RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,943
Posts: 5,479,306
Members: 25,056
Currently online: 581
Newest member: JeremiahJT

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 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 February 25 2014, 10:26 PM   #61
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

For the Enterprise A, I had just gone with the thought that a different Constitution-class vessel, maybe Yorktown, maybe Ti-Ho, had been renamed Enterprise. It would have been a newer ship, launched perhaps close to the V'Ger Incident, and possibly was in Spacedock for a refit to a newer bridge and computer system. That would explain the new touchscreen bridge that looks like the older Enterprise's Bridge. This ship would've been disabled during the Probe incident in Star Trek 4, and available for re-assignment as the new Enterprise for Kirk and crew. The ship hadn't undergone a shakedown with the new systems, explaining Scotty's trouble with the ship. The second bridge would have been available from some other Constitution-class vessel or at Spacedock, and put on the ship in hopes that this newer bridge would have sufficiently advanced control systems for the ship, though without a proper shakedown, the Enterprise would still experience the issues it found in Star Trek 5. By Star Trek 6, they had had one additional bridge, and the ship was running well, even though it was about 20 years old or so, leading to being decommissioned in favor of the Enterprise B. That worked for me.
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 10:18 PM   #62
Nebusj
Rear Admiral
 
Nebusj's Avatar
 
View Nebusj's Twitter Profile
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

Surely the Enterprise-A was decommissioned because they needed to rename a starship in honor of Captain Reza's USS Indefeasible, considering how her ship's valiant sacrifice rescued Andor from certain doom.
Nebusj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 11:05 PM   #63
Shik
Commander
 
Shik's Avatar
 
Location: It's the 3 most important things in business.
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

QuinnTV wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
They did go out of their way to show the new Enterprise as being more advanced than it's predecessor. The bridge echoes the Excelsior NX-2000, the interfaces are all now touchscreens etc.
(which of course totally changes for VI, where buttons return, the lights are left off and the ship looks old and worn out... because Meyer)

Again going back to MSGttE, it said the Ent-A (formerly USS Ti-ho) was built from the ground up, putting the new technology developed for Excelsior into an Enterprise-class frame. Aside from the corridors and transporter (which were built for TMP and modified slightly for TNG), the ship definitely looks different inside.
This idea could go along with what SeerSBG was theorizing. You may recall that the TNG Tech Manual made mention of the additional six spaceframes for the Galaxy class. Perhaps, in this earlier time frame, there were enough spare parts to assemble the majority of one ship. These spares alone weren't enough for a single operational ship, yet they weren't going to be called for, as the build program for that class had come to an end. Rather than just scrap their stuff, Starfleet could have used the latest Connie-type technology and a bit of the newer Excelsior shiny stuff - both to field test it on more than just the Excelsior program and to see if any of it would be suitable to retrofit onto the older classes. The A might have been an interesting mix of the outgoing and the incoming.

Suddenly, the Probe appears, etc, etc. The "Plus One" (I hated that Ti-Ho name) experimental pseudo-Connie gets rebadged as the 1701-A.

(Maybe the bridge from TVH just wasn't a good control center for the ship, and they swapped it out.)
YOUR IDEAS ARE INTRIGUING AND I WISH TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR NEWSLETTER. No, really, I am enjoying the theory & find it much more plausible than any I've encountered before & duly intend to steal it for inclusion when I get to writing about this event.

Lance wrote: View Post
Yeah, the new Enterprise bridge kind of prefigures the NCC-2000 bridge module of Excelsior, but certainly not the NX-2000 module, which looked radically different.

I like to think the bridge module that we see on the ENT-A in TFF and TUC was a prefab designed for the proposed upcoming fleet of Excelsior class Starships, but it was simply fitted to the NCC-1701-A to replace the old bridge module that it had already been using prior to being rechristened Enterprise. (alongside many other 'system updates'). Hence, the series of crippling incompatibilities that Mister Scott is running around trying to fix throughout TFF. The outdated Connie software is having trouble adapting to the modern Excelsior hardware, and Scotty keeps getting the Blue Screen Of Death every time he tries to beam someone down and then up again.
Honestly, I really liked the NX module & wished they'd kept it. Everything was so roomy & shiny-glassy. It was very much NOT Enterprise, which was the whole point & totally fit Bill George's "anime Enterprise" concept. Also, your theory might also explain the TARDIS-like positioning for the turbolifts in TFF & TUC. Might.
__________________
Be the chaos you wish to see in the world.
Shik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 2 2014, 11:40 PM   #64
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

There was this sci-fi magazine (not just starlog) that wanted artists to submit what Ent-A (before it was known as anything other than Enterprise II) would look like.

I'd like to see that restarted...
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 03:55 AM   #65
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
They did go out of their way to show the new Enterprise as being more advanced than it's predecessor. The bridge echoes the Excelsior NX-2000, the interfaces are all now touchscreens etc.
Not all of them. When she was originally launched as NX-2000, the Excelsior had a mix of both touchscreens, buttons, and possibly even levers on her bridge.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...tsfshd0660.jpg
I forgot about those. But I was referring mainly to the perimeter stations, which took the giant black touchscreen approach from STIII's Excelsior (and IIRC, were originally considered for TOS but the technology of the time wasn't up to the task)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 06:22 AM   #66
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
They did go out of their way to show the new Enterprise as being more advanced than it's predecessor. The bridge echoes the Excelsior NX-2000, the interfaces are all now touchscreens etc.
Not all of them. When she was originally launched as NX-2000, the Excelsior had a mix of both touchscreens, buttons, and possibly even levers on her bridge.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...tsfshd0660.jpg
I forgot about those. But I was referring mainly to the perimeter stations, which took the giant black touchscreen approach from STIII's Excelsior (and IIRC, were originally considered for TOS but the technology of the time wasn't up to the task)
TOS had the technology at the time.
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x...eforehd015.jpg
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 03:43 PM   #67
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

Not to do it on the scale they originally wanted - which was pretty much what we saw on the NX-2000 and in STV.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 06:18 PM   #68
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Life of the Enterprise-A

It's just a case of it being a natural progression that began pretty much from day one with Trek. From a directing perspective, it was more dramatic in TOS to have the actors pushing buttons, flipping switches, and sliding levers than the touchscreens and it's probably still true today (and IIRC, the reason why director Nick Meyer had some of them brought back for Star Trek VI).
__________________
"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 06:32 PM.

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