• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Starship Museums: why?

The first real hint of this was Voyager, which makes sense, because it took them 23 years to get back home, quarter of a century. In the revised timeline, only 7 years, but still makes sense. How many starships fly across the galaxy in under a decade? It was a PR thing. We also know the NX-01 ended up as a museum ship after a decade in space. This was also likely a PR with the formation of the Federation and being Starfleet's first explorer and a prototype at that.

In the 1966-2005 run, these are the only examples I can think of where a Starfleet starship became a museum piece. This wasn't really a thing in the reboot trilogy. In the streaming shows, (not counting Voyager in Lower Decks), this seems to mostly be just a "Picard show" thing. I don't like the idea that starships get retired after some 10-20 years. Cars last longer than that. WTF? The whole "mileage" thing reduces a starship to a car. Are these things supposed to go toe-to-toe with the Borg, the Dominion, survive crash landings, and shit? Come on. If the "story reason" is PR, trashed but made to look nice, or just horribly outdated (no one's expecting the Ent-A to fly again, LMAO), no probs. The Defiant-A is only 26 years old by PIC S3, why is it not still flying around kicking ass? Kirk's Enterprise was 20 years old when he took command and still had the new paint smell.
Getting back on the topic.

Even in the real modern day we have museum ships of all sizes. Sailing ships, steam ships, warships, etc.

In a world where profit is no longer the driving force, more ships can be preserved for younger generations to visit.
There has been talk of a fleet museum for some time, I cannot remember the episodes, but I'm sure it's been mentioned more than once. And I recall strongly it being referred to directly in Star Trek First Contact by Picard when he touches the Phoenix.

I too do not subscribe to this nonsense that ships are retired after a paltry 20 years service. This is revisionist crap. All through TNG, DS9 and a bit of VGR, we same designs that were easily 100 years old still in service. Others 40 years old still plying their trade.

The Galaxy Class for example is written as a design that is supposed to be in service for 100 years with modular technology allowing it to be upgraded periodically. It should be more than capable of being in service during PIC. But we see not a single one (until the big D appears).
Now, the real life reason is they did not use the Galaxy Class as they did not want people thinking it was the Enterprise D. (While most of us are clever enough to know it wouldn't be, there are some that would genuinely think it was. This is why we never saw an obviously unmodified Galaxy in DS9 until after ST Generations, after which they featured somewhat regularly).
There may be practical reasons for the USS Syracuse, the donor of the stardrive for the resurrected Enterprise-D, to have been taken out of service. Likely some damage that was deemed too extensive to be corrected for it to return to regular service. (As what happened to the Enterprise-F).

So, I support the idea of a fleet museum and than occasionally a fully capable ship might get retired and displayed for all sorts of reasons. But I reject this notion that a 20 year old ship is too old and MUST be retired.
 
No, I thought they were blueberries. :rolleyes:
Was it said there was a war, or just that he fought them?
On your third point, you're not wrong. :lol:
It was described as a conflict in Icarus Factor.

Tzenkethi War article here.

Talarian conflict is called a border skirmish but at the end both sides exchanged prisoners of war.
 
If anything, as a Federation citizen, you'd love a Starfleet warship in orbit keeping space thugs at bay.
The only time this rather xenophobic take has been expressed by Federation citizens in the franchise has typically been close-minded folks like Admiral Cartwright, who thought Klingons would become the "alien trash of the galaxy."
 
I was under the impression Starfleet's mandate was to seek out new life and civilizations, boldly going where no one had gone before to broaden our understanding, etc. Naturally, Starfleet also serves as the military, but this is not it's primary function from what I understand. YMMV, of course, depending on how you look at things.

NuBSG took the same "decommission the ship into a museum" approach to the Galactica in the miniseries in that she was being decommissioned and turned into a museum - albeit after ~ 50ish years of going toe to toe with toasters. When the cylons nuked the colonies, gears shifted and despite being decommissioned and showing her age in places, she still could pack a punch as seen throughout the shows four season run. It does seem that converting a ship to a museum is fairly common, but I can certainly appreciate the views that these Trek starships were mothballed well before their time.

It's going to boil down to appreciation vs utility - Do you prefer to keep things as they are so they can be admired in the future and serve as an example of where we came from, or are you more inclined to keep using something until it is no longer functioning and we run it into the ground? (Sorry ENT-D saucer section, no generations pun intended.)
 
The only time this rather xenophobic take has been expressed by Federation citizens in the franchise has typically been close-minded folks like Admiral Cartwright, who thought Klingons would become the "alien trash of the galaxy."
Earth-Romulan war, Klingons toggle back and forth between friend and foe, the Cardassians, the Borg, the Dominion, and "space thugs" can be literally any species, including Humans.
 
I was under the impression Starfleet's mandate was to seek out new life and civilizations, boldly going where no one had gone before to broaden our understanding, etc. Naturally, Starfleet also serves as the military, but this is not it's primary function from what I understand. YMMV, of course, depending on how you look at things.

NuBSG took the same "decommission the ship into a museum" approach to the Galactica in the miniseries in that she was being decommissioned and turned into a museum - albeit after ~ 50ish years of going toe to toe with toasters. When the cylons nuked the colonies, gears shifted and despite being decommissioned and showing her age in places, she still could pack a punch as seen throughout the shows four season run. It does seem that converting a ship to a museum is fairly common, but I can certainly appreciate the views that these Trek starships were mothballed well before their time.

It's going to boil down to appreciation vs utility - Do you prefer to keep things as they are so they can be admired in the future and serve as an example of where we came from, or are you more inclined to keep using something until it is no longer functioning and we run it into the ground? (Sorry ENT-D saucer section, no generations pun intended.)
#1 I'm not assigning roles to Starfleet regarding 1st, 2nd, 3rd priority, and so on. In all of Star Trek, we've never seen anything else in the role of an interstellar Federation military. Starfleet has always functioned in that role, therefore, Starfleet is for all intents and purposes the Federation's space military, even if that's only a "sometimes" or a "only when we need to be" basis.

On the museum front, these are starships designed to last 100+ years. If a ship is a museum because old and outdated, trashed and made to look nice, or PR reasons such as Voyager, sure, why not? However, a ship that's only 20-30 years old... there's just no good reason to retire it.
 
#1 I'm not assigning roles to Starfleet regarding 1st, 2nd, 3rd priority, and so on. In all of Star Trek, we've never seen anything else in the role of an interstellar Federation military. Starfleet has always functioned in that role, therefore, Starfleet is for all intents and purposes the Federation's space military, even if that's only a "sometimes" or a "only when we need to be" basis.

On the museum front, these are starships designed to last 100+ years. If a ship is a museum because old and outdated, trashed and made to look nice, or PR reasons such as Voyager, sure, why not? However, a ship that's only 20-30 years old... there's just no good reason to retire it.
You said it, its a PR move. Regardless of the age, we tend to honor the ships and crew who do spectacular things or ships that are the symbol of an age. It is why we still have the HMS Victory, the USS Constitution, the Aurora, and so on.
 
You said it, its a PR move. Regardless of the age, we tend to honor the ships and crew who do spectacular things or ships that are the symbol of an age. It is why we still have the HMS Victory, the USS Constitution, the Aurora, and so on.
Today's naval vessels are a bit fragile when compared to Star Trek's futurist starships capable of withstanding things that would completely destroy any naval vessel today. Some of the ships at the Starfleet museum made sense, because old or PR. However, some of them bade no sense, like the Defiant-A.
 
Given that the Victory, Constitution, and the Aurora are older than most Trek ships comparatively, there's a discussion that most of Trek's ships are not made to exist longer than needed (Except for the Miranda, Oberth, and Excelsiors...they are ship gods apparently).
 
Today's naval vessels are a bit fragile when compared to Star Trek's futurist starships capable of withstanding things that would completely destroy any naval vessel today. Some of the ships at the Starfleet museum made sense, because old or PR. However, some of them bade no sense, like the Defiant-A.
PR or history makers needing honoring.

In a post scarcity economy they don't need much excuse.
 
PR or history makers needing honoring.

In a post scarcity economy they don't need much excuse.
In a post scarcity economy, there's no reason to retire a ship, because you can keep upgrading until it's just too old. The only real reason to retire a ship is that reason or PR. Retire Voyager, because DQ mission, let people check it out. OK. Retire the Defiant-A: why?
 
Perhaps the Defiant-A was messed up by the Prodigy shenanigans, and it became cost effective (In terms of the 24th Century), Besides it has been 25 years since the end of the Dominion War, the Defiant-A did other things too. If we go by your logic, why even have museum ships, it is not like tactile contact is even a thing in the 24th Century.
 
Things in a museum don't necessarily need to be old.
Starfleet IS a military organization whether Picard wants to admit it or not.
If Starfleet is not the military: who is?

It's a semantics game.

Starfleet isn't a military.

Starfleet is an exploration and scientific organization that can act as a military type organization when there is an extreme need for such.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top