Ships, Classes, Registries, and Timelines

[yotsuya]

It's obvious that whatever sources you using are inaccurate, to put it politely. CVN-65 launched with eight reactors and she was decommissioned with eight reactors. Which were de-fueled by Huntington Ingalls Industries afterwards.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/06/06/this-is-how-the-navy-plans-to-break-the-big-e/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/25/navy-defueling-enterprises-nuclear-reactors.html
https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/new...-after-reactor-defueling-completed/532559002/

It may be hard to imagine, but my interest in that ship goes back more than 30 years and a lot of what I've read about it has never made it to the internet.

First, why did she have 8 reactors? Because that was the existing carrier design at the time. The Forrestal Class had 8 boilers for 4 shafts and so that is what they gave the Enterprise. For the Forrestal, they were necessary because they would frequently need to switch boilers for repairs. That was never necessary for Enterprise. She only needed 4 steam plants for her engine design. According to what I read of her Service Life Extension back in the 90's (and I read an extensive breakdown of what they did to her, from lowering the watertight doors to deck level to deactivating some reactors that had never been used). Removing any of the reactors is impossible without tearing the ship apart (as the current ongoing issues are proving). I can't remember the full details of what I read, but suffice it to say that she never operated on 8 reactors because she was never designed to operate on 8 reactors at the same time, only 4. That number was reduced to 2 for the Nimitz Class.

Enterprise was defueled immediately on decommissioning. It is what to do with the reactors themselves that is taking a long time. Once a reactor is fueled and activated, it requires the same handling whether it was run for testing or run for 50 years. So nothing about the current issues in any way counters what I remember reading a quarter century ago. The information was unusual and stuck with me. It basically was about how 8 reactors were never needed and they redesigned the system for the Nimitz class to run on two larger reactors. And what I just googled does not directly confirm my memory, but the information how the design paralleled the then in service Forrestal Class drive train is remarkably similar and does make what I remember plausible. So does the information that the Enterprise was grossly overpowered.

 

[Shik]

Wasn't there something about how Jefferies had intended NCC to only be for cruisers, too? Where's Jonah Rapp to hold forth when you need him?

Anyway, here's Wonderwall Rick Sternbach holding forth on RAST lo those many years go about registry numbers, prompted by a question about the Intrepid pathfinder:

Well, the Intrepid reg number will probably -stay- the topic of intense discussion, since us lowly grunts aren't allowed to finalize them without the blessings of the producers. They like to control those sorts of things. I can ask when we get back to work the first or second week of June, and maybe Mr. Berman will let me post a number. As far as the 74600 (the 00 being the prototype/pathfinder vessel), I think I did come up with that one, but lately the internal yak in the art department is that Starfleet hands out numbers on a first come/first served basis, so a runabout might get 75284, followed by a Galaxy class ship at 75285, followed by an Intrepid class ship at 75286, followed by another runabout at 75287, et cetera.

This, then, was the pattern I used for my project.

 

[DEWLine]

Rick Sternbach's answer still holds for my Trekkish brain.
Of course, since we've long also established that Starfleet's not the only ship-owner in what's apparently a "multinational" registry, one still wonders how the other "nations" are "flagged" in that registry.

 

[Dukhat]

Wasn't there something about how Jefferies had intended NCC to only be for cruisers, too? Where's Jonah Rapp to hold forth when you need him?

Anyway, here's Wonderwall Rick Sternbach holding forth on RAST lo those many years go about registry numbers, prompted by a question about the Intrepid pathfinder:

Well, the Intrepid reg number will probably -stay- the topic of intense discussion, since us lowly grunts aren't allowed to finalize them without the blessings of the producers. They like to control those sorts of things. I can ask when we get back to work the first or second week of June, and maybe Mr. Berman will let me post a number. As far as the 74600 (the 00 being the prototype/pathfinder vessel), I think I did come up with that one, but lately the internal yak in the art department is that Starfleet hands out numbers on a first come/first served basis, so a runabout might get 75284, followed by a Galaxy class ship at 75285, followed by an Intrepid class ship at 75286, followed by another runabout at 75287, et cetera.

If only Sternbach was in charge of the registry numbers for California class ships in Lower Decks. They're all kinds of screwed up.

 

[DEWLine]

Depending on Mike McMahan's POV, maybe not so screwed up.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

That bit about the Enterprise is flat out wrong. CVN 65 was intended to be the first of six. Developed as a separate class under a different SCB project (unlike America and JFK, which were follow-ons to Kitty Hawk, though the US Navy still counts JFK as a different class.) And never considered a member of the Kitty Hawk class.

Well, a person is free to believe what they want, regardless of the actual design history of the ships.
The similarity of the flight deck is obvious though, since Kitty Hawk, Constellation and Enterprise are of similar size and were all designed to accommodate the same 1950s-era aircraft. And since the ships were built concurrently*, they would share other similarities as well. Those similarities don't make them the same class. History-wise, there is zero evidence that CVN 65 cribbed from the CV 63 design and some evidence that they both cribbed from an alternate CV design studied in 1955 (SCB project 153).

I am curious why you think Enterprise should look like Nimitz though. Ten years separate their construction starts (1958 and 1968, respectively) and fourteen years their commission dates (1961 and 1975.respectively.)


*(Laid down in 1956 (KH), 1957(Connie) and 1958 (E). All three were launched in 1960 and commissioned in 1961.)

Sorry, but Kitty Hawk Class (SCB-127,A) definitely influenced SCB-153 in terms of design but when that design was cancelled in 55, SCB-127B and SCB-127C were designed. The Enterprise CVAN-65 was the first of six ships, but massive construction costs only allowed for one ship but congressional allocations were made if one of the Enterprise-class CVANs were re-ordered as a Kitty Hawk. 127B was used and we got America. 127C was authorized after the Enterprise was finished. Actually, the Nimitz was designed as a combination of the Enterprise plus later Kitty Hawks. Well, they are more like a nuclearized Kitty Hawks in outward appearance.

That convulsion can be used for the Constitutions and their registries.

 

[yotsuya]

Sorry, but Kitty Hawk Class (SCB-127,A) definitely influenced SCB-153 in terms of design but when that design was cancelled in 55, SCB-127B and SCB-127C were designed. The Enterprise CVAN-65 was the first of six ships, but massive construction costs only allowed for one ship but congressional allocations were made if one of the Enterprise-class CVANs were re-ordered as a Kitty Hawk. 127B was used and we got America. 127C was authorized after the Enterprise was finished. Actually, the Nimitz was designed as a combination of the Enterprise plus later Kitty Hawks. Well, they are more like a nuclearized Kitty Hawks in outward appearance.

That convulsion can be used for the Constitutions and their registries.

One of the key design elements is the location of the Island. From WWII to the Ford Class, it has moved back. The Forrestal had the island behind the first elevator. The Kitty Hawk. Enterprise, and JFK moved the elevators around and had the island just behind the middle elevator. The Nimitz moved all the elevators back and the island as well for longer catapults. The Ford omits the aft elevator and moved the island back even further.

 

[BK613]

@ProwlAlpha
"SCB 153 also failed, but some of its features were incorporated retroactively into CVA 63."

page 277, US Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, Norman Friedman, ISBN 0-87021-739-9

 

[DEWLine]

@BK613, I'm guessing that's a book that my public library won't be able to get, even via inter-library loan.

 

[comsol]

@BK613, I'm guessing that's a book that my public library won't be able to get, even via inter-library loan.

It's likely that will be able to get it for you, I just checked WorldCat (the system we use for Inter Library Loan) - there are a decent number of libraries that have the book - WorldCat says 333 total worldwide. That includes both the Toronto and Mississauga Public Library systems and the University of Toronto, so you might want to give it it try.

 

[DEWLine]

Okay, then! That's a project for the next few months!

 

[Dukhat]

Depending on Mike McMahan's POV, maybe not so screwed up.

And what is Mike McMahan’s point of view?

 

[ProwlAlpha]

@ProwlAlpha
"SCB 153 also failed, but some of its features were incorporated retroactively into CVA 63."

page 277, US Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, Norman Friedman, ISBN 0-87021-739-9

127B and 127C. If we put this convoluted history with the Constitutions, then the 1600s Constitution could be the previous class that were modified on the stocks or prior to keel-laying. Perhaps, Starfleet has to justify the material expenditures to the Federation Council's version of the Armed Forces Committee by re-arranging ship hull numbers and their assignments or they were technology insertion ships and basically became Constitutions by way of upgrades. Similar to Batch II late hull Arleigh Burkes and the newer San Antonios right now.

 

[BK613]

127B and 127C

No. SCB 127A was KH and Constellation. That's what was the result of the retroactive design influenced by 153. The preliminary design for Kitty Hawk under SBC 127 was for a somewhat smaller ship*. To quote the same book again:

"Characteristics drawn in October 1954 showed both the new flight deck and reduced loads, although aviation ordnance was set at 1,800 tons , little short of the full Forrestal figure . A 960 - ft hull ( 130 - ft beam , 97 - ft depth ) was to be driven by 220,000 SHP engines, for a trial speed of 32 knots (rather than 33.6 in a Forrestal with 60,000 more SHP ), and av gas stowage was limited to 675,000 gallons."​

The built ships of 127A would be a match in size and capability to Forrestal, only with better flight deck flow, and not the smaller ship originally proposed under 127 in 1954.
---------
Back on topic, I agree somewhat that a convoluted design history could explain some of what we see. I can even see Jefferies' system holding sway in the early part of the UFP when territory and ship numbers are both small, and that system giving way to over time to using block numbers on multiple classes with multiple roles, to a point where the UFP can one-off a ship with the same ease and efficiency as a traditional class and the numbers become random.

--------
*(I haven't found an explicit quote that says so yet but this smaller ship design sounds like cost-cutting by an Eisenhower administration dedicated to balancing the budget.)

 

[yotsuya]

The Starfleet Museum in Picard has added to the older classes to investigate.

 

[Enterprise1701]

2161 - one assumes the NCC-01 was active upon the founding of the Federation Starfleet
2245 - the U.S.S. Enterprise is launched as NCC-1701
2401 - the U.S.S. Gregory Jein is active as NCC-103145
3189 - the U.S.S. Nog is active as NCC-325070

Given the Burn circa 3069, it is likely Starfleet has not had a working shipyard in a century, though I do wonder how long each of the ships which debuted in DIS 3.05 could really have chugged along alone during the Federation dark age. Nonetheless, that still leaves a questionable balance across 9 centuries if it only took 2.5 centuries for Starfleet to consume 100,000 registries.

 

[Henoch]

2401 - the U.S.S. Gregory Jein is active as NCC-103145

This registry number is Gregory Jein's birthday, Oct. 31, 1945.

 

[Deks]

2161 - one assumes the NCC-01 was active upon the founding of the Federation Starfleet
2245 - the U.S.S. Enterprise is launched as NCC-1701
2401 - the U.S.S. Gregory Jein is active as NCC-103145
3189 - the U.S.S. Nog is active as NCC-325070

Given the Burn circa 3069, it is likely Starfleet has not had a working shipyard in a century, though I do wonder how long each of the ships which debuted in DIS 3.05 could really have chugged along alone during the Federation dark age. Nonetheless, that still leaves a questionable balance across 9 centuries if it only took 2.5 centuries for Starfleet to consume 100,000 registries.

Well, lets see, in the mirror universe, the USS Defiant was constructed by Terrans who captured Terrok Nor and created a makeshift shipyard at one of the docking ports... and thy arguably had LESS resources than the Federation in the 31st century (which also had programmable matter, etc. at its disposal).
In fact, you don't need a shipyard to make a starship in Trek... or why hadn't SF HQ just used itself as a makeshift shipyard?
With programmable matter, all they would do is assemble the ship from scratch - and since there were still 38 planets in the Federation (with their resources and technology intact), SF could have pulled various resources from those worlds (if it had to) to make more ships.

After all, the UFP wasn't huge when it started. It started with all of 4 member planets/solar systems. Granted this was at a time when dilithium was abundantly present (even though dilithium shouldn't realistically run out in a whole galaxy - and to be fair, the UFP already had encountered advanced power generation technologies (and had scans of them in the 233rd and 24th century that didn't rely on dilithium or M/AM).

As for whether or not a starship can chug along for 120 years... of course it can.
VOY was faced with a 75 year trip back to the AQ... the crew did upgrades, maintenance and acquired resources along the way back home and kept the ship running in pretty much top shape (well, the first 2 years were rough due to the damage the ship suffered from being pulled to the DQ and more or less frequent skirmishes with the Kazon which had the ship rationing energy for that time - but it was the 3rd or 4th year that these issues were resolved for the most part).

Even from short Treks, Zora kept the Discovery hidden in a nebula for a thousand years, but the ship was still running fine because Zora was maintaining it - and heck even WITHOUT Zora or general AI, SF ships do have DOT's... and the computer is capable of massive automation with adaptive algorithms. If the crew were forced to abandon the ship, all they would have to do is instruct the computer to wait for the crew to come back and run itself in low power mode while running periodic maintenance with DOT's and occasional scans for the crew for example.

 

[jaehaerys48]

Real life ships have to deal with the highly corrosive environment that is the seas, while aircraft have to deal with metal fatigue. And even then there are ships and airframes that have been kept in service for long periods of times. A starship in space doesn't have to worry about rust and if it is made out of materials that are highly resistant to fatigue it should last a very long time (especially if mothballed). Discovery is a good example, besides that we also have things like the Botany Bay and the old alien cruiser they find in a TNG episode that still has working life support.

 

[Deks]

Real life ships have to deal with the highly corrosive environment that is the seas, while aircraft have to deal with metal fatigue. And even then there are ships and airframes that have been kept in service for long periods of times. A starship in space doesn't have to worry about rust and if it is made out of materials that are highly resistant to fatigue it should last a very long time (especially if mothballed). Discovery is a good example, besides that we also have things like the Botany Bay and the old alien cruiser they find in a TNG episode that still has working life support.

With the level of automation present in Trek and what we've seen of UFP technology, you don't even need a crew for maintenance, repairs of upgrades. The DOT's can handle that along with the computer which has simple adaptive algorithms (even if it's not a fully developed AI).
Most of the time if the ship is running in low power mode and not really DOING anything, maintenance requirements would even be lower.

As you said, ships in the vacuum of space aren't usually exposed to dangerous elements that would degrade the hull (those are usually contained to anomalies or nebulas with harmful radiation or other wonky effects - most nebulae and huge swaths of interstellar space are safe for ships to be in and wouldn't endanger the hull.

Plus, its tritanium or duranium type hull, it would have been built to be resistant to various things... anomalies included (or one would think).
So, yeah, having a ship running like that indefinitely (or for a LONG period of time) is pretty doable.

Also, given that SF builds its ships to be modular... and with replicators, transporters and tractor beams, the ship could easily be upgraded, reshaped, the hull and internal infrastructure 'refreshed' when needed to keep it up to date with the times... so a ship like that could survive for over 900 years if it was built in the 23rd centuy, and then end up looking ENTIRELY different by the 32nd century (heck, after the first 100 years - assuming the vessel isn't destroyed), its inner and outer design will have probably changed to accommodate for changes in technology and keep it up to date).