at the end of Star Trek VI, and why Starfleet would decommission a seemingly brand-new ship after only a few years of service. But there are in fact several reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Constitutions, a dated design in the process of being replaced, are retired instead of repaired if they are severely damaged. Remember that Spock intended that Valeris replace him:
"This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me."
So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.
Well she was banged up pretty bad. Even if she was fresh off the assembly line, it's likely Starfleet might figure on decommissioning her. Older design, either waste resources on rebuilding her or just shunt that money over to new ship.

Of course that begs the question of whether the 1701-B was always slated to be the 1701-B or was renamed when the name Enterprise opened up.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Zombie Bots From Mars! |

Last edited by SeerSGB; June 22 2012 at 07:59 AM.
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2012, 08:27 PM   #129
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BK613 wrote: View Post
5. Constitutions, a dated design in the process of being replaced, are retired instead of repaired if they are severely damaged. Remember that Spock intended that Valeris replace him: "This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me." So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that. The Ent-A was in battle, but it wasn't as if she lost her nacelles or had huge chunks of saucer blown away a la Wolf 359. She was relatively intact and fully functional at the end of the movie. While it's true that Spock and the others clearly were unaware of Starfleet's plans to decommission the ship, I think it's more likely that the politicians simply said, "We're unveiling this new ship soon, so we need the old one out of here."

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Of course that begs the question of whether the 1701-B was always slated to be the 1701-B or was renamed when the name Enterprise opened up.
As with the above theory, I think the plan was to always name the new ship Enterprise, thereby necessitating the early decommissioning of the older one.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2012, 05:24 AM   #130
Uxi
Lieutenant Commander
 
Uxi's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BK613 wrote: View Post
So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.
And a treaty. Logically, the treaty was a greater factor than the damage. Even with the hull breach, Enterprise is able to return home under her own power.
__________________
---
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Uxi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2012, 05:23 PM   #131
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

It should be noted that ST6 does not exactly indicate a change in the ship's status yet. True, Uhura receives a message saying that "they" are to be decommissioned, yet Kirk responds with a log entry that refers to the ongoing mission of this very vessel under future crews.

OTOH, we already knew that "they", as in our heroic officers, were to be retired very soon...

Perhaps Starfleet revokes the commissions of all its retiring officers? Or perhaps revoking of commission was to be punishment for Kirk and his team (although apparently not followed through since the heroes still have their uniforms in ST:GEN).

The decision not to repair the ship would then come later, supporting the theories of political pressure and downplaying those relating to Starfleet's original plans on the ship or the class.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2012, 05:50 PM   #132
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...?

Timo wrote: View Post
It should be noted that ST6 does not exactly indicate a change in the ship's status yet. True, Uhura receives a message saying that "they" are to be decommissioned, yet Kirk responds with a log entry that refers to the ongoing mission of this very vessel under future crews.
I recall being very confused about that sequence of events when I first saw ST VI. The decomissioning message seems to come out of nowhere & then Kirk's log entry seems to indicate that he believes that the ship will be passed on to another crew. It is only because of the launch of the 1701-B in Generations that we now assume that the ship was being decomissioned, but it wasn't so clear upon first viewing.
__________________
"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 June 27 2012, 07:30 PM   #133
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Off to the Starfleet museum for the E-A?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2012, 07:42 PM   #134
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Not necessarily. It might have been a much later ship. If it had been the Enterprise-A, I believe Picard would have mentioned that to Scotty.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2012, 08:37 PM   #135
tighr
Commodore
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Timo wrote: View Post
Perhaps Starfleet revokes the commissions of all its retiring officers? Or perhaps revoking of commission was to be punishment for Kirk and his team (although apparently not followed through since the heroes still have their uniforms in ST:GEN).
I don't think that's the case. In ST:TMP, we get McCoy complaining about his "reserve activation clause". He was essentially re-instated at his previous commission.

Also, we see Kirk, Scott, and Chekov in uniform at the beginning of Generations. Presumably that means they haven't been decommissioned, and are still on active service, or maybe in a reserve role.
__________________
~Tighr™: Not helping the situation since 1983
tighr 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 07:27 PM.

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