RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,620
Posts: 5,426,359
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 441
Newest member: 8 of 9

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 2 2012, 10:44 PM   #226
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

^Nope, it's not the only premise. There are many which people can go for and, again, there's nothing concrete to rule most of them in or out. Really, I think it's a matter of whatever works for each viewer.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2012, 10:50 PM   #227
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
Really, I think it's a matter of whatever works for each viewer.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2012, 11:01 PM   #228
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
^Nope, it's not the only premise. There are many which people can go for and, again, there's nothing concrete to rule most of them in or out. Really, I think it's a matter of whatever works for each viewer.
In a nutshell, yes.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2012, 09:22 PM   #229
AggieJohn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Houston Tx
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I guess that is a good point, regarding the service life of the Enterprise A after STVI. There is no established time line between STVI and STVII. I think some things that would influence the Enterprise A's life span would be:

What was the stipulations in the the Khitomer accords, regarding ship building. Now for me I think the notion that Starfleet decommissioned all the constitution class star ships is total crap. Starfleet did not consider them "battlecrusiers" the Klingons did but their a war like race. Besides we see D-7/Kitinga class crusiers in the TNG. So what kind of deal was that? We have to give up ours but you can keep yours???

Nope really I see the Connies just being destroyed or slowly decommissioned as the front line ship as the Excelsior class replaced them as the "starship" class. So the A could have served on. Perhaps when the Ent B was commission they renamed the Ent A again?? Why not? Might have even gone back to its original name.
AggieJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 12:08 AM   #230
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

AggieJohn wrote: View Post

What was the stipulations in the the Khitomer accords, regarding ship building. Now for me I think the notion that Starfleet decommissioned all the constitution class star ships is total crap. Starfleet did not consider them "battlecrusiers" the Klingons did but their a war like race. Besides we see D-7/Kitinga class crusiers in the TNG. So what kind of deal was that? We have to give up ours but you can keep yours???
Well we know the Federation gave up the right to pursue cloaking technology from TNG for peace with Romulans. They aren't the brightest bunch when negotiating treaties.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 02:58 AM   #231
AggieJohn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Houston Tx
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
AggieJohn wrote: View Post

What was the stipulations in the the Khitomer accords, regarding ship building. Now for me I think the notion that Starfleet decommissioned all the constitution class star ships is total crap. Starfleet did not consider them "battlecrusiers" the Klingons did but their a war like race. Besides we see D-7/Kitinga class crusiers in the TNG. So what kind of deal was that? We have to give up ours but you can keep yours???
Well we know the Federation gave up the right to pursue cloaking technology from TNG for peace with Romulans. They aren't the brightest bunch when negotiating treaties.
Well to be fair cloak technology has huge draw backs so its not like they gave up this plum tech that changes the balance of power? But that is a fair point its amazing that no one has just walked in to the Federation considering if that is true, the federation gave up battle cruisers and cloaking tech? How are they even formidable? Its like the Klingons and Romulans are just to internally stupid and weak to take advantage.
AggieJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 02:04 PM   #232
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

AggieJohn wrote: View Post
Well to be fair cloak technology has huge draw backs so its not like they gave up this plum tech that changes the balance of power?
But it represents a formidable first strike weapon. You could sneak up on an opponent and reduce their home world to molten lava before they knew what hit them. So, if you have the technology, other powers would have to commit additional resources to vital areas to prevent such an attack.

A Klingon Bird-of-Prey sat right on the doorstep of Romulus for several days without being detected in Unification.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 07:43 PM   #233
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

One might argue this is an excellent reason to give up cloaking: it's a strategic weapon of immense deterrence, so great in fact that anybody judged insane enough to use it must be treated with velvet gloves. After all, its deterrence value lies solely in strategic bombing of soft targets, while it is not very effective in ship-to-ship fighting. Anybody possessing a cloak and threatening you with it is thus directly threatening your helpless civilians with it. The only way to counter that is to threaten back - and if you aren't ready to bomb the opposition's helpless civilians, that doesn't work - or sidestep by appeasing and then indeed concentrate all resources on anti-cloak defenses.

Doesn't mean Starfleet wouldn't unilaterally retain the right to operate individual cloakships for spying purposes. They just won't tell the Romulans, and both sides win.

A Klingon Bird-of-Prey sat right on the doorstep of Romulus for several days without being detected in Unification.
...Although how much of that happened because Pardek and Neral allowed it to happen, we don't really know.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 09:06 PM   #234
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Becaus you give up cloaking ships does not mean you do not research the ability to detect them, so the ability to use them in an emergency.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 09:13 PM   #235
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

...And if you give up something under blackmail, you can then counter-blackmail by threatening to return to your old ways if the balance of power shifts. We don't know what the Romulans threatened the Feds with in order to get them to drop cloaks - but after the Romulans get used to there being no cloak threat from the UFP, Starfleet could threaten the now complacent Romulans with a readopting of cloaks!

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 12:17 AM   #236
AggieJohn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Houston Tx
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
Becaus you give up cloaking ships does not mean you do not research the ability to detect them, so the ability to use them in an emergency.
Excellent point. The Feddies did have their tachyon detection grid that could detect the Romulans coming so the first strike potential was reduced dramatically.
AggieJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 01:17 AM   #237
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

AggieJohn wrote: View Post
Ronald Held wrote: View Post
Becaus you give up cloaking ships does not mean you do not research the ability to detect them, so the ability to use them in an emergency.
Excellent point. The Feddies did have their tachyon detection grid that could detect the Romulans coming so the first strike potential was reduced dramatically.
If you plan on spreading it over thousands of light years...
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 01:26 AM   #238
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Does anyone know what the established timeline is supposed to be from Kirk stepping down from his captaincy at the end of his 5 year tour to when the NCC-1701A refit was done? Was it directly after, or was there an interim captain prior to Decker?
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 01:38 AM   #239
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Gary7 wrote: View Post
Does anyone know what the established timeline is supposed to be from Kirk stepping down from his captaincy at the end of his 5 year tour to when the NCC-1701A refit was done? Was it directly after, or was there an interim captain prior to Decker?
Decker tells Kirk that he hasn't logged a star hour in two and a half years and Scotty said the refit took eighteen months. So there's about a year gap there where someone else could've been in command.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 06:59 AM   #240
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

My guess is that Kirk handed the Enterprise over to Decker, he commanded the ship on various missions for a year, then brought it back to Earth to begin the refit.

Makes more sense than the the ship just sitting in orbit for a year, cooling it's heels.

T'Girl 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 12:19 PM.

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