Spoilers Star Trek: Lower Decks 3x10 - "The Stars at Night"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
"witness the forced retirement of the Constitution class in favor of the Excelsior class at the end of TUC."
This is an assumption. The Enterprise is retired at the end of TUC. But there is no dialog to suggest the Constitution class is retired.
There is an assumption of class block obsolescence that is often discussed by Trek fans that doesn't match the evidence on the show and doesn't even match real world warships anymore. Witness the Burke class destroyer. The first entered service in 1991 and they are still being built. The ships are expected to last for 45 years each (50 for later ones) the first ships will be retired in the mid 2030s with later examples being only a few years old at that point. Nimitz class carriers and Virginia class submarines will have similar build programmes, in the UK the Astute Class SSN will have a 16 year gap between the commissioning of the first and last (7th) boats for the same reason. You want to keep the shipyard in continuous work rather than have a boom and bust in construction.
We see Miranda and Excelsior Class ships with wide ranges of registry numbers, meaning they may have been in production for decades. The truth is we know little about 1701-A that can help. Was it a new ship in ST-IV? Or was it (as GR suggested) an old ship given a new name and number? If the latter was the case perhaps it was getting long in the tooth. Or it could have been structurally compromised by the damage it received in TUC and retired early in a period of fleet reduction due to the ending of the Cold War with the Klingons. Neither option means all Constitutions were retired. Just that one. And it may even have been mothballed and subsequently returned to service later with a new (original?) name and number at a later date if required.
Stuart
This is an assumption. The Enterprise is retired at the end of TUC. But there is no dialog to suggest the Constitution class is retired.
There is an assumption of class block obsolescence that is often discussed by Trek fans that doesn't match the evidence on the show and doesn't even match real world warships anymore. Witness the Burke class destroyer. The first entered service in 1991 and they are still being built. The ships are expected to last for 45 years each (50 for later ones) the first ships will be retired in the mid 2030s with later examples being only a few years old at that point. Nimitz class carriers and Virginia class submarines will have similar build programmes, in the UK the Astute Class SSN will have a 16 year gap between the commissioning of the first and last (7th) boats for the same reason. You want to keep the shipyard in continuous work rather than have a boom and bust in construction.
We see Miranda and Excelsior Class ships with wide ranges of registry numbers, meaning they may have been in production for decades. The truth is we know little about 1701-A that can help. Was it a new ship in ST-IV? Or was it (as GR suggested) an old ship given a new name and number? If the latter was the case perhaps it was getting long in the tooth. Or it could have been structurally compromised by the damage it received in TUC and retired early in a period of fleet reduction due to the ending of the Cold War with the Klingons. Neither option means all Constitutions were retired. Just that one. And it may even have been mothballed and subsequently returned to service later with a new (original?) name and number at a later date if required.
Stuart
I just got the reference regarding the episode's title:
Last edited:
in TUC they even say they’re going to retire *the crew*, not the ship.
Nah. She just didn't want it with Spock.
THANK YOU. While I always believed that a lot of issues will be solved in the long run, thus helping humanity to progress, it won't do away with all of them. Chaos will always find a way to put a proverbial snake in any "garden of Eden", if nothing else.
"Realistically" speaking, Hollywood might not be a thing in the Trek future. Maybe it was destroyed during WWIII and once civilization got back on its feet, the entertainment industry relocated.
The quake did not destroy the entire city. Just part of it.
@They Did The Transport Mash has a great breakdown of it, but I've forgotten the thread he posted it in.
Last edited:
We were talking about WW3 not the earthquake.
It would then appear that L.A. was one of the few major cities that survived the war intact (in STFC, Riker said MOST of the major cities were destroyed, not ALL of them). Because I find it impossible to believe that a city that size could have been rebuilt from scratch in less than a century. And after a global nuclear war no less.
It was also stated in the premiere of Picard that he left the Enterprise specifically to head up the Romulan evacuation effort.
I mean, the fact we never see a Constitution class starship in the timeframe after TUC at all would support that assumption.
An assumption with support is still an assumption.
There was a refit Constitution class in the Battle of Wolf 359.
Berlin was rebuilt in a few decades and it isn’t smaller than LA by much.
all right then.
we don’t really see many ships between TUC and TNG anyway, it’s pretty much an unexplored period so far.
But that was in a world which still had its infrastructure and technology intact, not smashed to bits by worldwide Armageddon.
You can't rebuild if there's nothing left to rebuild WITH...
Several other things, like the destruction of Pakled, have been pretty dark too. So was the whole Texas class plot, including what was done to Rutherford.
Star Trek has always dealt with darker themes, including the nature of godhood and deity, as well as the need for man's darker side. TOS explored many different facets, some quite horrible, and somehow is still considered kid friend? Really?
LD has two things working for it on this front: one, it is not a kid's show. It is an animated show that has no issue exploring different themes, including more adult ones, within the Star Trek world. Two, it is very much self-aware of what tropes have been a part of Trek's history before, and either use them for comedy, or use them for dramatic effect. They don't shy away from difficult subjects because it is an animated show.
Clearly there was something to rebuild with, otherwise Vulcans would be touring the Sol III memorial not supporting humanity's efforts to climb out of the post-atomic horror.
Why would they retire the Enterprise-A if the entire class weren't being retired?
That's cool, but none of it is applicable to the fictional world of Star Trek.
In the absence of any indication that it was a new ship, it makes more sense to assume that the Enterprise-A was a rechristened Constitution class of comparable age to the 1701. Why would Starfleet retire it if it were only eight years old?
Except they were already talking about the Enterprise-A being scheduled for decommissioning at the start of TUC, even before the main plot of the film got underway. In addition, Starfleet's order that the ship be put into spacedock for decommissioning came only hours after the battle -- far too little time for Starfleet to have evaluated the damage as being too extensive to repair. And the treaty wasn't even done being negotiated yet, so the idea that Starfleet was doing it for Khitomer Accords reasons doesn't hold muster.
I mean, sure, it's a work of fiction and anything could be established if later writers wanted to. But nothing about the events of TUC make sense unless the entire Constitution class was being retired.
exactly. I would bet on seeing at least 1 Connie if the “Lost Era” were ever explored.
they weren’t talking about decommissioning the ship. Only that the crew was set to stand down. Spock’s line “this is my last voyage aboard this ship as a member of her crew” and his desire for Valaris to take his place seem to indicate he expects the ship to continue under a new commander.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll