RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 144,867
Posts: 5,696,897
Members: 25,687
Currently online: 396
Newest member: johnj

TrekToday headlines

Whitney Passes
By: T'Bonz on May 4

Retro Review: Phage
By: Michelle on May 2

The Next Generation Shower Curtain
By: T'Bonz on May 1

Burton Part of Roots Reboot
By: T'Bonz on May 1

May-June 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Apr 30

Ross To Attend Trek Convention
By: T'Bonz on Apr 29

William Shatner Presents Chaos On The Bridge US Premiere
By: T'Bonz on Apr 29

Trek Phaser Monitor Mate Bobble Prop
By: T'Bonz on Apr 28

Eve Faces Backlash For Jenner Comments
By: T'Bonz on Apr 28

Frakes: Forget About Trek On TV
By: T'Bonz on Apr 28


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 January 24 2014, 08:56 AM   #31
QuinnTV
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.
Ever watch ST II and IV? Two different Enterprises, one model. Slightly changed registry.
QuinnTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 12:28 PM   #32
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

QuinnTV wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.
Ever watch ST II and IV? Two different Enterprises, one model. Slightly changed registry.
I think it would have absolutely looked derivative and insulting to perform the same "ressurection maneuver" twice.

I disliked this stunt at the end of ST IV (after Spock's ressurection). At least they could have tried to exchange the warp nacelles against new ones in Excelsior style to sell us the idea that this was a different and truly "new" ship.

Considering that the "A" was supposedly brand new (put together by monkeys according to Scotty in ST V), I found it interesting that 11 years (?) later in ST VI, that new ship was already to be decommissioned. Apparently even less than those stupid 20 years.

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 January 24 2014, 06:01 PM   #33
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Or introduce the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A as an Excelsior class.
__________________
No animals were harmed during posting ...
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 06:52 PM   #34
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

anh165 wrote: View Post
Or introduce the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A as an Excelsior class.
In-universe, that was probably the plan all along. The original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned in STIII, and Starfleet Command was most likely going to make the next Excelsior class ship the Enterprise-A (just like they did in Generations with the Ent-B). But the events of the next movie changed their plan, and instead in tribute to Kirk and his crew, they hastily renamed and re-registered an older Connie that was probably going to be decommissioned in a few years anyway (and right around the time the crew was scheduled to retire, hint hint), which would make the scene at the end of STVI make more sense.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Considering that the "A" was supposedly brand new (put together by monkeys according to Scotty in ST V), I found it interesting that 11 years (?) later in ST VI, that new ship was already to be decommissioned. Apparently even less than those stupid 20 years.
Again, it was never mentioned that the ship was brand-new. IIRC, Scotty only referred to the ship as "this new Enterprise," which while true, doesn't mean that the ship itself was new, just that it was the newest Enterprise. I prefer to believe that all Connies were being phased out by this point, which was why we never saw the design again after STVI. So why would Starfleet have just suddenly decided to build a new one, just to decommission it a few years later? Having the ship be older would also have explained why it had so many problems.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; January 24 2014 at 07:58 PM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 07:27 PM   #35
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

^^ While I do like the basic explanation (refitting the newer TOS Enterprise Starship Class worked out fine but refitting an older Constitution Class starship meant trouble), Scotty seemed to suggest something different: "All I can say is they don't make 'em like they used to."

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 January 24 2014, 07:59 PM   #36
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
So why would Starfleet have just suddenly decided to build a new one, just to decommission it a few years later? Having the ship be older would also have explained why it had so many problems.
Not necessarily unheard of. The last Essex-class aircraft carrier, the USS Philippine Sea, was commissioned in 1946 and decommissioned in 1958 after serving a short 12 years. The 1701-A could've been the last Connie ordered and have a shorter career than her older sister ships.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 08:06 PM   #37
Dukhat
Rear Admiral
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
...Scotty seemed to suggest something different: "All I can say is they don't make 'em like they used to."
All that means is that Scotty prefers the TOS version of the Constitution class Enterprise to the TMP version, a feeling borne out in "Relics." As for the Ent-A, as I said there's really no evidence for the ship being brand-new (As a matter of fact, when we first see the ship's bridge at the end of STIV, it's mostly made from the older TMP-style bridge; the newer bridge in STV-VI was most likely a bridge module replacement like what Okuda speculated in the TNG tech manual).

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Not necessarily unheard of. The last Essex-class aircraft carrier, the USS Philippine Sea, was commissioned in 1946 and decommissioned in 1958 after serving a short 12 years. The 1701-A could've been the last Connie ordered and have a shorter career than her older sister ships.
Sure, I can accept that reasoning. It's just that I find it unusual that Starfleet decided to build one more Connie in just the three months between the destruction of the original Enterprise and the end of STIV, and coincidentally have it ready for Kirk and crew at the conclusion of their trial. I think it would make more sense for them to have just found an old ship and changed the name and registry.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 09:01 PM   #38
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I think it was just coincidental that the last Connie came off the assembly line at about the same time Kirk gets busted down to a Captain. Given that the Feds and the Klingons were still in a state of a semi-warm war with each other, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple more Connies under construction around the time of TVH only to be retired shortly after the end of TUC.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2014, 01:38 AM   #39
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

QuinnTV wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.
Ever watch ST II and IV? Two different Enterprises, one model. Slightly changed registry.
Touche.

At least no one suggested going with NCC-1701-D-A.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2014, 03:20 AM   #40
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Quietly chuckling
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
anh165 wrote: View Post
Or introduce the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A as an Excelsior class.
In-universe, that was probably the plan all along. The original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned in STIII, and Starfleet Command was most likely going to make the next Excelsior class ship the Enterprise-A (just like they did in Generations with the Ent-B). But the events of the next movie changed their plan, and instead in tribute to Kirk and his crew, they hastily renamed and re-registered an older Connie that was probably going to be decommissioned in a few years anyway (and right around the time the crew was scheduled to retire, hint hint), which would make the scene at the end of STVI make more sense.
I rather like how DC actually used this idea very effectively, for a while at least.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2014, 09:47 PM   #41
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I can see the Connie being in service for 40 years with semiregular upgrades. I also could see the E-A be made of a hastily upgraded older Connie perhaps scheduled for decommissioning originally.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26 2014, 07:22 AM   #42
Brannigan
Commander
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I've always held the belief that the E-A is an older Constitution (probably the former Yorktown as Roddenberry had suggested). Since we aren't entirely sure of how long the events of Star Trek IV occurred (what's to say that Kirk's trial didn't last a couple months, long enough to get the Yorktown seen at the beginning of Star Trek IV home and repaired).
To the point, the former Yorktown was refitted as a test bed for new computer systems, perhaps for the Excelsior. Starfleet hastily outfitted her and renamed her for Kirk and thus at the beginning of Star Trek V Scotty was having problems with the ship. It might also explain why the ship only lasted briefly. I get the impression that at the beginning of Star Trek VI, E-A was in partial decommission and was brought back for one last mission.
__________________
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
Brannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26 2014, 07:50 AM   #43
LOLPeanutButter
Ensign
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Brannigan wrote: View Post
I get the impression that at the beginning of Star Trek VI, E-A was in partial decommission and was brought back for one last mission.
A symbolic gesture. One of the best known ships in the fleet meeting the Klingon for a peace summit.
LOLPeanutButter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2014, 12:35 AM   #44
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Kirk's final words would suggest that the ship and crew would be decommissioned but then turned over to a new crew. So it is possible that the E-A had a few more missions under a new crew.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2014, 01:19 AM   #45
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Or that Kirk was already aware that a new Enterprise was being built. Besides we know from GEN that the Ent-B was the first Enterrpsie in thirty years not to be commanded by Kirk.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod 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 10:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.