RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,173
Posts: 5,435,409
Members: 24,942
Currently online: 493
Newest member: ks55

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 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 > 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 April 19 2013, 04:51 AM   #331
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BenRoethig wrote: View Post
timelord1010 wrote: View Post
It was mentioned in several places such as "Mr. Scott's guide to the Enterprise" that the 1701-A was originally the Yorktown (or Tiho?) and was renamed Enterprise to reward Kirk for saving the Federation once again.

This is from Memory Alpha:

According to Gene Roddenberry, the NCC-1701-A was not a newly-constructed ship, but instead was the renamed USS Yorktown, a nod to the name of the starship in his original pitch for Star Trek. This was based on the fact that it was difficult to believe that Starfleet would build a whole new ship in such a short time, and then decommission it a short while after, and the early retirement of the Enterprise-A could be justified if the ship had been in service for many years under another name.
Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, released shortly after Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, cites the origin of NCC-1701-A as the USS Ti-Ho (NCC-1798), an Enterprise-class starship which was a test bed for transwarp technology alongside the USS Excelsior. The Ti-Ho was rechristened Enterprise after Kirk and his crew were exonerated.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_...se_(NCC-1701-A)
I personally believe a combination of the two personally. The Enterprise-A was the Yorktown and it was used as a trials ship for technology destined for the Excelsior class ships.
Treknically speaking, according to Ships of the Star Fleet (Volume I), the Federation Reference Series, U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, and other "serious" Treknical works of the 1980s...1701-A was a new-build starship originally to be named the U.S.S. Levant, basically an improved Enterprise class heavy cruiser with state-of-the-art new technology systems... Following ST IV, she was renamed Enterprise and thus, being the class ship, was named Enterprise (II) class--with provisions made for upgrading several existing Enterprise class heavy cruisers to these new specs...and there were new-builds, too, such as the U.S.S. America with cool rear-firing torpedo tubes mirroring the forward launchers in the interconnecting dorsal region...

The system breakdowns which we saw at the beginning of ST V were due to faulty peripheral interface adaptors to the main (brand-new) computer (Duotronic IV, never before tested on a heavy cruiser class ship--the ST-TMP Enterprise incidentally had Duotronic II). This ship did not have transwarp but a much more refined warp drive system permitting much faster velocities than the earlier incarnation (she also gained a linear shortcut to the galactic core via Cochrane's Factor/space density, explained in Star Trek Maps/Introduction to Navigation Manual--an old fan concept based upon E.T.A. specs mention in TOS episodes such as "That Which Survives")... Much of this is verified in the Starfleet Prototype manual, as well as the 1701-A Deck Plans blueprints from circa 1991... The early retirement of 1701-A sits with Sybok straining the ship's superstructure to the limit by taking her to the galactic center and back again at High warp speeds...and then Chang chucking a Klingon cannonball through her in ST VI...

At least Mr. Scott's Guide acknowledges the fact that Star Fleet can still build new starships. Non-Treknical fans have no sense of the Scope of the UFPs size and number of ships in service...exemplified in 2009's movie...

The junk about the U.S.S. Yorktown makes no sense for fans who actually saw ST IV: as we Saw the Yorktown in service. We're supposed to believe she was renamed and renumbered for demoted Kirk's sake? While it's true that Roddenberry liked the name Yorktown, the rest is pure conjecture, exaggeration, and is attributed to none other than Michael Okuda who also invented a wide range of NCC registries and ship classes for his encyclopedia, the year 2245 for the Enterprise's commissioning, and many other "facts" unsupported by a supposedly "canon" work that sticks to On Screen information.

How's that for Channeling?
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 01:06 PM   #332
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post
While it's true that Roddenberry liked the name Yorktown, the rest is pure conjecture, exaggeration, and is attributed to none other than Michael Okuda who also invented a wide range of NCC registries and ship classes for his encyclopedia, the year 2245 for the Enterprise's commissioning, and many other "facts" unsupported by a supposedly "canon" work that sticks to On Screen information.
What "canon" does the 2245 launch date not mesh with? Once TNG pinned down the year it was operating (2364) in The Neutral Zone, everything and everyone had to fall into line with it. Including the launch date of the Enterprise.

Plus, The Neutral Zone was overseen by Roddenberry.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 01:53 PM   #333
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post
While it's true that Roddenberry liked the name Yorktown, the rest is pure conjecture, exaggeration, and is attributed to none other than Michael Okuda who also invented a wide range of NCC registries and ship classes for his encyclopedia, the year 2245 for the Enterprise's commissioning, and many other "facts" unsupported by a supposedly "canon" work that sticks to On Screen information.
What "canon" does the 2245 launch date not mesh with? Once TNG pinned down the year it was operating (2364) in The Neutral Zone, everything and everyone had to fall into line with it. Including the launch date of the Enterprise.

Plus, The Neutral Zone was overseen by Roddenberry.
How people love to oversimplify these things...
One could say the same about Data's "Class of 78" in "Encounter At Farpoint" just to pick one at random... That was also overseen by Roddenberry...
2245 was never stated on-screen therefore has no validity in an "encyclopedia" claiming to stick to on-screen facts... The same source gets worse and worse when you look at the various ship registries which were obviously invented for that book...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 02:06 PM   #334
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post
While it's true that Roddenberry liked the name Yorktown, the rest is pure conjecture, exaggeration, and is attributed to none other than Michael Okuda who also invented a wide range of NCC registries and ship classes for his encyclopedia, the year 2245 for the Enterprise's commissioning, and many other "facts" unsupported by a supposedly "canon" work that sticks to On Screen information.
What "canon" does the 2245 launch date not mesh with? Once TNG pinned down the year it was operating (2364) in The Neutral Zone, everything and everyone had to fall into line with it. Including the launch date of the Enterprise.

Plus, The Neutral Zone was overseen by Roddenberry.
How people love to oversimplify these things...
One could say the same about Data's "Class of 78" in "Encounter At Farpoint" just to pick one at random... That was also overseen by Roddenberry...
2245 was never stated on-screen therefore has no validity in an "encyclopedia" claiming to stick to on-screen facts... The same source gets worse and worse when you look at the various ship registries which were obviously invented for that book...
2245 represents a logical extrapolation that allows for both the events of The Cage and having time for a Robert April command that was alluded to in The Counter-Clock Incident working backwards from the 2364 date. It was Roddenberry who said that TNG took place 78 years after the current Trek movie at the time (The Voyage Home). Lets be honest, it's easier to come up with a fudge for 'Class of 78' than it is for 2364. Just like it's easier to fudge 'two hundred years ago' than it is to fudge the 1996 date Spock gives for the Eugenics Wars.

Are the chronologies/encyclopedia's perfect? No. But in the broad strokes they work well enough.

About starship registries, I got to tell you that I honestly don't care about them. They're in the encyclopedia, I glanced at them once about twenty years ago and haven't since because they simply aren't important to the stories being told on-screen.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 04:43 PM   #335
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Lenny Nurdbol wrote: View Post
This ship did not have transwarp but a much more refined warp drive system permitting much faster velocities than the earlier incarnation.
In HD, we can now see that the bridge displays at the end of STIV do indeed say "transwarp" as per the reproductions in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.

Someone obviously changed their minds between movies, since STV's just say "warp"
2245 was never stated on-screen therefore has no validity in an "encyclopedia" claiming to stick to on-screen facts... The same source gets worse and worse when you look at the various ship registries which were obviously invented for that book...
The Enterprise launch date of 2245 appears in the USS Defiant's database in "In a Mirror, Darkly" - although IIRC that screen display used the old conjectural date for Cochrane's first warp flight, and not the one established in the movie First Contact.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 05:31 PM   #336
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Yeah, and Buckaroo Banzai is "canon" in Trek too if you want to rip into all the inside jokes and Okuda screens in TNG... But, hey, if you want to go That far then we can "canonize" Franz Joseph's Technical Manual and Enterprise Blueprints for their inclusion in the first few feature films! Wow!

Let me tell you about 2245. It's a date pretty much plucked out of thin air and given some sort of holy significance by claiming GR said it, which he never did... But it appears in one modern publication and that's all it takes for Pocket Books to lock onto and keep repeating it over and over again...

In Treknical fandom, the 1701 is much older than the 20 odd years given there in relation to the 5-year mission... She's closer to 50 years in fact. Where does this come from? A little book which preceded all these other books called The Making of Star Trek. Gene said he wanted the Enterprise to "have some history" and it states that Constitution class starships are around 50 years old... This is where the speculation started that the USS Valiant in "A Taste of Armageddon" was the first fatality of the Constitution class... This is why the Chuck Graham chronology which was The first chronology, places the Constitution class around 2210-2220 AD... But wait, there's more, much more... In TAS "The Counter Clock Incident" the first captain of the Enterprise, Robert April, has reached mandatory retirement age 75... If he took command of the Enterprise in his 30s, we're talking a 40-year age for the Enterprise and, lo and behold, the Novelization of this episode by Alan Dean Foster (Star Trek Log 7) states that it was 40 years since he first took command of the Enterprise... Captain April, the proto-Captain Kirk is noted in the old writers guides as being in his mid-30s.... Star Trek Maps also states that the Constitution class is slightly more than 50 years old (this is set circa ST-TMP)... The USS Enterprise Officers Manual has a reproduction of the dedication plaque of the Enterprise (with a tiny footnote Constitution Class Circa 2217). 2217 is a rather popular date for the birth of the USS Constitution and is again taken up in the USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, Ships of the Star Fleet Volume One, the Federation Reference Series... I can go on and on... It stuck until techie works "split" in the early 80s when we had Spaceflight Chronology come out, placing TOS in the Early 23rd Century, launching Kirk's 5-year mission around 2207 AD, and limiting the age of the Constitution Class to a launch in 2188, if memory serves... Then the shit hit the fan with FASA building their RPG around it all (Paramount licensed, of course) and Shane Johnson in turn used that and its dates for Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enteprise, to further infuriate first generation Treknical Trekkers... It didn't get turned around until Admiral Kirk told Whale Babe in ST IV that he's from the Late 23rd Century, with fans arguing over the 2283 Romulan Ale date in ST II (Terran date or Romulan date?)...

This channeling is getting intense... No wonder it can lead to total mental collapse...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 05:51 PM   #337
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Isn't it possible Gene Roddenberry just changed his mind about the Enterprise's age? He was somewhat of a revisionist.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 01:49 AM   #338
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
In HD, we can now see that the bridge displays at the end of STIV do indeed say "transwarp" as per the reproductions in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Oh? Where?

The texts look pretty incomprehensible to me.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2277.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2280.jpg
__________________
* * *
"The road to hell is paved with works-in-progress."
—Philip Roth
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 07:12 AM   #339
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote:

2245 represents a logical extrapolation that allows for both the events of The Cage and having time for a Robert April command that was alluded to in The Counter-Clock Incident working backwards from the 2364 date.
But The Counter-Clock Incident only says that April has been an ambassador for 20 years, it is just an assumption that his ambassadorship started immediately following his tour on the Enterprise. As you say, it is a logical extrapolation, but it isn't the only one. The only mention of the Enterprises age is in TSFS ("The Enterprise is 20 years old") and it is hard to reconcile with other data points.

April could have commanded the 1701 from 2230-35 and then been transferred to another command. The ship was captained by two or three other captains, then he--like Kirk--returned to command the ship again in 2245, this time as a commodore. After that second tour he became an Ambassador at large and transferred command to Chris Pike.




Are the chronologies/encyclopedia's perfect? No. But in the broad strokes they work well enough.
This I would agree with. I don't agree with all the assumptions and conclusions Mike Okuda made, but I have no ill will toward him because of it.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 12:57 PM   #340
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
The only mention of the Enterprises age is in TSFS ("The Enterprise is 20 years old") and it is hard to reconcile with other data points.
Here, I'll admit to having to fudge, but I always though Morrow was talking about the age of the Enterprise since her refit (which would be fifteen or sixteen years) and rounded up for emphasis.

And I'm no more against a 2230-2235 launch date than I am a 2245 date.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 01:22 PM   #341
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

In HD, we can now see that the bridge displays at the end of STIV do indeed say "transwarp" as per the reproductions in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Can we, really?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tvhhd2278.jpg

Here we see a supposed "transwarp" graphic next to Nimoy's right shoulder, the same as on p.122 of Mr Scott's. The (illegible) white text below the white line at the bottom is the bit that's supposed to say "transwarp" - assuming it extends half the way into the very rightmost column of the bluish strings of numbers above. However, it does not extend that far, but only to about one-third of that column, which would be consistent with the text saying "warp subsys 525" rather than the booklet's suggested "transwarp subsys 525".

Basically, then, HD confirms that the graphics were never modified with the word "transwarp" for onscreen purposes, merely for the purposes of Mr Scott's.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 04:29 PM   #342
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
The only mention of the Enterprises age is in TSFS ("The Enterprise is 20 years old") and it is hard to reconcile with other data points.
Here, I'll admit to having to fudge, but I always though Morrow was talking about the age of the Enterprise since her refit (which would be fifteen or sixteen years) and rounded up for emphasis.
Except it must a lot less time than that since the refit seen in TMP.

TSFS happens maybe weeks after TWOK, which happens approx 15 years after Space Seed. Space Seed was in the first year of the 5YM (assuming a season = a year and season one is year one). The refit was launched to intercept V'Ger 2.5 years after the end of the 5YM.

Year 1 - 5ym starts, SPace Seed

Year 8 (or 7.5 to be exact)- Enterprise refit launched to intercept V'Ger

Year 15 - TWOK/SFS

So, by this reasoning, the refit was only seven years prior.

In my head I always either pretend Morrow said "30 years" or "40 Years" or that the annoyed look Kirk gets isn't just about the decommissioning of the Enterprise, but also because his old friend, the Starfleet CO doesn't know what he's talking about.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 04:47 PM   #343
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
The only mention of the Enterprises age is in TSFS ("The Enterprise is 20 years old") and it is hard to reconcile with other data points.
Here, I'll admit to having to fudge, but I always though Morrow was talking about the age of the Enterprise since her refit (which would be fifteen or sixteen years) and rounded up for emphasis.
Except it must a lot less time than that since the refit seen in TMP.

TSFS happens maybe weeks after TWOK, which happens approx 15 years after Space Seed. Space Seed was in the first year of the 5YM (assuming a season = a year and season one is year one). The refit was launched to intercept V'Ger 2.5 years after the end of the 5YM.

Year 1 - 5ym starts, SPace Seed

Year 8 (or 7.5 to be exact)- Enterprise refit launched to intercept V'Ger

Year 15 - TWOK/SFS

So, by this reasoning, the refit was only seven years prior.
You just have to fudge in a way that's satisfactory to your view of the universe.

Working backwards from the 2364 date given in The Neutral Zone, the trilogy would take place in roughly 2286. The refit was complete somewhere around 2271.

Khan had been trapped on Ceti Alpha V without access to any kind of time-keeping devices (from the looks of it) and in a perpetual sand storm. I figure he just didn't have an accurate way to gauge exactly how long he'd been there after Ceti Alpha VI exploded.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 08:20 PM   #344
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

BillJ wrote: View Post
EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

Here, I'll admit to having to fudge, but I always though Morrow was talking about the age of the Enterprise since her refit (which would be fifteen or sixteen years) and rounded up for emphasis.
Except it must a lot less time than that since the refit seen in TMP.

TSFS happens maybe weeks after TWOK, which happens approx 15 years after Space Seed. Space Seed was in the first year of the 5YM (assuming a season = a year and season one is year one). The refit was launched to intercept V'Ger 2.5 years after the end of the 5YM.

Year 1 - 5ym starts, SPace Seed

Year 8 (or 7.5 to be exact)- Enterprise refit launched to intercept V'Ger

Year 15 - TWOK/SFS

So, by this reasoning, the refit was only seven years prior.
You just have to fudge in a way that's satisfactory to your view of the universe.
I agree 100%!


Khan had been trapped on Ceti Alpha V without access to any kind of time-keeping devices (from the looks of it) and in a perpetual sand storm. I figure he just didn't have an accurate way to gauge exactly how long he'd been there after Ceti Alpha VI exploded.
That seems to be similar to what Mike Okuda did in the Official Chronology, which is a generally valid way to see it. My only quibble with this is that Kirk independantly used the 15 year figure as well, so it wasn't only Khan who miscounted
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 08:41 PM   #345
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
My only quibble with this is that Kirk independantly used the 15 year figure as well, so it wasn't only Khan who miscounted
Kirk is a hell of a starship commander, but doesn't know how to read a calendar! That's why he said two hundred years ought to be just about right in Tomorrow is Yesterday.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ 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 12:34 PM.

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