RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,119
Posts: 5,400,988
Members: 24,742
Currently online: 515
Newest member: Gakimer

TrekToday headlines

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


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 June 18 2014, 08:57 PM   #121
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

^That works too
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2014, 02:20 AM   #122
varek
Commander
 
varek's Avatar
 
Location: Danville, IN, USA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Even with retrofits and upgrades, 40 years seems to be a long time for a deep-space ship to function. I would imagine there were many (undetected?) weaknesses and damaged material, with the ship's having been through so many adventures.
The design could continue for 40 or more years, but I think individual ships should be retired--or moved to planetary defense forces--long before they had reached that milestone.
__________________
Varek, Vulcan Engineer
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Time, like latinum, is a limited commodity.
varek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 03:17 AM   #123
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Albertese wrote: View Post
ProwlAlpha wrote: View Post
Given how the line was spoken, it was James T. Kirk, not James B. Kirk or James S. Kirk or Peter James (I go by Jim) Kirk. However, I do like the nephew I idea.
What about James R. Kirk?

--Alex
Known only by James T. Kirk's frenemy, G. Mitchell
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 03:55 AM   #124
LMFAOschwarz
Fleet Captain
 
LMFAOschwarz's Avatar
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Nebusj wrote: View Post
Goodness knows I catch myself thinking of wanting to share something with a friend before remembering the friend died...
I know the feeling.
LMFAOschwarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 12:13 AM   #125
Ithekro
Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

varek wrote: View Post
Even with retrofits and upgrades, 40 years seems to be a long time for a deep-space ship to function. I would imagine there were many (undetected?) weaknesses and damaged material, with the ship's having been through so many adventures.
The design could continue for 40 or more years, but I think individual ships should be retired--or moved to planetary defense forces--long before they had reached that milestone.
There are plenty of examples of ship or even aircraft that have served for 40 years. Nearly all the American supercarriers served around for 40 years. The nuclear carriers look like they will all serve about 50 years each, with there only real non-service years being major refueling and refits.

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was supposedly in active service from around 2245 to 2270 before a major reconstruction. Most of her structure was rebuilt and replaced judging by the massive changes the ship has before the V'Ger Incident (2273?) It is speculated that the ship went on an active carrer for another ten or so years. We think Kirk retired for a short period around 2282, so it is likely the Enterprise was removed from active duty and made into the training cruiser we saw under Captain Spock in 2285.

So this makes the ship active for about 35 years and a training ship for about 5 years.

The Enterprise-A, assuming it was an older ship fitted out for Kirk, could have been any age. But by Star Trek VI the crew seems to be teaching again like they were in Star Trek II. We have no evidence that the Enterprise-A was also a training cruiser, but it would fit how the crew was split into other assignments on Earth. Though it does not explain why Enterprise is carrying around gaseous anomoly detection equipment similar to the task being preformed by USS Excelsior for the last year or two.

USS Enterprise-B and -C are the mystery ships. Would one assume that the -B was retired so the -C was built, or was the -B lost or destroyed prior to the completion of a new Ambassador-class hull? If the -B still exists, would it have been possible to bring it out of mothballs to replace the -C in the fleet until the Galaxy-class -D was completed (since it was about 20 years from the the time the -C went down to when the Galaxy-class Project completed a new Enterprise).

The Enterprise-D is likely the ship we know the most about since we saw about all its activities for its 8 years of existance.

Unlike most people around, I like the Enterprise-E design. Mostly because I like longer warp nacelles and always disliked that part of the Enterprise-D as they seemed too small compared to the likes of the Excelsior-class. But that is an asthetic thing. It is suspected that Picard was in command of the Enterprise-E longer than the Enterprise-D simply because it lived longer. Mind you that Picard's ship (if one were to look at it based on time served) would be USS Stargazer, as he was captain of that ship for about 22 years while, as of the last Star Trek film, he's been captain of the two Enterprises for about 16 years.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 05:32 AM   #126
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Ithekro wrote: View Post
USS Enterprise-B and -C are the mystery ships. Would one assume that the -B was retired so the -C was built, or was the -B lost or destroyed prior to the completion of a new Ambassador-class hull? If the -B still exists, would it have been possible to bring it out of mothballs to replace the -C in the fleet until the Galaxy-class -D was completed (since it was about 20 years from the the time the -C went down to when the Galaxy-class Project completed a new Enterprise).
It's highly unlikely that the Enterprise-B was retired, as many other Excelsior-class ships were still in service by the time of TNG. So there would have been no reason to retire it if other ships of its class were doing just fine. It's more likely that it was destroyed some time between 2296 and 2344 (which then would invalidate your theory that the B returned to service after the C was destroyed, which doesn't make much sense to me anyway).
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 09:06 AM   #127
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I agree, it stands to reason that no new Enterprise gets the same registry and alphabetic appendix, until the previous ship has been destroyed or considered lost.

NCC-1701-A came into existence because NCC-1701 had been destroyed, NCC-1701-D came into existence because NCC-1701-C had been destroyed at the Battle of Narendra III in 2344.

Nevertheless, I think it's worth a footnote that for 20 years (2344-2364) there had been no Federation starship with the name and registry of the Enterprise.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 09:44 AM   #128
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Nevertheless, I think it's worth a footnote that for 20 years (2344-2364) there had been no Federation starship with the name and registry of the Enterprise.
And to this day that drives me crazy. In retrospect, I wish that "Yesterday's Enterprise" would have featured the Enterprise-B instead (a reuse of the Excelsior model in its original configuration), and placed the events of the attack not in 2344, but in 2311 to coincide with the Tomed Incident which up to that point had been the last time the Federation and the Romulans had direct contact. That way, not only would it have been more consistent, not only would they have saved money by not having to build a new model, but then it would have been more believable that the Ent-C would have been constructed after 2311 and remained in service until the 2360's to be retired once the Ent-D was christened.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 09:48 AM   #129
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Given the nature of the E-C's demise, it seems that having a "lucky little Enterprise" in the fleet went out of fashion for a while.
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 11:17 AM   #130
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

If we look at all the successes the original NCC-1701 had defeating and humiliating the Romulans, I believe that keeping the name and registry number was a deliberate and psychological choice of Starfleet to have the Romulans think twice before doing anything stupid.

Of course, the Enterprise-C was defeated by the Romulans and I think Starfleet might have considered not naming and numbering another starship "Enterprise NCC-1701". Any intended pyschological effect had become pointless.

For all we know, given the lack of any communication between the UFP and the Romulan Star Empire for several decades, the choice to commission USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D may have been an attempt to provoke the Romulans into some kind of interaction and by the end of Season One ("The Neutral Zone") the Romulans did interact for the first time in decades with a Federation starship: NCC-1701-D

Maybe some kind of bait, but I'm certain that henceforth every Romulan Commander was looking for a perfect opportunity to take NCC-1701-D as a prize and back to Romulus for fame and glory.

After Picard's humiliation by Sub-Commander Selok and Admiral Mendak in "Data's Day" I'm confident the citizens of the Romulan capitol enjoyed Bread and Circuses for a couple of weeks or months. Finally, some Romulans had managed to humiliate an Enterprise NCC-1701 and its captain in return.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 06:28 PM   #131
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Ithekro wrote: View Post
USS Enterprise-B and -C are the mystery ships. Would one assume that the -B was retired so the -C was built, or was the -B lost or destroyed prior to the completion of a new Ambassador-class hull? If the -B still exists, would it have been possible to bring it out of mothballs to replace the -C in the fleet until the Galaxy-class -D was completed (since it was about 20 years from the the time the -C went down to when the Galaxy-class Project completed a new Enterprise).
It's highly unlikely that the Enterprise-B was retired, as many other Excelsior-class ships were still in service by the time of TNG. So there would have been no reason to retire it if other ships of its class were doing just fine.
Nah, individual ships of a class can be retired and yet the class itself can continue.

It's totally plausible that the Enterprise-B was retired prior to 2344 and may even have been the longest-serving Enterprise to date if she went 50 years before decommissioning. Starfleet wouldn't have retired the entire Excelsior-class because of that.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 07:32 PM   #132
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Why are people disturbed by the gap between the C and D when Starfleet(Federation) had no ship named Enterprise from the decommissioning of the NX-01 to the launch of the NCC-1701?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 07:54 PM   #133
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Nah, individual ships of a class can be retired and yet the class itself can continue.
While that may be true, there's no evidence that there was anything wrong with the Ent-B for it to be decommissioned between 2296 and 2344 (and that's being conservative, since all we know is that the Ent-C was destroyed in 2344).

It's totally plausible that the Enterprise-B was retired prior to 2344 and may even have been the longest-serving Enterprise to date if she went 50 years before decommissioning. Starfleet wouldn't have retired the entire Excelsior-class because of that.
That's the problem: We simply don't know any of the particulars between 2296 and 2344. Was the Ent-B scrapped right after the Nexus incident? Did it continue operating for five years? Ten years? Twenty? What happened to it? When was the Ent-C constructed? Was it only active for a few years before it was destroyed in 2344? Had it been serving for five years prior? Ten years? Twenty?

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
Why are people disturbed by the gap between the C and D when Starfleet(Federation) had no ship named Enterprise from the decommissioning of the NX-01 to the launch of the NCC-1701?
Perhaps the reason was the same as why there was no Enterprise between the C's destruction in 2344 and the D's commissioning in 2363? A reason, of course, that none of us actually know?

Or perhaps early in the Federation's history, the name "Enterprise" simply wasn't synonymous with anything uniquely important to warrant another ship with that name until after TOS.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 08:24 PM   #134
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Nah, individual ships of a class can be retired and yet the class itself can continue.
While that may be true, there's no evidence that there was anything wrong with the Ent-B for it to be decommissioned between 2296 and 2344 (and that's being conservative, since all we know is that the Ent-C was destroyed in 2344).
Fifty years of wear tear will definitely age a starship, especially one named Enterprise. And for all we know, fifty years may have been the life expectancy of that vessel.
It's totally plausible that the Enterprise-B was retired prior to 2344 and may even have been the longest-serving Enterprise to date if she went 50 years before decommissioning. Starfleet wouldn't have retired the entire Excelsior-class because of that.
That's the problem: We simply don't know any of the particulars between 2296 and 2344. Was the Ent-B scrapped right after the Nexus incident? Did it continue operating for five years? Ten years? Twenty? What happened to it? When was the Ent-C constructed? Was it only active for a few years before it was destroyed in 2344? Had it been serving for five years prior? Ten years? Twenty?
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the Enterprise-B was replaced by the Enterprise-C at some point prior to the Narendra III incident. But the idea that the Enterprise-B was around long enough to be retired is as plausible and valid an idea as any other that doesn't contradict the Enterprise-C being at Narendra III in 2344.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 10:42 PM   #135
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Fifty years of wear tear will definitely age a starship, especially one named Enterprise. And for all we know, fifty years may have been the life expectancy of that vessel.
I suppose I'm just curious as to why other Excelsiors like the Hood and the Repulse (which presumably had the same amount of wear and tear as the Ent-B) are still around and operating even after the launch of the Ent-E, while their sister ship the Ent-B had been replaced three times over.

But the idea that the Enterprise-B was around long enough to be retired is as plausible and valid an idea as any other that doesn't contradict the Enterprise-C being at Narendra III in 2344.
But if the Enterprise-C was commissioned, say, in 2325 (which is the date one of the Star Trek calendars conjectures), then the Ent-B would only have been around for less than 30 years. Other Excelsiors which seem to have been commissioned at the end of the 23rd century and into the start of the 24th, are still operational 50 to 75 years later. That date unfortunately gives the Ent-C only a 19 year lifespan (granted the ship would have served longer had it not been destroyed), but again I'm being conservative here. We still don't even know how long the span of time was between the end of the B and the commissioning of the C. It could have been one year; it could have been ten. And for all we know, the Ent-C was built even sooner than 2325.

Personally, I'd be fine with the "Babylon 4" approach: That the Ent-C was brand-new as of 2344 and that it mysteriously vanished in the same year. That way the Ent-B could have had almost 50 years of life. But unfortunately it doesn't solve the inherent problem of no new Enterprise for 20 years between the C and the D, unless everyone was so paranoid that ships named Enterprise were disappearing or getting destroyed that they decided to take a hiatus with that name.

Really, the existence of the Enterprise-B kinda served little purpose. This is one of the reasons why, in retrospect, I wish TNG hadn't taken place as far into the future as it did.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat 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 04:42 PM.

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