RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,745
Posts: 5,433,129
Members: 24,838
Currently online: 380
Newest member: Mei'konda

TrekToday headlines

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23 2014, 01:21 AM   #16
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

clint g wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".
They actually did, not knowing what the producers had in mind for Star Trek VIII at the time.
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...laxy_class.jpg
That's actually pretty cool....
Yes, it is. Too bad they didn't make use of it.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 01:42 AM   #17
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
I have no problem with the original Enterprise having a lifespan of 40 years.
Same here.
However, I felt that every Enterprise after the original had ridiculously short lifespans.
Personally, I go with the Enterprise-B was around the longest, about 50 years, and had several different captains and crews during her time.
I also wasn't all that crazy about the 20 year absence of an Enterprise between the C and the D.
I favor the idea that the fairly new Enterprise-C was the only starship with the name to be lost with all hands aboard and that Starfleet wasn't quick to replace her so fast. At the same time, Starfleet wanted the public to know that the Enterprise would live on by announcing that one of the still-in-the-idea phase Galaxy-class ships would be the Enterprise-D.

Whilst it is possible the Ent-B was around for 50 years. I don't think that's likely for the following reason. We know it's commissioning date is ~2293. The Ent-C had a date of loss circa 2344. Now fo course it is possible the Ent-C was only around for a year.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 02:19 AM   #18
arch101
Fleet Captain
 
arch101's Avatar
 
Location: 10 miles west of the Universal Hub
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

[/QUOTE]

And yeah, I hated that decision also, but it was easily fixed. The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".

But no, instead we're stuck with the ugliest starship ever put out.
[/QUOTE]

I'm with ya brother!

[/QUOTE]
They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.[/QUOTE]

This is true of the interior sets, not the exterior of the ship. Could have been fixed by redesigning the sets. Note the Main Bridge with Worf's seat to bring him down into the frame as well as the side stations to keep the sides of the wider frame interesting.
__________________
BOSTON is STRONG with The Force
arch101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 04:11 AM   #19
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
If 5-year missions were the norm, Spock wouldn't have served with Pike for 13 years ...
Nothing says that all the time Pike and Spock served together was aboard the Enterprise.

Lot's of other ships in the fleet, plus ground assignments.

They were together on the Enterprise thirteen years prior to Court Martial, and Kirk met
Pike when he became Captain of the ship, in canon there indication that Pike was the ship's Capatin immediately before Kirk.


Not thirteen years*:
KIRK: I took over the Enterprise from him. Spock served with him for several years.
SPOCK: Eleven years, four months, five days.
Just enough time for two fives and a yard period...

-----

*(That's the interval between Pike's visit to Talos IV and Kirk's )
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 04:49 AM   #20
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".
They actually did, not knowing what the producers had in mind for Star Trek VIII at the time.
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...laxy_class.jpg
What was that supposed to be for?
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 05:35 AM   #21
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Fact is that the ship sustained heavy damage in the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and next (the VFX model) underwent some noticable design changes, thus I never really dismissed the possibility that the "new" Enterprise seen in "The Corbomite Maneuver" could have been a new ship.

From a retroactive point of view that could explain Admiral Morrow's "20 years old" remark in ST III (though I still think that was a stupid line. Khan had severely damaged the Enterprise in TWOK, so if Harve Bennett wanted a plausible reason to have her decommissioned he should have better taken another look at the previous film...)
So you're implying that the ship we saw in the pilot and the ship we saw in "TCM" were two different ships, just to justify Morrow's retarded remark? Interesting theory, but I agree that it was just a stupid thing to say when other reasons for the decommission were prevalent (the damage, the fact that the Excelsior type was the new thing, etc.)

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Personally, I go with the Enterprise-B was around the longest, about 50 years, and had several different captains and crews during her time.
That would actually make a lot of sense, seeing as how other ships like the Hood, Intrepid, Lexington and Potemkin (probably contemporaries to the Ent-B) were still active by TNG.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Whilst it is possible the Ent-B was around for 50 years. I don't think that's likely for the following reason. We know it's commissioning date is ~2293. The Ent-C had a date of loss circa 2344. Now of course it is possible the Ent-C was only around for a year.
Going along with C.E. Evans's idea, that would give a "Babylon 4" vibe to the situation; that is, that the Ent-C was a brand-new ship that mysteriously disappeared. Unfortunately the episode never really gave that impression.

RandyS wrote: View Post
And yeah, I hated that decision also, but it was easily fixed. The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".
Manticore wrote: View Post
They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.
See, I don't quite buy the rumor that the ship wasn't good enough for filming. What did the Enterprise-E model do in FC that the Ent-D couldn't have done? And by INS and Nemesis, the physical model had been replaced with CGI, so that became a non-issue. No, I think they just wanted a new ship for the sake of having a new ship. Which I suppose was a given after GEN, but then it kinda became silly that the entire bridge crew was still serving on the same ship for the next three movies.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I thought that was the one before, not after the "D".
Sorry, have to disagree with you there. The NX-01 is hands-down the worst Enterprise.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 06:27 AM   #22
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".
They actually did, not knowing what the producers had in mind for Star Trek VIII at the time.
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...laxy_class.jpg
What was that supposed to be for?
IRC, it for the sequel to Generations (what become First Contact). It was assumed that the studio would just order them to relabel and reuse the Enterprise D models. Turns out the TPTB ordered a whole new Enterprise be built.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 10:43 AM   #23
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Manticore wrote: View Post
They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.
Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff? Did Andy Probert say the ship was designed for TV aspect ratios of the time? Or are you working backwards from someone saying the E was long and flat to work better in widescreen or something?
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 12:24 PM   #24
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I would have thought aspect ratio had nothing to do with it, after all isn't aspect rato more to do with how something is framed. Besides wasn't TNG shot on film?
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 01:37 PM   #25
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Maurice wrote: View Post
Manticore wrote: View Post
They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.
Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff? Did Andy Probert say the ship was designed for TV aspect ratios of the time? Or are you working backwards from someone saying the E was long and flat to work better in widescreen or something?
A glance at the fore/starboard elevations shows that the claims about the Ent-D's dimensions are completely wrong, anyway.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 02:20 PM   #26
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
I have no problem with the original Enterprise having a lifespan of 40 years.
Same here.
Personally, I go with the Enterprise-B was around the longest, about 50 years, and had several different captains and crews during her time.
I also wasn't all that crazy about the 20 year absence of an Enterprise between the C and the D.
I favor the idea that the fairly new Enterprise-C was the only starship with the name to be lost with all hands aboard and that Starfleet wasn't quick to replace her so fast. At the same time, Starfleet wanted the public to know that the Enterprise would live on by announcing that one of the still-in-the-idea phase Galaxy-class ships would be the Enterprise-D.

Whilst it is possible the Ent-B was around for 50 years. I don't think that's likely for the following reason. We know it's commissioning date is ~2293. The Ent-C had a date of loss circa 2344.
Which doesn't make it unlikely an idea at all--the longest-lived Enterprise followed by the shortest-lived Enterprise.
Now fo course it is possible the Ent-C was only around for a year.
Exactly. Since we don't know when the Enterprise-B ended and the Enterprise-C began, any idea is valid.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Going along with C.E. Evans's idea, that would give a "Babylon 4" vibe to the situation; that is, that the Ent-C was a brand-new ship that mysteriously disappeared. Unfortunately the episode never really gave that impression.
Well, in my idea she wasn't a totally brand-new ship (it had been in service for at least a year and long enough to be considered a plum assignment), but still new enough to have went far before her time.
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".
They actually did, not knowing what the producers had in mind for Star Trek VIII at the time.
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...laxy_class.jpg
What was that supposed to be for?
For Star Trek VIII (a.k.a. First Contact). They didn't know at the time production on Generations wrapped if the producers were going to have the Enterprise-E be a Galaxy-class ship or not, so someone decided to change a few decals just in case it was the former (the decals on the rest of the model still read NCC-1701-D however).
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; January 23 2014 at 02:31 PM.
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2014, 06:00 PM   #27
Manticore
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Manticore
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

It's possible that I conflated the sets and the model aspect-ratio wise. It has been a while since I watched all of the documentaries.

At the same time, it's a matter of record that virtually every single story beat - including the destruction of the -D - was dictated to Moore and Braga by the producers.

Even as much as I love the Enterprise-E, it does make a little sad. The -D was absolutely beautiful in Generations.
__________________
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants.
WWJAD
Manticore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 03:25 AM   #28
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

A couple of minor considerations for this timeline:

1: In "The Menagerie, Part I", Spock said of the Talosian "movie" of Pike's voyage to the Talos Star Group: "the was thirteen years ago." If we assume that the Enterprise's spacejacking by Spock took place in 2267, that would mean Pike's encounter with the Talosians took place in 2254.

2: Just because a space vessel receives a refit doesn't mean it's always laid-up for a year or more. As a result of the Battle of Coral Sea, the American aircraft carrier U.S.S. Yorktown was damaged, but the naval yards at Pearl Harbor were able to restore Yorktown in just days. I would suggest that major reconstruction efforts such as the one nearing completion in TMP could be the exception, not the rule, and that several smaller, quicker mini-refits may have taken place during the pre-TOS-through-TOS-era.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 05:06 AM   #29
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
I would have thought aspect ratio had nothing to do with it, after all isn't aspect rato more to do with how something is framed. Besides wasn't TNG shot on film?
It was shot on film, yes, but for a television aspect ratio, the same as for every other TV series back in the day.

When I first saw the picture of the Galaxy Class E, I'd thought it may have been made as a possibility for TNG's season seven, as Braga originally wanted to crash the Enterprise saucer section in "Descent." I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.

(No fair mentioning DS9's Defiant.)
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 07:49 AM   #30
Tribble puncher
Commander
 
Tribble puncher's Avatar
 
Location: Lexington, KY
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I don't hate the "E", but the "D" is a better ship to me as well.
Tribble puncher 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 08:35 AM.

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