How long would you say it would take to build the Enterprise?
Refit Times
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
The only benchmark we have for this is the line from TMP. Considering that it took "18 months to redesign and refit the Enterprise" (according to Scotty... though I'm certain that major elements were "redesigned" LONG before that point!)... I'd be inclined to say that it would be between 12 months to 18 months to build an Enterprise-class starship (aka a "Constitution-refit class starship").
If there were only tried-and-true design features present, it would be closer to 12 months. If there were new technologies and new practices which needed to be developed, 18 months is more like it.
Obviously, to build a ship like that today, using modern techniques, it would be more like six or seven years, all told, I'm sure. But we have to allow for more advanced technologies in the future, don't we?
By comparison... how long has it taken to "redesign and rebuild" buildings on the World Trade Tower site, so far? How long will that take, overall, do you think? And how much simpler is a building like that, compared to a starship?
I must reply to the comment from above where someone apparently willfully misinterpreted my comment about Morrow "playing Santa Clause" as somehow "playing a joke." I said no such thing.
In fact, the "reveal" at the end of ST-IV was EXACTLY the same sort of thing I was suggesting... a "happy surprise."
If, after the Mutara Nebula battle with Khan, Starfleet was send damage reports on the ship's condition, and if they has a number of new, improved technologies which they wanted to implement, and if the hull of the Enterprise was in such terrible shape that it would be almost as costly (time and resources) to repair it as to build a new ship... what do you think they'd do?
And consider... the Enterprise was ALREADY assigned as a training vessel... no longer on duty as a "ship of the line." Meaning... it had probably seen enough damage through it's career that it was considered largely compromised already.
Approval of a new-build Enterprise-class hull... within a week of the realization that the Enterprise herself wasn't worth repairing... would be pretty easy to get, I'd think. Especially considering that another ship of the line had also been lost in that encounter, and the Starfleet was measurably weakened as a result.
So... here's a timeline...
(1) Enterprise damaged at Mutara Nebula. Spock dies. Report made to Starfleet Command.
(2) Enterprise stays on-station at "Genesis" for a while, until a security picket can be set up to secure the site. A "tender" arrives to help Enterprise restore basic operational status. David and Carol Marcus are escorted to Starfleet Command and the Federation Counsel by Saavik.
During this period, SOMEBODY rescues the crew of the Reliant from Ceti Alpha V. Maybe the Enterprise is the only ship in the "quadrant" available to do so?
(3) The Enterprise "limps" back to Earth. Scotty rigs a slave-circuit to the warp drive system... no real justification for that is given, of course, but it makes no sense unless the ship is not likely to see a full crew reassigned anytime soon, does it? It'd estimate that this flight takes at least three weeks...
Upon arrival at Earth, Kirk is informed that the Enterprise will not be repaired, because "we feel her day is over." It is VERY unlikely that this means that she was intended to be replaced by an Excelsior-class ship, since the Excelsior-class is still "experimental" at this point. I suspect that a replacement ship (name TBD?) was already underway, but far from completed, at this point. (Perhaps it was going to be the Ti-Ho or whatever...)
At least a couple of months would pass. I don't accept that the "on-screen time" must equal the time of the real events. I'm sure that, from the time Enterprise limped back in, to the time Kirk and Co. "stole" her, that at least two months passed. Your mileage may vary...
So... we're up to about four months from the Mutara Battle to the theft of the Enterprise.
The Enterprise is still "limping" and thus would take a significant amount of time to get back to Genesis... let's say that it's the same as it took for the ship to get back to Earth... roughly three weeks. (Clearly, the crew just kept wearing the same clothes every day... hopefully 23rd-century laundry works fast!) Almost five months...
Now... the crew captures a Klingon BOP. How long does it take for them to figure out how to handle it? How long does it take for them to get to Vulcan? Shall we say at least a week to get the ship under their control, learning what goes where and why? And let's say another three weeks to get to Vulcan.
That's about six months from the Mutara Battle. Now... three months land-locked on Vulcan, means nine months from the Mutara Battle to the beginning of ST-IV. Let's say that it's two weeks to get to Earth from Vulcan (ignore the ST'09 "hyperspace" version of Warp Drive, and stick with the better-accepted Star Trek version).
The whole of ST-IV is "instantaneous" from the 23rd-century perspective. But imagine what comes next!
- debriefing on the Klingon ship.
- arrest (even if only "obligatory") for the theft of Enterprise
- a trial... we only see the final verdict part, but think of how long the Casey Anthony thing went on...
- some period of "post-release" settling-in.
I have no problem imagining that the whole period, from the crash-landing in SF bay to the end of the trial might be four to six months. Let's say it's four months, to be fair.
This takes us up to 13 1/2 months from the Mutara battle.
Now, they might have been given "relief duty" for a period of time as well. Spock, in particular, would be given EXTENSIVE medical and psychological testing prior to being allowed to resume a position of responsibility on a starship, don't you think?
So, is 18 months really unreasonable, from the Mutara battle to the "unveiling" of the Enterprise A?
"Film time" need not bear much, if any, relationship to "real, in-universe - albeit fictional - time."
'Willfully misinterpreted?'
The fact of the matter is that if we believe that Morrow did plan to build a new Enterprise, and in fact had a new one in the works, he still misled Kirk (and the audience) into believing that there would be no more Enterprise. Given the dark and tragic nature of the events previous, misleading an already grieving man into believing that ship he had captained for years and had planned to keep on captaining (in fact Kirk speaks to Morrow on taking the Enterprise back out) was going to be decommissioned for good sounds like something of a cruel joke to me. Perhaps, if this is the case, Morrow's intentions weren't so cruel, but his actions come off as such if this is the situation.
If Starfleet had been working on a new Enterprise since WK, there really is no reason to tell Kirk that there is going to be 'no more Enterprise.'
In my mind, a ship that was already under construction when the whale probe shows up makes the most sense .
Not the Yorktown. I find it unlikely that that SF would bump a crew that had fought so valiantly to save themselves (if they are alive) or so quickly rename the vessel they sought to save (if they are dead). Bad for morale, that is.
And a ship that was started after the battle of the Mutara Nebula doesn't have the time to be built, IMO. I think a month--maybe two--before Vulcan, and three months after Vulcan, is about right, for about eight months, total. Not long enough IMO.
A ship that is already under construction though and having her name bumped not only seems logical, it has historic precedence.
Several Essex-class carriers during WW2 had their names bumped in a similar fashion.
For example, CV-10, originally Bon Homme Richard, became a second Yorktown, named for the carrier lost at Midway. The name Bon Homme Richard was bumped to CV-31.
Not the Yorktown. I find it unlikely that that SF would bump a crew that had fought so valiantly to save themselves (if they are alive) or so quickly rename the vessel they sought to save (if they are dead). Bad for morale, that is.
And a ship that was started after the battle of the Mutara Nebula doesn't have the time to be built, IMO. I think a month--maybe two--before Vulcan, and three months after Vulcan, is about right, for about eight months, total. Not long enough IMO.
A ship that is already under construction though and having her name bumped not only seems logical, it has historic precedence.
Several Essex-class carriers during WW2 had their names bumped in a similar fashion.
For example, CV-10, originally Bon Homme Richard, became a second Yorktown, named for the carrier lost at Midway. The name Bon Homme Richard was bumped to CV-31.
(I'm going to use some jargon from 'Prototype'/'Ships Of The Starfleet' to illustrate my point)...
CHT-1701 (Heavy Cruiser, training) being lost wouldn't necessarily trigger "let's build another heavy cruiser!". The decision to build ships is something I would assume is planned out over long periods of time, even if individual unit production "only" takes 1-2 years. Enterprise-A being a new ship doesn't mean it's existence was caused by Enterprise's demise.
Remember, "the crew" in Star Trek II hadn't been together flying around. They had other jobs and were assigned for the training mission. Enterprise was a training ship and when it wasn't doing training cruises the crew was either instructors or had other shore duties. Chekov's "will we get another ship?" is funny because there hadn't been a "we" for several years.
If Constitution-rebuilds were getting long in the tooth as ships of the line, and if Excelsior was only ready for trial runs, it makes sense they would keep ordering "new" Enterprise-class ships until the Excelsior would/could be deployed. Maybe new-build Enterprise class ships (with new innards and powerplants) were the plan "B". That would explain the bugs.
Changing a name to a ship that was going to be built anyway is still a Christmas present. The Enterprise-A doesn't have to be a made-to-order situation.
CHT-1701 (Heavy Cruiser, training) being lost wouldn't necessarily trigger "let's build another heavy cruiser!". The decision to build ships is something I would assume is planned out over long periods of time, even if individual unit production "only" takes 1-2 years. Enterprise-A being a new ship doesn't mean it's existence was caused by Enterprise's demise.
Remember, "the crew" in Star Trek II hadn't been together flying around. They had other jobs and were assigned for the training mission. Enterprise was a training ship and when it wasn't doing training cruises the crew was either instructors or had other shore duties. Chekov's "will we get another ship?" is funny because there hadn't been a "we" for several years.
If Constitution-rebuilds were getting long in the tooth as ships of the line, and if Excelsior was only ready for trial runs, it makes sense they would keep ordering "new" Enterprise-class ships until the Excelsior would/could be deployed. Maybe new-build Enterprise class ships (with new innards and powerplants) were the plan "B". That would explain the bugs.
Changing a name to a ship that was going to be built anyway is still a Christmas present. The Enterprise-A doesn't have to be a made-to-order situation.
That seems entirely possible.
The whole Yorktown theory is simply a 'Word of God' situation anyway; not exactly canon but fun to speculate about.
Honestly, I'm tempted to factor in the construction times as being similar to large commercial jetliners modern day especially when you consider the following
1.) The ship is modular in design with the nacelles, nacelle pylons, primary and secondary hull, connecting dorsal, and the impulse engines
2.) Judging by the diagram of the pressure hull set-up in an episode of TOS, prevailing aircraft and even modern-day ship design (there have been several ship designs which featured a series of prefabricated sections made assembly faster, at least one cruise liner, and possibly a warship), it's possible that the saucer section consisted of a series of pre-fabricated sections which could be connected rapidly; the engineering hull was a series of interlocking sections which could be connected similar to the assembly of an airliner fuselage, same for the nacelles.
3.) Looking at some of the computer consoles on the bridge of the TOS enterprise, and the bridge stations in TMP through TVH, it would appear that there was some modularity in these areas as well.
That being said, the A-380 takes 9 months to build. I think that's a good time table to work with.
1.) The ship is modular in design with the nacelles, nacelle pylons, primary and secondary hull, connecting dorsal, and the impulse engines
2.) Judging by the diagram of the pressure hull set-up in an episode of TOS, prevailing aircraft and even modern-day ship design (there have been several ship designs which featured a series of prefabricated sections made assembly faster, at least one cruise liner, and possibly a warship), it's possible that the saucer section consisted of a series of pre-fabricated sections which could be connected rapidly; the engineering hull was a series of interlocking sections which could be connected similar to the assembly of an airliner fuselage, same for the nacelles.
3.) Looking at some of the computer consoles on the bridge of the TOS enterprise, and the bridge stations in TMP through TVH, it would appear that there was some modularity in these areas as well.
That being said, the A-380 takes 9 months to build. I think that's a good time table to work with.
The idea that Starfleet would start to feel the need to replace the first Enterprise when her damaged state became evident is somewhat dubious. Why replace a ship that wasn't needed in the first place? Starfleet should only be happy to get rid of the ol' drain of resources, and pick the next geriatric starship in the line and turn that into the next training vessel (of which we would never hear a thing again, because Kirk no longer would hold an Academy training job).
OTOH, when Kirk became the celebrity of the century, Starfleet would have felt a very acute and unexpected need (or outside pressure) to give him a ship. Zero time to prepare for this, really. Up till he landed in San Francisco Bay, he wasn't slated for a ship, and Starfleet wasn't missing an operational Constitution-refit cruiser from its arsenal (at most it was only missing an old training ship). So the E-A essentially came from some source unrelated to the events of the previous movies.
...Except of course in the sense that Starfleet would recognize a good idea when they saw one. Giving Kirk a Constitution-refit would be seen as historically apt by the public. And if Starfleet could afford to turn one Constitution-refit into a training ship, the class was probably considered so expendable that another specimen could be turned into an oversized memorial for a hero.
Building an all-new ship of the all-old design would be unlikely to meet any other Starfleet need but the need to satisfy the public on the issue of rewarding Kirk. The real set of questions is, did Starfleet have the resources (and the incentive) to create a memorial ship out of scratch; did it have the resources (and the incentive) to turn an existing ship into said memorial; and if yes-to-both, which option did it choose and why?
Considering how shitty the E-A appeared to be when donated, and what shitty initial job Kirk was given to do with that ship, I find it difficult to argue that Starfleet would have been investing in Kirk much. It thus wouldn't have coughed up the resources for a newbuild, even if the technology of the day would have made such construction affordable (and it seems to be that building starships was anything but affordable back then). OTOH, when we already know that one preexisting ship of that type could be spared for training use, the option of using another as memorial definitely gains in strength.
In retrospect, we see Starfleet building other ship types in that size category at the time, most notably Mirandas and Constellations. Would there be any incentive for continuing Constitution production for any purpose, be it training ship, memorial, or an operational frontline vessel?
All in all, it sounds like the worst possible choice to use the E-A as a yardstick in assessing starship construction. She'd be a special case among outliers, an exception piled upon happenstance. Which is why I feel that independent speculation, such as in the previous post, is the more fruitful approach. Until we get some further onscreen material on starship refitting, that is.
Timo Saloniemi
OTOH, when Kirk became the celebrity of the century, Starfleet would have felt a very acute and unexpected need (or outside pressure) to give him a ship. Zero time to prepare for this, really. Up till he landed in San Francisco Bay, he wasn't slated for a ship, and Starfleet wasn't missing an operational Constitution-refit cruiser from its arsenal (at most it was only missing an old training ship). So the E-A essentially came from some source unrelated to the events of the previous movies.
...Except of course in the sense that Starfleet would recognize a good idea when they saw one. Giving Kirk a Constitution-refit would be seen as historically apt by the public. And if Starfleet could afford to turn one Constitution-refit into a training ship, the class was probably considered so expendable that another specimen could be turned into an oversized memorial for a hero.
Building an all-new ship of the all-old design would be unlikely to meet any other Starfleet need but the need to satisfy the public on the issue of rewarding Kirk. The real set of questions is, did Starfleet have the resources (and the incentive) to create a memorial ship out of scratch; did it have the resources (and the incentive) to turn an existing ship into said memorial; and if yes-to-both, which option did it choose and why?
Considering how shitty the E-A appeared to be when donated, and what shitty initial job Kirk was given to do with that ship, I find it difficult to argue that Starfleet would have been investing in Kirk much. It thus wouldn't have coughed up the resources for a newbuild, even if the technology of the day would have made such construction affordable (and it seems to be that building starships was anything but affordable back then). OTOH, when we already know that one preexisting ship of that type could be spared for training use, the option of using another as memorial definitely gains in strength.
In retrospect, we see Starfleet building other ship types in that size category at the time, most notably Mirandas and Constellations. Would there be any incentive for continuing Constitution production for any purpose, be it training ship, memorial, or an operational frontline vessel?
All in all, it sounds like the worst possible choice to use the E-A as a yardstick in assessing starship construction. She'd be a special case among outliers, an exception piled upon happenstance. Which is why I feel that independent speculation, such as in the previous post, is the more fruitful approach. Until we get some further onscreen material on starship refitting, that is.
Timo Saloniemi
If the Enterprise-A wasn't a brand new ship, maybe it could have been a refit of several Constitution class vessels.
For instance, if you have several ships that were damaged and you used parts of each to put together enough of a framework to allow a refit, that would get around the "problem" of changing the name of a ship and upsetting former crew(s).
For example, maybe the USS Exeter had it's saucer section blown apart and the USS Hornet had the secondary hull damaged beyond repair. They could use parts from both during a refit to make a completely "new" ship and not worry about the crews of the Exeter and Hornet getting upset that the refit ship had a new name.
For instance, if you have several ships that were damaged and you used parts of each to put together enough of a framework to allow a refit, that would get around the "problem" of changing the name of a ship and upsetting former crew(s).
For example, maybe the USS Exeter had it's saucer section blown apart and the USS Hornet had the secondary hull damaged beyond repair. They could use parts from both during a refit to make a completely "new" ship and not worry about the crews of the Exeter and Hornet getting upset that the refit ship had a new name.
^^ Thats an enormous can of worms, you'd have to break both leftover hulls down to the skeleton to see what has been damaged and what not, would be easier and less time consuming to build a new ship.
Not really, considering how much different the refit Enterprise was from the original, I'd say they stripped it down to the skeleton anyway.
Sure, but they didn't have to search the entire hull and every system for possible damage, look at the amount of time it took to get HMS Belfast back to see, they had to examin every inch of the hull, check every bulkhead and beam for damage also every bit of equipment from the boilers up to the smallest wire was inspected to make sure they weren't damaged.
I would think that 23rd century technology would allow for quicker damage inspections.
For some reason refitting seems to be a well used method to create up to date ships, could be that building new ships isn't fast enough or that they're just environmentally friendly and like to recycle and use the least amount of resources possible 
As for the "A" I still think that she was somesort of prototype.
As for the "A" I still think that she was somesort of prototype.
^^Wouldn't that also mean that it would allow for quicker new builds as well?
Yes but the fact they they did such a major refit of the Enterprise would suggest that upgrading an old ship had some value.
Probably with regards to staying within some kind of intergalactic arms treaty. Skirting restrictions on new cruiser hulls, if you will.
Don’t know about World War II, but during the Vietnam war, the carrier U.S.S. Forrestal suffered massive damage in a fire that killed 134 sailors and injured 161 others. The ship underwent repairs and was put back in service eight months later.
Where did that name come from? It sounds like a corner mom-and-pop grocery store run by an elderly couple named Tilly and Homer.
