RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,112
Posts: 5,432,845
Members: 24,932
Currently online: 691
Newest member: Cani

TrekToday headlines

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 April 20 2013, 09:27 PM   #346
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

If we go strictly by onscreen material and go with the idea that the Enterprise was a fairly brand-new ship during the Talos IV incident, then the ship was about 13 years old when Kirk first took command of her.
Add 5 to take her to end of his mission...
About 3 to take her to TMP...
Add about 7 to take her to TWOK...

Um, what were we talking about again?
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 09:35 PM   #347
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Maurice wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
In HD, we can now see that the bridge displays at the end of STIV do indeed say "transwarp" as per the reproductions in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Oh? Where?

The texts look pretty incomprehensible to me.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2277.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2280.jpg
I'm sure I saw it somewhere. Although until I can find where it was again (maybe a set photo?), disregard what I said.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 10:08 PM   #348
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
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
My only quibble with this is that Kirk independantly used the 15 year figure as well, so it wasn't only Khan who miscounted
Kirk is a hell of a starship commander, but doesn't know how to read a calendar! That's why he said two hundred years ought to be just about right in Tomorrow is Yesterday.
Can't argue with that!
__________________
"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 April 21 2013, 04:31 AM   #349
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
The only mention of the Enterprises age is in TSFS ("The Enterprise is 20 years old") and it is hard to reconcile with other data points.
Here, I'll admit to having to fudge, but I always though Morrow was talking about the age of the Enterprise since her refit (which would be fifteen or sixteen years) and rounded up for emphasis.

And I'm no more against a 2230-2235 launch date than I am a 2245 date.
According to the Treknical timeline (as used by Ships of the Star Fleet, Federation Reference Series, etc.) that 20 year figure is taken literally for the time between ST-TMP and ST III... On the surface that may seem like a long gap in years, BUT it really does make sense when you start to take into account a few other bits... Firstly the 22 year duration limit stated in the ST-TMP Blueprints for the Enterprise refit (and restated in many other blueprints)... Morrow's therefore in the right: refit or scrap!
And then we have the Planet of Galactic Peace being established 20 years ago...between the UFP, Klingons, AND Romulans...so that pretty much trashes a 15 year gap between the movies and "Space Seed" in the first season...since nobody even knew what they looked like in "Balance of Terror" (and I don't buy all that behind-the-scenes filler in the Vanguard novels)...

Last edited by Lenny Nurdbol; April 21 2013 at 02:58 PM.
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2013, 04:34 AM   #350
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
My only quibble with this is that Kirk independantly used the 15 year figure as well, so it wasn't only Khan who miscounted
Kirk is a hell of a starship commander, but doesn't know how to read a calendar! That's why he said two hundred years ought to be just about right in Tomorrow is Yesterday.
Can't argue with that!
They were speaking within the Spaceflight Chronology/FASA timeline at the time...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2013, 04:41 AM   #351
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
2245 represents a logical extrapolation that allows for both the events of The Cage and having time for a Robert April command that was alluded to in The Counter-Clock Incident working backwards from the 2364 date. It was Roddenberry who said that TNG took place 78 years after the current Trek movie at the time (The Voyage Home). Lets be honest, it's easier to come up with a fudge for 'Class of 78' than it is for 2364. Just like it's easier to fudge 'two hundred years ago' than it is to fudge the 1996 date Spock gives for the Eugenics Wars.

Are the chronologies/encyclopedia's perfect? No. But in the broad strokes they work well enough.

About starship registries, I got to tell you that I honestly don't care about them. They're in the encyclopedia, I glanced at them once about twenty years ago and haven't since because they simply aren't important to the stories being told on-screen.
Actually if you Really want to know where Class of 78 comes from, it's FASA, the Spaceflight Chronology universe which was, at the time, fully licensed by Paramount and pumping stuff out for them... Don't believe me? Checkout their TNG Officers Manual or sourcebook for TNG RPG... It sets TNG around the turn of the 24th Century (which not too surprisingly ties into all the TV ads about "The 24th Century is coming or is here" for "Encounter at Farpoint" way back when in the 80s)... In other words, Data graduated in 2278 A.D. going by that timeline...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2013, 01:39 PM   #352
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post
Actually if you Really want to know where Class of 78 comes from, it's FASA, the Spaceflight Chronology universe which was, at the time, fully licensed by Paramount and pumping stuff out for them... Don't believe me? Checkout their TNG Officers Manual or sourcebook for TNG RPG... It sets TNG around the turn of the 24th Century (which not too surprisingly ties into all the TV ads about "The 24th Century is coming or is here" for "Encounter at Farpoint" way back when in the 80s)... In other words, Data graduated in 2278 A.D. going by that timeline...
Two pieces of information would seem to work against the 2278 date:

The Neutral Zone wrote:
DATA: By your calendar two thousand three hundred sixty four.
The Voyage Home wrote:
KIRK: Ha, ha, ha... Okay, the truth. ...I am from what, on your calendar, would be the late twenty-third century.
It seems that by the time of Star Trek, people are no longer using a Gregorian calendar. So while the 'Class of '78' was likely meant to refer to some year ending in 78, it is contradicted by other lines from other episodes/movies. Plus, in order to get Data into the 24th Century where TNG takes place, it means he is at least a twenty-two year veteran of Starfleet. Which I don't buy.

Datalore wrote:
DATA: I was discovered twenty six years ago.
Which means that he would've had to have entered Starfleet almost immediately upon his discovery and the TNG takes place absolutely no later than 2304.

The above dates would also seem to work against Decker's line that V'ger was launched from Earth three-hundred years ago. Which would seem to place TOS somewhere in, at the earliest, the early/mid-2270's.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2013, 02:55 PM   #353
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I'm only stating the origin of 78... I firmly take TNG's first season to be set in 2364, the second season in 2365, etc...

As for TOS, I'd rather not state specifically When I believe that to take place, since I don't want to escalate tensions here and start a fight...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2013, 02:57 PM   #354
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post

As for TOS, I'd rather not state specifically When I believe that to take place, since I don't want to escalate tensions here and start a fight...
What fight?

Just sitting here chatting on a Sunday morning. No matter how any person comes to their personal conclusions on when Trek takes place, it requires them to play 'pick-and-choose' with the available material.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2013, 03:12 PM   #355
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post

As for TOS, I'd rather not state specifically When I believe that to take place, since I don't want to escalate tensions here and start a fight...
What fight?

Just sitting here chatting on a Sunday morning. No matter how any person comes to their personal conclusions on when Trek takes place, it requires them to play 'pick-and-choose' with the available material.
Yeah, and those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, too... Be it here, on Usenet, on Fidonet, on RIME, a men's room stall wall at Paramount, or anywhere, anywhen... I've grown weary of fans quoting from "official" sources and reaming it down my throat as Gene's own word/TPTB/The Owners of the Franchise/Abrams/or just Midget Toad-Face-With-Glasses... One thing leads to another, and the next thing you know I've got a migraine or worse from posting overload and defending my little view... Outnumbered, outgunned, and to the majority In The Wrong... Let everyone believe what she/he/it (shit?) wants to believe...

Too many decades of this has led me to believe in Trek being a multiverse of many different timelines at work at different times and maybe in parallel... And with the excesses of time travel in Trek...ANYTHING is possible...
That's one way to reconcile different perspectives and trying to unify all the books... One famous quote in a novel was about how if all the stories were to be believed about the 5-year mission, it would have had to have lasted 50 years... I can believe that, especially if much is split across multiple alternate timelines... The only Treknically good thing to come out of Abrams' flick was a resetting of years for the 5-year mission that brings it shockingly close to an older timeline...


Besides, let's preserve This thread: the disposition of 1701-A...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 05:06 AM   #356
wingsabre
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

The original Enterprise NCC-1701 was constructed around 2245 under Captain April. April commanded her for a 5 year mission. Captain Pike then commanded the ship for at least 10 -11 years. The ship would be at least 15 years old prior to Kirk’s command.

Captain Kirk then commanded her for at least 5 years and at the end of his 5 years. The ship was at least 20 years old. Captain Decker took command of an extensive refit of the ship lasting 2.5-3 years. I assume the life expectancy of a ship is anywhere between 40-50 years old. She was already mid-life when we saw the major refit. Sources state that the 5 year mission ended around 2270, and the Motion Picture (TMP) occurred at 2273. This is based on Decker’s statement that Kirk had "not logged a single star-hour in the last two and a half years" and Kirk's line. After TMP, the Ent carried the flag of Admiral Kirk, with Spock as its commanding officer when Kirk was fulfilling his admiralty duties.

By the start of The Wrath of Khan (2285), the Ent had already been in service for 12 years post refit and was at least 35 years old. Kirk was not in command of it anymore, and Captain Spock was commanding it for cadet training. Ship was likely too old for exploration, and likely regulated to federation territory. By this time, the federation had already developed many ship designs on the Constitution family including the Miranda class, Constellation class, and Soyuz class. The Constitution family was likely older than 40 years old. They also had science specific vessels such as the Oberth class, and were developing the Excelsior family of ship designs. The damage of the Ent post battle with Khan was also likely so extensive that resources required to repair the ship could be too extensive.

At the end of The Voyage Home (2286), multiple sources stated that the Ent-A was a renamed ship, formerly commissioned as the Yorktown NCC-1717. It was likely a few years younger than the Ent, maybe 2-5 years younger. Background communication in the movie stated that the Yorktown was severely damaged while encountering the probe. So let us assume that it’s 30 years old. In the Final Frontier (2287), it took a year to repair its systems and broke down during its shakedown cruise. By Undiscovered Country (2293) the Ent-A had already completed at least 5 years and could easily be 37 years old or older. Excelsior class vessels had already started full deployment, and the Ent-A just barely survived a battle. Furthermore repairing the ship, or upgrading it may require delaying production of Excelsior class ships, and development of Ambassador style test designs. So Starfleet likely decommissioned the ship or recommissioned it as a museum ship.

As for the USS Ti-Ho argument, if we accept that argument, we would have to accept that the Constellation class ships were in production for over 40 years as exploration vessels. I believe that’s unlikely as Excelsior class vessels would take its place as exploration vessels. There was also only one source that gave weight to the Ti-Ho argument. In my opinion, refitting the Constellation class was more of a stop gap before new generations of explorer size ships were in commission. Look at DS9’s “Homefront,” the USS Lakota was a refitted Excelsior class ship. It was at least the third major refit of the class since production, and after 80 years of service. It likely stopped serving exploration duties and was utilized as diplomatic duties. At that time, the Galaxy class was in mass production, but mid-size explorer size ships were in need and the Sovereign class ships had not gone into full production. The refit was utilized likely to extend the ship’s line before it gets phased out for a newer class.
wingsabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 09:16 AM   #357
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
In HD, we can now see that the bridge displays at the end of STIV do indeed say "transwarp" as per the reproductions in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Oh? Where?

The texts look pretty incomprehensible to me.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2277.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2280.jpg
I'm sure I saw it somewhere. Although until I can find where it was again (maybe a set photo?), disregard what I said.
Sorry, but not correct. Here's the story according to Shane Johnson himself (link to source page):

Johnson: The graphics were altered for the book...

...Mike Okuda served as a technical consultant for the book in its later stages, at a time just after the filming of ST IV had been concluded. It had been he who had created the bridge displays and panel graphics for the ship seen at the end of the film...

...as I was finalizing the appendix of the book (the section that dealt with the new Enterprise), I contacted Mike by phone and asked whether or not the new ship was transwarp. He told me they hadn't really thought about it, since the ship had appeared only briefly on screen and the issue had not been touched upon in the script...

...I therefore took Mike's bridge display graphics and dropped in the "transwarp" line where appropriate, and he wrote the textual descriptions that were to be printed beneath each piece of artwork...
__________________
* * *
"The road to hell is paved with works-in-progress."
—Philip Roth
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25 2013, 08:17 PM   #358
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

In that case I stand 100% corrected and apologize. I have no idea what I was thinking of.

Thanks for that interview! I was a fan of Shane Johnson's work. Nice to hear some stories behind it.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 01:04 AM   #359
xvicente
Commander
 
xvicente's Avatar
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

NCC-1701-A crashed into a star near Khitomer and exploded. That's because the ship was sailing with NOBODY at the the helm. (Sulu was in the Excelsior and Valeris in the brig) It is the final scene in the movie, see screencaps:







__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------

I am here to talk about Star Trek and chew bubble gum.
and I'm all outta bubble gum.
xvicente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 01:12 AM   #360
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I'll never unsee that now.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel 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 05:29 PM.

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