RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,544
Posts: 5,513,296
Members: 25,143
Currently online: 430
Newest member: JackieM

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

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


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 26 2014, 11:44 PM   #136
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
Not all Excelsior-class ships were built at the same time. Also not all Excelsior-class ships are subject to the same wear and tear.

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.
Actually, aside from the Excelsior and the Enterprise-B, we don't know how many Excelsior-class ships were in service at the end of the 23rd-Century as hull registries tended to be all over the place in TNG. Most Excelsior-class ships could have been built in the 24th-Century. Older Excelsior-class ships could have been in their final years of operation before retirement at the time TNG started, while other Excelsior-class ships were middle-aged, having been built maybe only 20 or so years earlier. The first batch of Excelsior-class ships like the Excelsior and the Enterprise-B were long since gone by the time of "Encounter At Farpoint," replaced by newer batches of Excelsiors, IMO.
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.
We could even go with an idea that the Enterprise-C was in service even earlier than that if we wanted to.

My point is, though, in the lack of anything canonical about the fate of the Enterprise-B and origin of the Enterprise-C, is that there are several plausible ideas, each one just as likely as the other as long as it doesn't contradict what we saw in Generations and "Yesterday's Enterprise."
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.
The way I've viewed it as that the Enterprise-C was the first Starship Enterprise to be lost with all hands on board, but the loss of that ship meant something--not only of the heroic sacrifice of her crew but also how it impressed the Klingons and improved relations with them. I think after a short period of mourning, Starfleet announced that one of the (then) proposed Galaxy-class ships would be the Enterprise-D. At the time, though, the Galaxy-class was just a series of ideas, not even a finalized design, and it would be a while before even the prototype would be completed.
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.
Well, TNG was meant to be very different than TOS in almost every aspect and so placing it roughly a century later was a sure-fire way to do that as well as maintain a good distance between the two shows. Both the Enterprise-B and Enterprise-C were really just meant to establish that there was history after Kirk and before Picard.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 03:16 AM   #137
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

One of my questions concerning time in TNG is what was Captain Picard doing between the loss of USS Stargazer and his taking command of USS Enterprise? That was basically 8 years.


As for the number of ships named "Enterprise", if Temporal Investigations can get the number wrong, who can tell just how many ships have that name in the Federation?

Speculation based on real world events:
Between 2161 and 2245 there was one or more ships with the name Enterprise in the service of the Federation. However, they may not have been frontline cruisers. Reason for this is that the US Navy had an Enterprise motor patrol boat in the First World War. Before that there was a sail/steam sloop USS Enterprise in the 1870s to 1909. She was not anywhere near top of the line as that was the age of the ironclads into the age of steel ships. She seems to mostly have been used for exploration of the seas, some show the flag work in Africa and Asia, and a training ship in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Other times it is a matter of waiting until the next thing comes along.

From 1947 to 1961 there was no active USS Enterprise in the US Navy. Until 1958 the aircraft carrier CV-6 USS Enterprise sat in mothballs waiting her fate (scrapped), and after that the CVN-65 USS Enterprise was named and finished in 1961. Today the CVN-65 is out of service and being rendered safe (for scrap most likely). It will be replaced...probably...by the new CVN-80 USS Enterprise in 2025.

So it is possible there was another ship named Enterprise in service between 2161 and 2245. It just would not have been a "starship", or it was assigned to a different department within the Federation.

So for the NCC-1701-C, we don't know much about the Ambassador-class verses the Excelsior-class or the Galaxy-class. We rarely see Ambassador-class ships, but there are craploads of Excelsiors. Most materal suggests that the Ambassador-class was designed somewhere in the 2310s or 2320s. This would fit with them replacing the Excelsior-class as the front line exploration vessel as the Excelsior-class was launched in the 2280s with them becoming a full service class in the 2290s. If one assumes something between a 30 and 40 year gap for design cycles in Starfleet for major heavy cruiser types, that would put the Galaxy-class as suppose to have been finished in the early 2350s, if not late 2340s. (The 2340s would fit with the Soverign-class coming out in the 2370s) But seeing what kinds of problems Picard had with the Enterprise, it seems likely that the Galaxy-class project was delayed a lot. This might have to do with new technology, or politics, or even production of other ships in the 2250s to fight the Cardassians (seeing that that conflict was going on, it seems weirder and weirder to have Picard and crew so high minded in the first season of TNG).

So, if the Ambassador-class was a 20 or 30 year old design by 2344, would it be reasonable to think of the Enterprise-C as a new ship? Or was it a "replacement", like the Enterprise-A, for the loss of Enterprise-B? Or was it a natural progression after retirment of the Enterprise-B in the 2230s (after 40 years of service)? The Ambassador-class being older by that point would give a reason for the Galaxy-class to begin costruction. But the 15 years or so between the start of the project and the launch of USS Galaxy means that the loss of USS Enterprise-C was just at the wrong time. She was lost too late to get a simple replacement of another Ambassador-class ship (like Kirk got another Constitution) but too soon to get a new class of ship that Starfleet found worthy of the name. Though that doesn't work very well either unless the Enterprise-A was a matter of luck on Kirk's part. There just happened to be either one more Constitution being built, one that happened to be in mothballs but servicable, or one that happened to come back in that could be renamed. Though there would be no crew to get a new Enterprise after the -C was lost.

Though it makes the existance of the Sovereign-class all the more of a puzzle as they come out in 2370, less than 15 years after the launch of USS Galaxy, though more than 25 years after the start of the Galaxy-class Project. Could the anomaly be the Galaxy-class taking too long to build? Mixed with a warfooting like rush on the Sovereign-class due to a mix of the Borg, the Romulans returning, and other issues during the 2360s? If the pattern from the Constitution to Excelsior to Ambassador was maintianed, what would it look like?

2165 - ??? (Daedalus-class?)
2205 - ??? (Kelvin-type?)
2245 - Constitution-class
2285 - Excelsior-class
Projected: 2325 - Ambassador-class
Projected: 2365 - Galaxy-class
Projected: 2405 - Sovereign-class

Something happened.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 07:25 AM   #138
FatherRob
Rear Admiral
 
FatherRob's Avatar
 
Location: Citizen of the Kingdom of God (Living in Bargersville, IN)
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

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?
That's a really good question. The CVN-65 was decomissioned, what, two years ago now? The CVN-80 won't be operational until at least 2025. That means 13 years with no USS Enterprise in the Navy.

Similarly, the Navy's CV-6 was decommissioned in 1947. Her replacement, the CVN-65 was commissioned in 1961. That's 14 years or so.

Typically, once a ship has been honored as being of a specific type, you don't give the name to an inferior ship. Star Trek's Enterprise has always been a front line exploratory and multi-mission starship. It is not a backwoods cruiser, a picket ship, a scout, etc. If you aren't building such ships, you don't give them such names.

Thus, when the Enterprise C is lost, it makes sense that Starfleet declares that one of the new Galaxy class starships under development will be named in honor of the Enterprise, to carry on the line.

Now, back to the original Enterprise and the 40 year comment.

The original Enterprise actually had a minimum of four iterations.

Mk 1 - As seen in The Cage
Mk 2 - As seen in Where No Man Has Gone Before
Mk 3 - As seen in TOS Production
Mk 4 - TMP Era

I would argue that the Constitution spaceframe had at least seven iterations, to account for the differences in TVH, TFF, and TUC.

Thus:

Enterprise launched in 2245 in Mk 1 configuration. Serves various missions, has minor upgrade and refueling periods, but nothing significant until some time after the events of "The Cage" Then, she goes through a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) upgrade to Mk 2 configuration. Given the damage sustained in the encounter with the Barrier, Enterprise docks for another SLEP and is upgraded to Mk 3 before the beginning of the production of TOS. Then we get the major upgrade before TMP that represents Mk 4.

The Mk 2 upgrade consisted mainly of engineering upgrades and some systems changes. Given the admittedly non-canon narrative from the original cut of the pilot about the Enterprise mission, I would say the internal volume between a Mk 2 and 1 ship saw minimal differences. Clearly, the first production episode establishes a slightly different mission, look, feel, and at that point, the 430 number needs to be in place.

So, that's my logic... and I'm stickin' to it!

Rob+
__________________
"Purity in doctrine... Compassion in application."
FatherRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 08:15 AM   #139
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Ithekro wrote: View Post
One of my questions concerning time in TNG is what was Captain Picard doing between the loss of USS Stargazer and his taking command of USS Enterprise? That was basically 8 years.
He might have had a desk job during that time. Captains can hold staff positions too.

As for the number of ships named "Enterprise", if Temporal Investigations can get the number wrong, who can tell just how many ships have that name in the Federation?
That was a case of one non-Starfleet agent not knowing that NCC-1701-E was in service already (another agent knew).
Speculation based on real world events:
Between 2161 and 2245 there was one or more ships with the name Enterprise in the service of the Federation. However, they may not have been frontline cruisers. Reason for this is that the US Navy had an Enterprise motor patrol boat in the First World War. Before that there was a sail/steam sloop USS Enterprise in the 1870s to 1909. She was not anywhere near top of the line as that was the age of the ironclads into the age of steel ships. She seems to mostly have been used for exploration of the seas, some show the flag work in Africa and Asia, and a training ship in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Other times it is a matter of waiting until the next thing comes along.

From 1947 to 1961 there was no active USS Enterprise in the US Navy. Until 1958 the aircraft carrier CV-6 USS Enterprise sat in mothballs waiting her fate (scrapped), and after that the CVN-65 USS Enterprise was named and finished in 1961. Today the CVN-65 is out of service and being rendered safe (for scrap most likely). It will be replaced...probably...by the new CVN-80 USS Enterprise in 2025.

So it is possible there was another ship named Enterprise in service between 2161 and 2245. It just would not have been a "starship", or it was assigned to a different department within the Federation.
It's generally taken that NCC-1701 was the first Federation-era starship to bear the name. It may have been a case that in honor of NX-01 and her role in the formation of the Federation (and possibly the Romulan Wars), that the Enterprise name was retired for nearly a century. The decision may have been a symbolic and/or political one that might have run its course by the time the Constitution-class came along perhaps.
So for the NCC-1701-C, we don't know much about the Ambassador-class verses the Excelsior-class or the Galaxy-class. We rarely see Ambassador-class ships, but there are craploads of Excelsiors. Most materal suggests that the Ambassador-class was designed somewhere in the 2310s or 2320s. This would fit with them replacing the Excelsior-class as the front line exploration vessel as the Excelsior-class was launched in the 2280s with them becoming a full service class in the 2290s. If one assumes something between a 30 and 40 year gap for design cycles in Starfleet for major heavy cruiser types, that would put the Galaxy-class as suppose to have been finished in the early 2350s, if not late 2340s. (The 2340s would fit with the Soverign-class coming out in the 2370s) But seeing what kinds of problems Picard had with the Enterprise, it seems likely that the Galaxy-class project was delayed a lot. This might have to do with new technology, or politics, or even production of other ships in the 2250s to fight the Cardassians (seeing that that conflict was going on, it seems weirder and weirder to have Picard and crew so high minded in the first season of TNG).

So, if the Ambassador-class was a 20 or 30 year old design by 2344, would it be reasonable to think of the Enterprise-C as a new ship? Or was it a "replacement", like the Enterprise-A, for the loss of Enterprise-B? Or was it a natural progression after retirment of the Enterprise-B in the 2230s (after 40 years of service)? The Ambassador-class being older by that point would give a reason for the Galaxy-class to begin costruction. But the 15 years or so between the start of the project and the launch of USS Galaxy means that the loss of USS Enterprise-C was just at the wrong time. She was lost too late to get a simple replacement of another Ambassador-class ship (like Kirk got another Constitution) but too soon to get a new class of ship that Starfleet found worthy of the name. Though that doesn't work very well either unless the Enterprise-A was a matter of luck on Kirk's part. There just happened to be either one more Constitution being built, one that happened to be in mothballs but servicable, or one that happened to come back in that could be renamed. Though there would be no crew to get a new Enterprise after the -C was lost.
The TNG Tech Manual and Starship Spotter books both suggested that the Galaxy-class took quite a long time in development. The former had 2343 as when the project was first approved by Starfleet and 2357 as when the prototype USS Galaxy was finally commissioned (with the Enterprise-D's keel first laid down in 2350). There were several delays during the construction of Galaxy, Yamato, and Enterprise-D, which may have been the result of brand-new technologies (including new warp engine and computer systems) being incorporated for the first time. The Enterprise-D was ultimately commissioned in October 2363, several months prior to "Encounter At Farpoint."

As said before, we don't know when the Ambassador-class was first introduced, but the TNG Tech Manual suggested that the design was "aging" by the 2340s. That doesn't necessarily mean the Ambassador-class was a really old design, but it may have become obsolete early due to new technologies being introduced at the time that it might not have been able to incorporate. Other designs, even a couple of older ones like the Excelsior- and Miranda-classes, may not have had that problem (not all designs are the same or compatible with everything, IMO).
Though it makes the existance of the Sovereign-class all the more of a puzzle as they come out in 2370, less than 15 years after the launch of USS Galaxy, though more than 25 years after the start of the Galaxy-class Project. Could the anomaly be the Galaxy-class taking too long to build? Mixed with a warfooting like rush on the Sovereign-class due to a mix of the Borg, the Romulans returning, and other issues during the 2360s? If the pattern from the Constitution to Excelsior to Ambassador was maintianed, what would it look like?

2165 - ??? (Daedalus-class?)
2205 - ??? (Kelvin-type?)
2245 - Constitution-class
2285 - Excelsior-class
Projected: 2325 - Ambassador-class
Projected: 2365 - Galaxy-class
Projected: 2405 - Sovereign-class

Something happened.
Starship Spotter proposed that work on the U.S.S. Sovereign began in 2365 with the vessel being commissioned in 2369 (presumably, the Sovereign-class Development Project wasn't plagued with delays like the Galaxy-class and was able to incorporate existing technologies). The Enterprise-E was commissioned in 2372 (although she might have carried another name during construction).

Sure, all of this is non-canon stuff, but in the lack of actual canon, it's not bad conjecture. Your mileage may vary.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; June 27 2014 at 08:13 PM.
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 05:51 PM   #140
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
A thousand times, THIS.

They put a gap of almost a hundred years between TOS and "the Next Generation" and then forgot to FILL that gap with any significant history. The kinds of changes that happened between the two series could have literally spanned a single generation, and in my mind it actually makes more sense to imagine that Jean Luc Picard could have easily been one of Admiral Kirk's students at the academy.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 06:10 PM   #141
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

FatherRob wrote: View Post
Typically, once a ship has been honored as being of a specific type, you don't give the name to an inferior ship.
Hardly. In the US Navy, the decline of the battleship age means that every battleship that was named after a major city has now been replaced by an attack submarine and every ship that was named after a state was replaced by a ballistic missile boat or yet another attack sub. In the most extreme examples: USS Virginia was a battleship in 1906, a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser in 1976, and an attack submarine in 2004. Likewise, USS California went through the same progression: Battleship, then cruiser, then sub.

USS Tarawa is an interesting one: started as an Essex class fleet carrier during World War II but was later replaced by an assault carrier with very little air wing.

In the Trek universe, we have the Constitution class Defiant in the 23rd century and then the tiny but gun-heavy escort a century later. Clearly there isn't a huge problem with handing ship names down to lesser vessels, especially if a different naming convention has been given to the front-line vessels of its day (for example: your country decides to name its aircraft carriers after Presidents instead of historical battles).

Thus, when the Enterprise C is lost, it makes sense that Starfleet declares that one of the new Galaxy class starships under development will be named in honor of the Enterprise, to carry on the line.
Not necessarily. It could be they initially rechristened a Miranda class (USS Enterprise NCC-21701) and used it as an academy training vessel through the 2350s. The training ship just happened to be retired in the early 60s and Starfleet re-appropriated the name for a galaxy class starship in honor of the crew of the Enterprise-C.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 03:41 AM   #142
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
Not all Excelsior-class ships were built at the same time. Also not all Excelsior-class ships are subject to the same wear and tear.
I was specifically referring to the Hood (NCC-2541) and the Repulse (NCC-2544), which based on their registry numbers were built around the same time as the Ent-B. Barring its destruction, if they were still around, why not the Ent-B?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
They put a gap of almost a hundred years between TOS and "the Next Generation" and then forgot to FILL that gap with any significant history. The kinds of changes that happened between the two series could have literally spanned a single generation, and in my mind it actually makes more sense to imagine that Jean Luc Picard could have easily been one of Admiral Kirk's students at the academy.
From what I understand, Roddenberry wanted to distance TNG from the films (which he hated), so he came up with the "100 years after TOS" thing, even though TNG shares far more aesthetic elements from TOS anyway. It's almost as if he was trying to show that the films didn't actually exist.

However, the larger problem with this approach was that the producers of the show were cheap and decided to save money by reusing both stock footage and spaceship models from the films, which caused two issues: Starfleet starships/space stations and Klingon ships from 80 years before were still being used (and in some cases wildly inaccurate in scale in relation to the Enterprise-D because of the reuse), and these elements were taken from the same films that Roddenberry wanted to distance TNG from.

In an ideal world, TNG should have taken place right after TVH. The new ship should have been the Enterprise-A, not the D (and it should have been the Excelsior model, since the whole point of building it was to transition from the TMP Enterprise model to something easier to film). There was no real reason (other than Roddenberry) why the new show had to have taken place in the late 24th century. Hell, even 20 years after TVH would have been fine, but 75?

Not necessarily. It could be they initially rechristened a Miranda class (USS Enterprise NCC-21701) and used it as an academy training vessel through the 2350s. The training ship just happened to be retired in the early 60s and Starfleet re-appropriated the name for a galaxy class starship in honor of the crew of the Enterprise-C.
Unfortunately that theory doesn't work, as the dedication plaque for the Ent-D states "Fifth Starship to Bear the Name," regardless of what the registry number was.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; June 30 2014 at 08:23 AM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 02:37 PM   #143
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I think 10 or 20 years wouldn't have been long enough to distance TNG from the classic era. Kirk and pals would still be conceivably alive and tooling around the galaxy and the audience would naturally expect guest appearances from them etc. It seems Gene wanted TNG to have it's own identity, separate from what came before. 80 years should have been enough to ensure that the original series characters would all be dead (except McCoy who isn't even named in the episode he appears in).
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 03:54 PM   #144
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Not necessarily. It could be they initially rechristened a Miranda class (USS Enterprise NCC-21701) and used it as an academy training vessel through the 2350s. The training ship just happened to be retired in the early 60s and Starfleet re-appropriated the name for a galaxy class starship in honor of the crew of the Enterprise-C.

Unfortunately that theory doesn't work, as the dedication plaque for the Ent-D states "Fifth Starship to Bear the Name," regardless of what the registry number was.
Technically this could work if the vessel was either not in Starfleet (but was a Federation vessel), or was not considered a starship due to her assigned/designed task not being in line with what a "starship" is used for.

A training hull that isn't really given a standard hull number. Something like say the USS Sable in World War II. A coal powered, side wheeler aircraft carrier that was built from a Great Lakes excursion steamer to be a training carrier on the Great Lakes along with the USS Wolverine. These are not proper carriers in any light. They are more or less just moving flattops for training pilots how to land and take off from a carrier at sea. These used the "unclassified" designation in the Navy books. Sable was IX-81 and Wolverine was IX-64.

Sailing ships USS Constitution and USS Constellation also used this numbering system as IX-20 (Constellation) and IX-21 (Constitution).

So take an older Miranda-class ship, an Excelsior, or even a really old Constitution hull. Rename it Enterprise and give it some odd registration number, and there is an Enterprise in existance between the loss of Enterprise-C and the commissioning of Enterprise-D.

This ship can have its name changed to something else later on to free up the name Enterprise for a new Galaxy-class ships. This has also happened before. During the early 1920s, the USS Constitution had her name changed to "Old Constitution" to free up the name Constitution for a new battlecruiser. The Washington Treaty cancelled that battlecruiser (her sisterships Lexington and Saratoga would be converted into aircraft carriers and begin the naming convention of carriers after old battles instead of famous aviatiors and aviation sites as was the plan following USS Langley). Following the cancellation of the battlecruiser, "Old Constitution" got her name back, and was refurbished for a tour around the coastlines in the early 1930s. USS Constellation was removed from the Navy registry and placed as a museum ship to free up the name for the carrier USS Constellation (CV-64) in the 1950s. Also in the US Navy, sometimes ships get downgraded and renamed to free up names for larger or more important ships. Around 1900 there were a number of Armored Cruisers that were named after states just like the battleships. USS Pennsylvania (ACR-4) was a famouse one for being the first ship to be landed on by an airplane. This same ship was remained Pittsburg a year later to free up the name for a new battleship (BB-38). All of those class of ships were renamed in favor of new battleships. Even the first battleship USS Texas was renamed so that a new battleship Texas could be named.

So there is the possibility of a USS Enterprise between ships. Just not one that is actively doing regular Starfleet missions.

One example that comes to mind is the ship from the fan film "Of Gods and Men". The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-M) museum ship. A Constitution-class vessel fitted out like Kirk's ship in the 2260s, but with later era safety features required by Federation law. Another example would be some sort of warp test hull used to preform experiments with a new drive engine for the Galaxy-class starships. Something like the NX-class in purpose, but not used for exploration work. Just for testing the engines and maybe some other systems that would later be fitted to USS Galaxy for more intensive field testing.

Or something even more odd. Something like a captured Galor-class ship being used by Starfleet for some purpose renamed Enterprise by some Admiralty. The name being "unofficial" like HMS Bounty was an unofficial name for the captured Klingon Bird of Prey by Doctor McCoy.

Or even something like a Federation survey ship that is not in Starfleet, but one of the other departments.

EDIT:

Additionally, on this same thought, what if the Enterprise-B was downgraded when the Ambassador-class was coming out. Someone on the Council or Admiralty wanted the newest exploration vessel to be the "Enterprise" but the Excelsior-class Enterprise was going strong. Someone decides to rename the Enterprise-B to something else so the name can go to the Enterprise-C. The older Enterprise-B remains in service is some capacity, but with a different name. And that does happen in history. The earlier mentioned USS Pennsylvania stayed in service as the USS Pittsburg until 1931. This overlaps with the service of the later battleship Pensylvania by almost 20 years.

Now imagine if the Enterprise-B was still in Starfleet, but with a different name, when the Enterprise-C was destroyed in 2344? Would it be possible for them to rename the ship back to Enterprise, with its old registry number, until removing it again when the Galaxy-class Enterprise is ordered? Or is that basically impossible since depending on when the Enterprise-D was ordered. What if the USS Lakota is the Enterprise-B and only one of that style was built (note that is highly unlikely).

Last edited by Ithekro; June 30 2014 at 06:56 PM.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 05:33 PM   #145
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Mytran wrote: View Post
It seems Gene wanted TNG to have it's own identity, separate from what came before.
And he wanted to minimize the participation of Vulcans. I think it's fair to say that Spock and Sarek foiled such intentions, not to mention that the Romulans were sort of the new but prominent mystery race (and biologically Vulcans, too).

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 30 2014, 08:00 PM   #146
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
Not all Excelsior-class ships were built at the same time. Also not all Excelsior-class ships are subject to the same wear and tear.
I was specifically referring to the Hood (NCC-2541) and the Repulse (NCC-2544), which based on their registry numbers were built around the same time as the Ent-B. Barring its destruction, if they were still around, why not the Ent-B?
Because I said before, not all Excelsior-class ships are subject to same wear and tear. You can have two identical ships from the same class, but one underwent a lot of punishment during its service life while the other didn't. The ship that had it much harder winds up being decommissioned before the other one. And also because not every ship from the same class is built simultaneously (regardless if they're just one year apart or fifty years apart), there's just bound to be differences between ships of the same class.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 08:41 PM   #147
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Unfortunately that theory doesn't work, as the dedication plaque for the Ent-D states "Fifth Starship to Bear the Name," regardless of what the registry number was.
But the existence of NX-01 already contradicts this fact, as does the Ringship Enterprise, whatever it happened to be. It's also hard to imagine that there were no ships named Enterprise between NX-01 and NCC-1701. Most likely they had different registry numbers and/or weren't major vessels and therefore nobody who isn't an expert historian knows or cares about them.

We're sci-fi guys, we like evolution charts that look like this so we can say that CVN-65 is the 7th ship to be named "Enterprise." But it's not, the seventh, it's actually the sixteenth. The Seventeenth is currently in service with the Royal Navy. Fun fact: guess what its mission is?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 10:07 PM   #148
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
Unfortunately that theory doesn't work, as the dedication plaque for the Ent-D states "Fifth Starship to Bear the Name," regardless of what the registry number was.
But the existence of NX-01 already contradicts this fact, as does the Ringship Enterprise, whatever it happened to be.
Not at all, because the Enterprise-D is the fifth Federation starship to bear the name. NX-01 and the Ringship Enterprise were pre-Federation vessels. It's just simply a case of referring to things since the founding of the Federation.

It's also hard to imagine that there were no ships named Enterprise between NX-01 and NCC-1701. Most likely they had different registry numbers and/or weren't major vessels and therefore nobody who isn't an expert historian knows or cares about them.
I think it's most likely that when NX-01 was retired, so was the Enterprise name for awhile. During this time in history, the Enterprise name was probably more synonymous with NX-01 and the pre-Federation era in the public eye than anything else.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 10:13 PM   #149
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Because I said before, not all Excelsior-class ships are subject to same wear and tear.
Yes, I understand that, and I probably wasn't being clear. I simply would like to know what happened to the Enterprise-B. We know what happened to every single Enterprise other than the E (which I assume is still operational), but there's simply nothing canonical about this particular ship's fate. I was using the other two contemporaneous Excelsiors as examples of why the Ent-B was possibly not retired, but as you said that isn't concrete proof that it wasn't.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But the existence of NX-01 already contradicts this fact, as does the Ringship Enterprise, whatever it happened to be.
I think this is more a matter of the context of those words on those plaques. Is it automatically assumed that because it's a dedication plaque for a Federation Starfleet vessel, that only Federation Starfleet ships with the name Enterprise are counted in that numerical order? (That seems to be the assumption to me, since we can't really retcon new plaque information after the fact once ENT debuted). Neither the NX-01 nor the ringship (to my knowledge) were Federation Starfleet vessels, but rather Earth vessels. *EDIT* C.E. Evans beat me to the punch

It's also hard to imagine that there were no ships named Enterprise between NX-01 and NCC-1701. Most likely they had different registry numbers and/or weren't major vessels and therefore nobody who isn't an expert historian knows or cares about them.
I have no problem with the possibility that there were more ships named Enterprise between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701, perhaps as other Earth ships or a "Coalition of Planets" holdover, etc., since the Enterprise "legacy" hadn't been established at that time. My problem is the idea that there might have been another Enterprise in the 20 year span between the C and the D. By that point in time I don't really see anyone using the Enteprise name for anything other than the progressive lineage of Federation Starfleet vessels (at least as far as the NCC-1701-x nomenclature goes). So having a Miranda class Enterprise NCC-31243 between the two really doesn't make much sense to me in that context.

Of course, if there was a well-articulated reason why there was a mystery Enteprise between the C and the D that nobody knew about (like how there was a War Doctor between the 8th and 9th incarnations), then I'd be cool with that too
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2014, 10:49 PM   #150
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Because I said before, not all Excelsior-class ships are subject to same wear and tear.
Yes, I understand that, and I probably wasn't being clear. I simply would like to know what happened to the Enterprise-B. We know what happened to every single Enterprise other than the E (which I assume is still operational), but there's simply nothing canonical about this particular ship's fate. I was using the other two contemporaneous Excelsiors as examples of why the Ent-B was possibly not retired, but as you said that isn't concrete proof that it wasn't.
Yeah, ships are kind of like people--you never know how some of them will turn out. We'll likely never know canonically what happened to the Enterprise-B, so it will probably always be subject to speculation. Most like to think the ship was destroyed or lost, and while I'm not dismissing those as possibilities, I'm also not dismissing the possibility that the ship was just retired after decades of service. I think that's just as likely an outcome as the ship meeting an unfortunate end.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans 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 11:31 AM.

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