The Enterprise-E is so ugly

[C.E. Evans]

The Enterprise-D was definately designed as a long duration explorer. Families and more power to science labs and sensor arrays than anything else but the warp drive. The pity about TNG is that it didn't actually perform that duty.

I think exploration isn't limited to just unknown space, but also incorporates investigation of anything unknown, including things well within Federation space.

To be fair, I guess the idea that the Galaxy-class was meant mainly for exploration is really more of an off-screen thing. Onscreen, it seems to be more of a large multipurpose starship capable of executing a wide variety of missions, including exploration, scientific studies, Federation policy enforcement & defense, and even routine cargo transport.

USS Enterprise spent much of its time going from one edge of Federation space to the other, and spending time of one border or another as flagship of the Federation. The real calling of such a design and with the familes onboard in luxury would be to leave Federation space and just keep going for years at a time. A five or more year mission were they never go into Federation space. To push past the frontier and may a new one beyond it.

One possibility is that the Enterprise-D might have been atypical of Galaxy-class ships because of her flagship status and that other Galaxy-class ships were off exploring unknown space (with the exception of those deployed during the Dominion War perhaps).

Personally, I like to think that the Enterprise-D may have been finally gearing for a long-term exploration mission at the start of Generations when trouble suddenly arose. Her first seven years of service may have just been the first phase of her operational life.

 

[CoveTom]

At this point it is highly unlikely that CBS will touch anything from the older series anymore. They'd likely rather continue on with the alternate timeline than spend the time to get together the Next Generation cast again for a series or film, and they have no reason to attempt a follow on series to any of the 1987 - 2002 series. Unless they wanted to do some kind of anniversery movie set at or around the same time as "All Good Things...", which would be I think four years from now.

I know it would never happen, but I think it would be exciting to see them do a TV movie wherein the TNG cast, now at the ages they were in the "future" of AGT, and do a Back to the Future IItype scenario, where they go back in time and witness events that happened in TNG from a different perspective.

That somewhat happened with "Trials and Tribble-ations," but it was different people going back and witnessing events. This could be the same crew having to go back to a pivotal moment for some reason.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Probert designated the refit as Enterprise-class, but except for me and a handful of others, that just hasn't flown here at all.

Count me among the "happy few", it's a recurring theme in many of my posts (the Official TMP Blueprints say so, too.)

Doesn't the Probert-C show up, slightly modifed, in the Ships of the Line calendar series.

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Here is a link with the details: http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2011/07/behind-scenes-on-ships-of-line-2012.html

And you might also want to take a look a this fan production thread here at the BBS, now with several Enterprise-C images.

Bob

 

[Lance]

USS Enterprise spent much of its time going from one edge of Federation space to the other, and spending time of one border or another as flagship of the Federation. The real calling of such a design and with the familes onboard in luxury would be to leave Federation space and just keep going for years at a time. A five or more year mission were they never go into Federation space. To push past the frontier and may a new one beyond it.

One possibility is that the Enterprise-D might have been atypical of Galaxy-class ships because of her flagship status and that other Galaxy-class ships were off exploring unknown space (with the exception of those deployed during the Dominion War perhaps).

Personally, I like to think that the Enterprise-D may have been finally gearing for a long-term exploration mission at the start of Generations when trouble suddenly arose. Her first seven years of service may have just been the first phase of her operational life.

I like this idea a lot. It accounts for the stylistic differences between the TV incarnation and the movie one as well, because if 1701-D was finally moving into the 'deep space' phase of its operation, then a ship-wide refit would certainly be in order.

 

[austen_pierce]

I hate the E because it's fugly. The nacelles look like something out of Voltron.

You've got a right to your opinion, but your hate for the E is kind of over-the-top and seems to ignore similar design cues that the E shares with older ships, like the refit. I can see an attempt on the part of the designers to go for an art-deco thing with the E. The overdesigned aspect with all of the notches and layers is part of it, and if you look closely at the Refit, there's a lot of that etching and striping going on as well. It's just that we've had six movies and 35 years of history to get used to the refit, and the E only had a few movies, most of them not very well received.

The other thing about the E is that it is absolutely a masculine design. The D, on the other hand, with all of its rounded edges and wide saucer, is a very feminine design. While the D could kick ass, it didn't do it with appropriately macho style. It looked like a mother hen trying to chase off a fox or something. While I think they went overboard in trying to bling and Rambo-up the E, I think there definitely was a need to give the crew a new ship that was more ballsy than the D.

My wish was that Riker could have cut loose with the Sovereign while Picard remained on the Galaxy. We got a taste of the former in Insurrection.

Probert designated the refit as Enterprise-class, but except for me and a handful of others, that just hasn't flown here at all.

Count me among the "happy few", it's a recurring theme in many of my posts (the Official TMP Blueprints say so, too.)

Doesn't the Probert-C show up, slightly modifed, in the Ships of the Line calendar series.

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Here is a link with the details: http://www.thetrekcollective.com/2011/07/behind-scenes-on-ships-of-line-2012.html

And you might also want to take a look a this fan production thread here at the BBS, now with several Enterprise-C images.

Bob

And now another wish was that we could have seen the Probert C instead. I liked what I saw when I saw it in Yesterday's Enterprise because it reminded me of TOS and the TOS movies, but as others have adequately stated, it just doesn't make sense to have those design elements between the Excelsior and the Galaxy classes.

 

[Ithekro]

Tobias' version has a round saucer. I'm fairly sure the original design Probert has had an oval, which was why they couldn't do it on budget in 1990 and made a simpler design.

 

[Dukhat]

Tobias' version has a round saucer. I'm fairly sure the original design Probert has had an oval, which was why they couldn't do it on budget in 1990 and made a simpler design.

Yeah, Okuda once stated that Probert's design had an oval saucer (not as oval as the Ent-D, but oval nonetheless). I wonder why Tobias didn't make it oval, since he was collaborating with Probert on the CGI model.

The two main problems when they were going to build the Ent-C was that oval saucer and the curved secondary hull. It was cheaper, easier and faster to construct a circular saucer and a tubular secondary hull, so that's what they did. They were under tremendous time and budget pressures, and we're lucky we even got what we got, considering. Okuda stated that he was worried that they'd have to reuse either the Excelsior or TMP Enterprise movie models (although it's unclear whether they would have been modified into the Ent-C or if they would have been used as the Ent-B or the Ent-A respectively).

 

[GalaxyX]

I hate the E because it's fugly. The nacelles look like something out of Voltron.

You've got a right to your opinion, but your hate for the E is kind of over-the-top and seems to ignore similar design cues that the E shares with older ships, like the refit. I can see an attempt on the part of the designers to go for an art-deco thing with the E. The overdesigned aspect with all of the notches and layers is part of it, and if you look closely at the Refit, there's a lot of that etching and striping going on as well. It's just that we've had six movies and 35 years of history to get used to the refit, and the E only had a few movies, most of them not very well received.

The other thing about the E is that it is absolutely a masculine design. The D, on the other hand, with all of its rounded edges and wide saucer, is a very feminine design. While the D could kick ass, it didn't do it with appropriately macho style. It looked like a mother hen trying to chase off a fox or something. While I think they went overboard in trying to bling and Rambo-up the E, I think there definitely was a need to give the crew a new ship that was more ballsy than the D.

The E masculine and the D feminine?

I could see how you might think of the D as feminine. I tend to think of it more as a ship that flows together. It doesn't look like it's a mismatch of parts.

The nacelles on the E look so out of place compared to the rest of the ship, like they are protrusions that are not supposed to be there.

Looks at this example:

You have this massive ship with these little pylons going up to the nacelles.

And the nacelles themselves?

They look like they are pieces of play-doh getting squished out of a tube, and look very insect like at the front, almost like tadpoles.

In no way masculine at all. But definitely closer to this:

 

[Lance]

The other thing about the E is that it is absolutely a masculine design. The D, on the other hand, with all of its rounded edges and wide saucer, is a very feminine design. While the D could kick ass, it didn't do it with appropriately macho style. It looked like a mother hen trying to chase off a fox or something. While I think they went overboard in trying to bling and Rambo-up the E, I think there definitely was a need to give the crew a new ship that was more ballsy than the D.

The E masculine and the D feminine?

I could see how you might think of the D as feminine. I tend to think of it more as a ship that flows together. It doesn't look like it's a mismatch of parts.

The nacelles on the E look so out of place compared to the rest of the ship, like they are protrusions that are not supposed to be there.

Looks at this example:

You have this massive ship with these little pylons going up to the nacelles.

And the nacelles themselves?

They look like they are pieces of play-doh getting squished out of a tube, and look very insect like at the front, almost like tadpoles.

In no way masculine at all.

Some sort of Freudian Interpretation thing?

The Ent-E looks like a penis. I think John Eaves described it as being the 'Porshe of starships'. It's like the sort of thing a captain trades in for when he's undergoing a midlife crisis. It's also very angular, very muscular...

The Ent-D as feminine? Well, I suppose the deflector dish area does look kind of... um... like the distaff counterpart to a penis. Except turned on its side. It's even got a kind of 'lip' motif going on around the edges. And those curves... those curves...

(Excuse me for a minute will you guys? I think I just need to go take a shower. )

 

[NeroShrimp]

Charles Neson Reilly: Speak for yourself!

I agree, I like the design of Enterprise-E

Here here!!! I love it and it really made Star Trek sleek and modern.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Tobias' version has a round saucer. I'm fairly sure the original design Probert has had an oval, which was why they couldn't do it on budget in 1990 and made a simpler design.

Yeah, Okuda once stated that Probert's design had an oval saucer (not as oval as the Ent-D, but oval nonetheless). I wonder why Tobias didn't make it oval, since he was collaborating with Probert on the CGI model.

Something doesn't add up here, I think.

The only Enterprise-C materials prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise" were Andrew's side view guidance for the conference lounge wall sculptor and his (matte) painting proposal for the USS Fearless which do not tell us whether the saucer was oval or circular (You can see these here).

Considering the official explanation that Mike and Rick no longer had access to these materials prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise" (and the conference lounge studio set?) I have to wonder how Mr. Okuda then knew whether it was supposed to be an oval or circular saucer...

Bob

 

[Ithekro]

It is something I remember hearing when the subject of the change from one verison of the Enterprise-C to the other happened.

It still doesn't cover the changes to the Enterprise-B. The wall model being a standard Excelsior.

Perhaps there is something we are missing. Maybe the Shipyard's model/decoration crew, could only get their hands on half models of the basic, or most common version of a particular class. This would mean that both versions of the Ambassador-class are the same class, but the USS Enterprise-C was a refit of the original, or a subtype that has survived, while the original USS Ambassador, was really curvy.

That or the people that decorated the room used the wrong model (the USS Ambassador Probert as oppose to the USS Ambassador or USS Enterprise-C). This would account for them using the standard Excelsior-class model instead of the Enterprise-B model. Mistakes do happen and sometimes it just doesn't phase the people in charge enough to get it corrected.

 

[Robert Comsol]

It still doesn't cover the changes to the Enterprise-B. The wall model being a standard Excelsior.

Back again to the conference lounge wall display? (Don’t you all look at me!). Shouldn't we first try to settle whether the golden sculptures are supposed to represent

• Starships in their launch configuration
• Starships in their last configuration
• Starships in the configuration which lasted the longest during active duty

For all we know these bumpers and add-ons of the Enterprise-B were removed at some point after GEN. The lack of bumper Excelsiors in the TNG verse suggests it wasn’t such a great idea. Thus we can only exclude that the wall display shows starships in their launch configuration.
Nothing is wrong with the Enterprise-B unless somebody can prove that what’s on the wall is not what she looked for the most time of her service life or what she looked prior to being decommissioned.

The people that decorated the room used the wrong model (the USS Ambassador Probert as oppose to the USS Ambassador or USS Enterprise-C). This would account for them using the standard Excelsior-class model instead of the Enterprise-B model. Mistakes do happen and sometimes it just doesn't phase the people in charge enough to get it corrected.

I could understand if the artist didn’t reproduce the 20th Century aircraft carrier accurately, but the Enterprise-C is the immediate predecessor to the Enterprise-D, so it would beg for plenty of explanations why that’s the only ship on display reproduced beyond recognition. It just doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps there is something we are missing. Maybe the Shipyard's model/decoration crew, could only get their hands on half models of the basic, or most common version of a particular class. This would mean that both versions of the Ambassador-class are the same class, but the USS Enterprise-C was a refit of the original, or a subtype that has survived, while the original USS Ambassador, was really curvy.

We are missing the premise change of “Redemption II”.

But seriously, I had also offered a different rationalization that apparently nobody wanted to discuss. Ever since the TOS Enterprise a saucer-stardrive section separation was supposed to be a standard operation and not exclusively limited to emergency scenarios. The Making of Star Trek said so, Andrew Probert stated this for the movie Enterprise and – obviously – we saw the Enterprise-D perform such maneuvers. It stands to reason that both the Enterprise-B and –C were equally capable.

In the case of the Miranda vs. the Soyuz Class Dukhat reminded me some time ago that the bridge modules of both design were different. So what is the determining “class” factor here? For the aforementioned it’s apparently the main saucer hull configuration. What’s the determining factor for a starship that has an engineering hull attached to its saucer hull where both can separate for individual missions (e.g. on opposite sides of a star system)? Is it the whole or is it the saucer hull that determines the actual class?

A comparison between Andrew Probert’s Enterprise-C and Rick Sternbach’s Enterprise-C quickly reveals that the obvious unifying element both share is the saucer section (for argument’s sake I will not explore the differences in detail):

Assuming that the Probert-C ran into an emergeny situation before the Battle of Narendra III and had to dispose its stardrive section because of an imminent warp core breach, what happened to the saucer section that did not crash on a nearby planet (the part most likely to survive such an emergency in cases other than ST VII:GEN). Did it become “class-less”? Was it still an Ambassador Class or what?

In such a case the saucer section would need a new stardrive section to connect to and in this particular case it’s quite possible that the Enterprise-C got a new stardrive section (designed by Rick Sternbach).

But the conference lounge wall display still and accurately shows the Enterprise-C in the configuration it lasted the longest, that of the Probert-C.

The above is an alternate explanation, but personally I still prefer the “Redemption II” premise change – because it also takes care of a few other problematic issues (I wrote about in detail) that have nothing to do with the Trek ship with the third letter of the alphabet. YMMV.

Bob

 

[Ithekro]

I don't go with the 'premise change of “Redemption II”' simply because it is unneeded to move the plot along. There is nothing adjusted there that is needed to be adjusted as the story of the Enterprise-C we got originally was from the other timeline were it vanished, followed by a later account of it were its fate was not entirely known, since Starfleet seems to not be entirely aware of what happened due to them getting second hand details from the Klingons about its fate (remember, still no contact with the Romulans for almost 20 more years). The origin of Sela and such is fine without any revision from an even more alternate timeline, nor really do anything aside allow for the possible switch-o-roo of the two Enterprise-Cs from alternate timelines.

Mistakes from the yard crew decoration staff (who might not functionally care about the job, but just want to get it done) or our lack of full knowledge of the entire life of the Enterprise-C is more viable in retrospect. There are real life instances of the wrong model being used for a ship or plane and still being called what it is suppose to be, rather than what it really is...and people not catching it unless they are history buffs that specialize in that thing. Sometimes the incorrect model is considered the real thing until someone proves it wrong, and even then the model isn't replaced.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

I like the interiors of both D and E, probably D a little better just because the bright color scheme seemed to fit with TNG's hyper-optimism, and all the flashing lights in Engineering looked cool. I've never cared for either ship's exterior to be honest. The Constitution Class was always by far the best ship exterior model to me. It's so symmetrical and perfect. The Enterprise D's saucer always seemed way too big.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I don't go with the 'premise change of “Redemption II”' simply because it is unneeded to move the plot along.

You are in good company. But it was needed so that Tasha could keep her "meaningful death" for the aftermath of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and another Tasha could give birth to Sela. If anything was "unneeded" it's Guinan's incompatible statement. She was the one responsible for the whole situation, her actions compelled ("sent") Tasha to go the past. Ron D. Moore could have just have her take the blame to explain to Picard how it was possible that Tasha could have a daughter. But that wasn't written.

There are real life instances of the wrong model being used for a ship or plane and still being called what it is suppose to be, rather than what it really is...and people not catching it unless they are history buffs that specialize in that thing. Sometimes the incorrect model is considered the real thing until someone proves it wrong, and even then the model isn't replaced.

But in the 24th Century they have padds and instant access to any information they require. They might not have the correct specifications of the 23rd Century TOS Enterprise bridge, but it stands to reason they have all the specs and diagrams of the 24th Century Starship Enterprise that came before the Enterprise-D (heck, they could have probably just consulted Sergey Rozhenko, he had all the specs and diagrams of the Enterprise-D at home, probably the ones from the "C", too).

Bob

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't go with the 'premise change of “Redemption II”' simply because it is unneeded to move the plot along.

You are in good company. But it was needed so that Tasha could keep her "meaningful death" for the aftermath of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and another Tasha could give birth to Sela.

Some people just don't get to have meaningful deaths. There's no reason why Tasha needs to keep hers.

But in the 24th Century they have padds and instant access to any information they require. They might not have the correct specifications of the 23rd Century TOS Enterprise bridge, but it stands to reason they have all the specs and diagrams of the 24th Century Starship Enterprise that came before the Enterprise-D (heck, they could have probably just consulted Sergey Rozhenko, he had all the specs and diagrams of the Enterprise-D at home, probably the ones from the "C", too).

Maybe the guy who made the model was like you. He had seen different design concepts for the Enterprise-C and decided to go with the one that Starfleet inevitably didn't use.

 

[Ithekro]

I would also point out that just because Tasha wanted a "meaning death" doesn't mean she got one. There is no reason to assume their was a timey-whimey reasoning for a Tasha to die in battle and yet have another one with no introduction to be Sela's mother. Even Doctor Who doesn't go that route without bending back around at somepoint to present the missing character, even if it can negate entire timelines while still having people remember them without being able to do the things seen in said timeline.

Simply there is no reason to assume something happened different from how we saw it happen and how Sela explained what happened. The only oddity is how they believe it was Picard that ordered Tasha to go. That seems to be a belief on Guinan and Sela's point of view. Remember that Guinan from the Prime universe is not the same one from the Militaristic universe. She just has a sense for what seems wrong regardless. So she has a feeling of what happened, not full knowledge of what happened. Sela has second hand knowledge at best of the situation depending on what Tasha told her, what a four year old or younger Romulan can understand about what she was told, and what other sources told her over time since then.

(Besides, my hope was always that once Picard found out about Tasha being in the past on Romulas, he's work out a rescue mission due to her being his crew and being temporally displaced. I though it make a nice movie plot. To beam her out from the disruptor fire to may her seem to have died, then have Tasha Yar back for the films.)

Though given the time between the loss of the Enterprise-C and the commissioning of the Enterprise-D, a lot happened. The model maker mght have seen a painting of the proposed Ambassador-class on a wall and wanted to model it, and someone else got it wrong when they made the half model for the Enterprise-D, not realizing it was the wrong ship, since the guy wasn't a history buff, but just a contractor doing a job.

That or at one point in time (on commissioning in say 2332) the Enterprise-C did look like that, but later was refit to something else before it was lost in 2244, as it matches or nearly matches other ships of its class we see during the 2360s.

Considering how flooded our Internet is wth pictures, and how it is easy to find different images of the same thing and have half of them be of the wrong things, imagine that multiplied by a web of information accumulated for over 300 years plus added dozens if not hundreds of planets to the web. Now try to find the real USS Enterprise NCC-1701-C. You'll find images of the real one, images of the Probert designed ship from the 1990s, they'll find your posted pictures of it from the 2010s, they'll find variations from Klingon and Vulcan sources. So they could easily get it wrong if they are just not into the history of it and simply want to get the job done.


Though events from all these episodes may be inspired in universe changes to the Sovereign-class.

 

[Mytran]

Assuming that the Probert-C ran into an emergency situation before the Battle of Narendra III...In such a case the saucer section would need a new stardrive section to connect to and in this particular case it’s quite possible that the Enterprise-C got a new stardrive section (designed by Rick Sternbach).

Y'know, I very much like this. Yes, the engineers would have had their hands full joining the two hulls together, but it would have been considerably easier than building a whole new secondary hull (not to mention the retcon precedent of the franken-ships present during the Dominion War). You may prefer your "Redemption" theory Bob, but this one sits a lot easier with me than having 4 timelines jostling for position. Thanks!

A comparison between Andrew Probert’s Enterprise-C and Rick Sternbach’s Enterprise-C quickly reveals that the obvious unifying element both share is the saucer section (for argument’s sake I will not explore the differences in detail)

Indeed, and it's also important to note that we only ever saw either design on the conference room wall as a gold embossed (and slightly stylised) model. This allows considerable latitude for the "swapped secondary hull" theory to slip neatly into place, IMO.

The "real" ship from YE is a design entirely native to the Universe-At-War which, as has been discussed elsewhere, has a similar but distinct history from our own (no Praxis incident, TMP phasers still in service etc). As such, the visual appearance of the ship (not to mention the design details which seem at odds with ship halfway between an Excelsior and Galaxy class) can be safely disregarded.

In addition, there's no logical way that the Universe-At-War can be a mere alternate timeline from our own universe due to the fact that there's no way to get it started - the explosion at Narenda III was always an existing part of our E-D's history, nothing that happened then would spontaneously affect the present. Earlier drafts of YE had an external catalyst which got around this problem (an alien probe) but one of the rewrites removed it. End result - the UAW is whole other universe.

I don't go with the 'premise change of

“Redemption II”' simply because it is unneeded to move the plot along.

You are in good company. But it was needed so that Tasha could keep her "meaningful death" for the aftermath of

"Yesterday's Enterprise" and another Tasha could give birth to Sela.

Some people just don't get to have meaningful deaths. There's no reason why Tasha needs to keep hers.

It's sad to say, but it seems the multiverse hates Tasha Yar almost as much as it hates Jack Crusher.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Some people just don't get to have meaningful deaths. There's no reason why Tasha needs to keep hers.

It's sad to say, but it seems the multiverse hates Tasha Yar almost as much as it hates Jack Crusher.

Something like inevitability of fate? OMG, I absolutely love Peter David’s Q-Squared and remember the great time I had reading it (it’s full of parallel universes, maybe that’s where I got all the inspiration from, and that's why you all have to suffer). That’s the kind of TNG movie or episode that still waits being realized.

But again, the theme of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was “meaningful death”, both for the crew of the Enterprise-C and Tasha Yar. Moore stated later it was the chance to “kill her right” and Carson still felt in 2008 they had accomplished that with YE. Doesn’t rhyme with what we learned in “Redemption II”, IMO.

Maybe the guy who made the model was like you. He had seen different design concepts for the Enterprise-C and decided to go with the one that Starfleet inevitably didn't use.

But it doesn’t strike me as a credible scenario, nor does the notion that the most prominent ST wall display should be inaccurate or unreliable, just because some fans have assimilated retcon thinking to the point where I wonder whether it’s still healthy. I’m interested in finding and presenting a solution to what appears to be an obvious discrepancy, that has been my mission goal from the start, and the shitstorm I got in return still begs for explanation.

Remember that Guinan from the Prime universe is not the same one from the Militaristic universe. She just has a sense for what seems wrong regardless. So she has a feeling of what happened, not full knowledge of what happened. Sela has second hand knowledge at best of the situation depending on what Tasha told her, what a four year old or younger Romulan can understand about what she was told, and what other sources told her over time since then.

Early on in YE Guinan knows something bad is about to be happening when she sees the temporal rift, and apparently her consciousness somehow connects to the consciousnesses of other Guinans in other alternate realities.
The reliability of her suggestions is firmly established in YE, also that she “knew” Tasha died an empty death on Vagra II although Guinan hadn’t been aboard, yet. Admittedly, she and her capabilities remain enigmatic, but there’s no good reason to doubt her statements in “Redemption II” just because you don’t like the possible conclusions I drew from these. On the contrary it’s her proven reliability (from a storytelling point of view) and statement that provides the basis to accept Sela’s statements (Picard “sent” Tasha) as correct and truthful.

Besides, my hope was always that once Picard found out about Tasha being in the past on Romulas, he's work out a rescue mission due to her being his crew and being temporally displaced. I though it make a nice movie plot. To beam her out from the disruptor fire to may her seem to have died, then have Tasha Yar back for the films.

Temporal violations notwithstanding, it would have made a great story. I hope that because of the cooperation between the Federation and the Romulans before the Dominion War, Picard saw to it that the Enterprise-C survivors were released and the Federation finally learned what had actually happened at the Battle of Narendra III.

Mytran, you are next…

Bob