Just something i was thinking about. Say a ship that has the ability to separate does so and half of it is destroyed.Is the remaining half still that ship in name? if they gave a galaxy class saucer section a new stardrive section would that ship still retain its name? and if later that new mashup were to lose its saucer and recieve a new one that ship now being a completely new vessel from its original self would that warrant a name change or some distinction . what if originally it had not had a name change and the newest loss were 10 years later.. still would that not be a new ship in theory?
when is a ship no longer itself.
- Thread starter afterburn
- Start date
People have been known to ask such a question from time to time...
They will take one starship that has a damage engineering hull saucer module and connected to the engineering hull of the starship that had lost it saucer module. Because the name of the starship is only on the saucer module, the starship will be listed and call by that name, but not always. Sometimes they might give the name to a new starship of a new class.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Federation starships are defined by their primary hull. Because that is where the primary computer core and thus the "brain" of the ship is.
The ship's nomenclature is evident on the stardrive as well as the saucer section. Is font size the determining factor?
^^^ Federation starships are defined by their primary hull? Is this an official fleet standard? One can equally claim a starship is defined by its warp engines... without which it wouldn't even be a starship.
^^^ Federation starships are defined by their primary hull? Is this an official fleet standard? One can equally claim a starship is defined by its warp engines... without which it wouldn't even be a starship.
Knight Templar
Commodore
A man who loses his legs is still a man whether he can walk or not.
IMO, ships that are missing either a saucer or a stardrive section are decommissioned and those salvaged components are moved to a supply depot to be reused as kitbash vessels where they are combined with other salvaged components from other starship classes. I think it's very rare there would be times where a whole vessel from a particular design can be reconstructed. You might see a Galaxy-class saucer mated with Excelsior-class nacelles and pylons or an Excelsior-class stardrive section affixed to a Constitution-class saucer with Ambassador-class nacelles.
^ Yeah, the dedication plaque was the same, so I assume that's what Decker meant by "This is an almost totally new Enterprise, you don't know her a tenth as well as I do."
I remember reading somewhere (novel? other book?) that what he refered to was the fact that the only thing that was actually still "old" was the space frame. It was the same frame, but pretty much everything else was new.
Except that whenever we see a starship built on a "frame" (brief glimpses in DS9 "Shattered Mirror" or VOY "Relativity"), the shape of that frame closely corresponds to the shape of the hull surface. But the TOS and TMP ships had markedly different shapes... The only thing really remaining constant was that the saucer was still round when seen from above (but with greater radius!).
If the two ships shared a framework, it was all bent out, stretched and mangled in the process.
...Perhaps Starfleet just ground the original ship to tiny pieces, melted them down, and cast the new structure out of that?
Timo Saloniemi
If the two ships shared a framework, it was all bent out, stretched and mangled in the process.
...Perhaps Starfleet just ground the original ship to tiny pieces, melted them down, and cast the new structure out of that?
Timo Saloniemi
^^ Which is hardly an issue, even nowadays and in the past ships have been rebuild to the extent that they barely resemble their previous state.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm
The refit of the 1701 isn't even that bothersome spaceframe wise.
As for when a ship is no longer itself, I see it like this, if you replace a hull plate, the new hull plate simply becomes a part of the ship, as long you don't build a new ship to replace the older one then the old ship, including all the things repaired and replaced will simply remain the old ship.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm
The refit of the 1701 isn't even that bothersome spaceframe wise.
As for when a ship is no longer itself, I see it like this, if you replace a hull plate, the new hull plate simply becomes a part of the ship, as long you don't build a new ship to replace the older one then the old ship, including all the things repaired and replaced will simply remain the old ship.
The thing is, 100% of the ship's structure was altered in shape and dimensions, which is very different from inserting new hull sections or superstructures into oil tankers. It's more akin to making the tanker two inches narrower than before overall - a staggeringly massive engineering project that is in no way comparable to the insertion of hull plugs or, say, the conversion of the ship into a floating casino or an aircraft carrier, or some other such near-trivial undertaking.
Starfleet may have had very good reasons for changing everything a little bit. Or then Starfleet just had a very good reason for building an all-new ship, and they paid lip service to the previous contours of the corresponding ship type while not bothering with exact details, and then stenciled the old name on the new ship and told the Klingons "We just gave her a bit of new paint and changed a few things - the Organian Treaty Limitations on shipbuilding are still being followed to the letter".
Timo Saloniemi
Name and class is independant of anything other then purpose. If the purpose of the vessel is deemed to remain the same, and it fits the owners to retain the class designation, then it doesn't matter if half the ship was rebuilt and even replaced.
And at times, the owners may decide to keep the name and designation but change the ship. This was done e.g. on two destroyers completely destroyed in the Pearl Harbor raid, as the USN considered it a matter of honor and propaganda victory that each and every ship lost would be recovered and reactivated, even if only in spirit.
The opposite may also happen - a ship may remain unchanged in every way, including the missions she is sent to, but will change name and designation.
Timo Saloniemi
The opposite may also happen - a ship may remain unchanged in every way, including the missions she is sent to, but will change name and designation.
Timo Saloniemi
Another real-world example (okay, it's reaching a bit...) that's closer to the original question would be the Walt Disney World Monorail. In 2009, monorail Pink and Purple collided, destroying one end of each of those trains. They built monorail Teal out of the remaining halves of each of those trains, and "retired" the Pink and Purple names/colors.
This would be similar to taking a saucer and stardrive section from two different ships and putting them together to create a new one. What they name the new ship would be up to Starfleet, probably taking the histories of the two previous ships and their circumstances into account. If one of the ships was a "heroic" vessel, they might name the new one in honor of that. But if the ships were destroyed due to a stupid accident, they might give the new ship an entirely new name.
This would be similar to taking a saucer and stardrive section from two different ships and putting them together to create a new one. What they name the new ship would be up to Starfleet, probably taking the histories of the two previous ships and their circumstances into account. If one of the ships was a "heroic" vessel, they might name the new one in honor of that. But if the ships were destroyed due to a stupid accident, they might give the new ship an entirely new name.
Similar threads
