RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,212
Posts: 5,600,074
Members: 25,399
Currently online: 528
Newest member: PJSLIMM

TrekToday headlines

March-April 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 2

Shatner Shares Nimoy Memories
By: T'Bonz on Mar 2

Retro Review: When It Rains…
By: Michelle on Feb 27

Nimoy Dead At Eighty-Three
By: T'Bonz on Feb 27

Breaking news: Leonard Nimoy – ‘Mr Spock’ – dies aged 83
By: AntonyF on Feb 27

Hurley Passes
By: T'Bonz on Feb 26

USS Excelsior Model Coming Soon
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25

Hemsworth To Host SNL
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25

Quinto To Guest Star On HBO Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25

Wheaton To Voice Firefly Game
By: T'Bonz on Feb 24


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 27 2014, 04:20 AM   #46
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Probably so. However the reporter's question has some issues, "Captain, ...this is the first Starship Enterprise in thirty years without James T. Kirk in command."

Kirk wasn't in command of the Enterprise at the beginning of TMP (Decker was) or beginning of TWOK (Spock was). For "thirty years" to work out, GEN would be like 15 or 20 years after TUC, assuming Kirk's last continuous command started in TVH.

So, the reporter's timing is way off or they omitted other commanders of the Enterprise.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2014, 11:37 AM   #47
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Wouldn't the "first in 30 years" usually suggest that there has not been a Starship Enterprise in the past 30 years without James T. Kirk in command?

Since Kirk's last continuous command started in ST IV it would suggest TVH + 30 years.

Apparently the reporter could have used a history lesson (same goes for the screenplay writer).

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 27 2014, 12:03 PM   #48
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
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.
Or that the ship was recommissioned as the Yorktown or whatever ship it was in the past, and relaunched with a new crew. Or maybe Kirk was just speaking figuratively.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Probably so. However the reporter's question has some issues, "Captain, ...this is the first Starship Enterprise in thirty years without James T. Kirk in command."

Kirk wasn't in command of the Enterprise at the beginning of TMP (Decker was) or beginning of TWOK (Spock was). For "thirty years" to work out, GEN would be like 15 or 20 years after TUC, assuming Kirk's last continuous command started in TVH.

So, the reporter's timing is way off or they omitted other commanders of the Enterprise.
If 23rd century reporters are anything like 21st century reporters, then this isn't atypical. Reporters rarely get their facts right initially and like to put their own spin on things. That's probably the case here.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2014, 08:42 PM   #49
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
If 23rd century reporters are anything like 21st century reporters, then this isn't atypical. Reporters rarely get their facts right initially and like to put their own spin on things. That's probably the case here.
The writer -- er.. -- reporter simply subtracted 1994 (Gen) - 1964 (The Cage) to get 30 years.

Or, as an in-universe explanation, maybe Kirk was always technically "in command" of the Enterprise while an Admiral. It was his flagship of choice, although there were other captains? Just an idea.
WarpFactorZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 12:08 AM   #50
Nebusj
Rear Admiral
 
Nebusj's Avatar
 
View Nebusj's Twitter Profile
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
If 23rd century reporters are anything like 21st century reporters, then this isn't atypical. Reporters rarely get their facts right initially and like to put their own spin on things. That's probably the case here.
The writer -- er.. -- reporter simply subtracted 1994 (Gen) - 1964 (The Cage) to get 30 years.

Or, as an in-universe explanation, maybe Kirk was always technically "in command" of the Enterprise while an Admiral. It was his flagship of choice, although there were other captains? Just an idea.
Or figured that it was a clearer question than one about the ``first active-commissioned Enterprise in an ordinary non-training, non-refitting duty assignment not to be commanded by Kirk in thirty years''. There's a point where precision starts to obstruct comprehension.
Nebusj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 12:57 AM   #51
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Then why not just say, "Captain, ...this is the first Starship Enterprise in fifteen years without James T. Kirk in command." (or ten or whatever.)
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 01:47 AM   #52
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Well there is also the fact that whilst Decker might have been in command in the Ent during its refit. As the ship never left spacedock with him in command the reporter might have overlooked him. Same goes for the period when it seemed to be a training vessel, as someone noted above it could have been Kirk's flag vessel. Or perhaps the reporter simply meant that this was the first Enterprise that would be going on a deep space mission without Kirk in command.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 04:53 AM   #53
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Then why not just say, "Captain, ...this is the first Starship Enterprise in fifteen years without James T. Kirk in command." (or ten or whatever.)
On that note, how about just: "Captain: this is the first Enterprise in a GENERATION without James T. Kirk in command." Ooooooooooo...
WarpFactorZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2014, 02:09 PM   #54
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Coming in to this late, I know, but here's a chart I made on the subject many years ago:
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2014, 10:35 PM   #55
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Brannigan wrote: View Post
As a hobby I like to draw and recently I have begun to draw the USS Hornet CV-12 (docked and open for tours at the former Alameda Naval base, home of the nuclear wessels). As I was researching her and her sisters I found that while they had relatively long life spans (Hornet herself was commissioned in 1943 and decommissioned in 1970), many of the carriers spent a great deal of their lives laid up or in reserve fleets. (Again Hornet was mothballed from 1970 until being released as a museum in 1998).
Going back to the OP... I'm not so sure those Essex class carriers are the best example for comparison. Many did spend long periods in reserve, but there were some particular reasons for this: (1) A wartime building boom far larger than peacetime budgets could support, (2) a period of political/policymaking uncertainty 1946-1950 about what the future of naval aviation would be with respect to the newly independent Air Force, and (3) the rapid pace of developments toward larger and jet-powered aircraft which larger, more specialized carrier decks.

If you look at the careers of the peacetime supercarriers and even the larger wartime Midways, you see pretty standard patterns of operation and refit, but little decommission/reserve time. Which is pretty historically consistent for capital ships of major powers in the industrial age. Absent some kind of major war buildup or something like that, which I've not seen evidence of, I would lean toward 1701 and her sisters actively operating pretty consistently through their lifetimes, outside normal refit periods.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2014, 12:53 AM   #56
Timelord Victorious
Rear Admiral
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
^The Galaxy class is supposed to have an operational lifetime of 100 years. The Enterprise-D lasted for a whopping 7, just so Brannon could get his jollies seeing the saucer crash on a planet.
RandyS wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
^The Galaxy class is supposed to have an operational lifetime of 100 years. The Enterprise-D lasted for a whopping 7, just so Brannon could get his jollies seeing the saucer crash on a planet.
Don't put it all on Brannon. Ron Moore (stupidly) thought it would be a good idea too.

And yeah, I hated that decision also, but it was easily fixed. The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".

But no, instead we're stuck with the ugliest starship ever put out.

Whatever.
They could have had their cake and eat it, too.

Just script the battle a little differently. The saucer separates, during the battle, while the battlesection tries to draw the attention of the BoP instead of popping like a balloon like it did.
It goes to town on the Klingons and destroys them successfully, though a last stray torpedo hits the saucer and causes it to crashland like we've seen, while the battle section remains heavily damaged in orbit.

At the end we see the saucer salvaged and lifted back into orbit and towed by the relief ships.

In the new movie we see a spanking new Ent-D refitted extensively like the 1701 to bring the model up to the movie quality and tweaked design elements like hull details, nacelle shape, etc but keep the frame.

Interior design would be new as well, maybe a blend of old galaxy class and Sovereign style.
Timelord Victorious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 10:03 AM   #57
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

Timelord_Victorious wrote: View Post
They could have had their cake and eat it, too.

Just script the battle a little differently. The saucer separates, during the battle, while the battlesection tries to draw the attention of the BoP instead of popping like a balloon like it did.
It goes to town on the Klingons and destroys them successfully, though a last stray torpedo hits the saucer and causes it to crashland like we've seen, while the battle section remains heavily damaged in orbit.

At the end we see the saucer salvaged and lifted back into orbit and towed by the relief ships.

In the new movie we see a spanking new Ent-D refitted extensively like the 1701 to bring the model up to the movie quality and tweaked design elements like hull details, nacelle shape, etc but keep the frame.

Interior design would be new as well, maybe a blend of old galaxy class and Sovereign style.

Actually, here's what would have made more sense: Actually give the Duras sisters the huge battlecruiser they were originally supposed to get (instead of the puny BoP just so they could save a couple bucks re-using the destruction of Chang's BoP from the previous film). Make a much better space battle between the two ships, and eventually have the separation so that the stardrive section could ram the battlecruiser (just like in Nemesis). Battlecruiser destroyed, stardrive section a floating hulk in space. Saucer crash, then like you said, gets retrieved by the rescue ships. Next movie, voila, the D is repaired and refitted to look like it did in "All Good Things..." (I liked that version far better than the Sovereign).

But no, they wanted a new fucking ship.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 05:09 PM   #58
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

I think the issue is less that the Ent-D was sdestroyed but the manner in which it was destroyed. Would it had been better if they used a Vor'cha Class crusier probable.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 05:40 PM   #59
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
I think the issue is less that the Ent-D was sdestroyed but the manner in which it was destroyed. Would it had been better if they used a Vor'cha Class crusier probable.
No for me. The issue was that the Enterprise-D was destroyed. It was a stupid and unecessary "plot device" that was easily fixed, but wasn't.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12 2014, 08:04 AM   #60
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

RandyS wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
I think the issue is less that the Ent-D was sdestroyed but the manner in which it was destroyed. Would it had been better if they used a Vor'cha Class crusier probable.
Not for me. The issue was that the Enterprise-D was destroyed. It was a stupid and unecessary "plot device" that was easily fixed, but wasn't.
Not for me either. The fact of the idiotic manner in which it was destroyed was just lousy icing on an already foul-tasting cake. And Picard's rather flippant attitude at the end of the film ("Oh, they'll just build another one") was just god-awful.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat 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 04:19 PM.

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