How is 20 years old for a ship?

[Trajet]

I always figured Admiral Morrow was talking about the time elapsed between the Enterprise's refit and the period of Star Trek III - from 2271 to 2285. If she was commissioned in 2245, and likely built a few years earlier, then that would indeed make her spaceframe at least 40 years old.

I think the most realistic interpretation is that the Enterprise refit was a technology testbed for a wave of new build Constitution, and other associated classes of starships based on common components, and not intended to serve a particularly long active service career herself, hence her demotion to training duty by the time of Star Trek II.

Given that she was so badly damaged, and almost certainly undersized for the task of front line duty in the late 23rd century, I'm not surprised Starfleet thought it would be more economical to retire rather than repair her, and have her replaced with a new build vessel.

This situation has a vague real world parallel in the Royal Navy's decision to replace the 20,000 tonne Invincible class aircraft carriers with the 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth/CVF class. The Invincibles aren't especially elderly (Illustrious was was commissioned in 1982, and Ark Royal in 1985, making them around half the age of the USS Enterprise CVN-65) or in poor repair, but they are undersized for Britain's stated foreign policy goals of being able to project effective air power anywhere around the world.

Consider the Enterprise as the Invincible class, and the Excelsior as the CVF.

 

[Tigger]

I think the most realistic interpretation is that the Enterprise refit was a technology testbed for a wave of new build...starships...

Consider the Enterprise as the Invincible class, and the Excelsior as the CVF.

Or think of the Enterprise as the Enterprise Class and the Excelsior as the Nimitz Class...

 

[Timo]

...Although then one loses the very real size difference aspect.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warp14]

Maybe not a good comparison...but the B-52 airframes supposedly will still be flying when they are 80 years old...assuming we're still around to refuel them.

How much wear and tear does a star ship have in space, anyway. Aside from battle damage.

 

[Timo]

In theory, even the most mundane sort of Trek maneuvering puts more wear and tear on the hull than any conceivable physical material could ever withstand. Thus, modern treknobabble relies on "structural integrity fields" and other such cheats. One could speculate that minor fluctiations in the protection offered by such fields would eventually spell doom for the starship after X decades of mundane, noncombat operations.

It might also be that the materials of which the starship hull is built don't survive vacuum exposure indefinitely (that is, certain key chemicals diffuse out of the structure eventually), or that thermal expansion and contraction gradually weakens them, or that cosmic radiation or some exotic radiation related to warp travel does.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Philo]

I always figured Admiral Morrow was talking about the time elapsed between the Enterprise's refit and the period of Star Trek III - from 2271 to 2285. If she was commissioned in 2245, and likely built a few years earlier, then that would indeed make her spaceframe at least 40 years old.

I think the most realistic interpretation is that the Enterprise refit was a technology testbed for a wave of new build Constitution, and other associated classes of starships based on common components, and not intended to serve a particularly long active service career herself, hence her demotion to training duty by the time of Star Trek II.

Given that she was so badly damaged, and almost certainly undersized for the task of front line duty in the late 23rd century, I'm not surprised Starfleet thought it would be more economical to retire rather than repair her, and have her replaced with a new build vessel.

This situation has a vague real world parallel in the Royal Navy's decision to replace the 20,000 tonne Invincible class aircraft carriers with the 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth/CVF class. The Invincibles aren't especially elderly (Illustrious was was commissioned in 1982, and Ark Royal in 1985, making them around half the age of the USS Enterprise CVN-65) or in poor repair, but they are undersized for Britain's stated foreign policy goals of being able to project effective air power anywhere around the world.

Consider the Enterprise as the Invincible class, and the Excelsior as the CVF.

Damn, that's exactly what I was going to say and then you went and backed it up with actual historical precedence. Well done, sir.

I like to think that the Excelsior is the actual practical outcome of the refit trials rather than the (hoped for, stopgap) refit itself. It's lends itself well to both Excelsior's longevity and the lack of Constitution's into the 24th century. And then that dovetails well into Enterprise's history.

 

[Trajet]

I always figured Admiral Morrow was talking about the time elapsed between the Enterprise's refit and the period of Star Trek III - from 2271 to 2285. If she was commissioned in 2245, and likely built a few years earlier, then that would indeed make her spaceframe at least 40 years old.

I think the most realistic interpretation is that the Enterprise refit was a technology testbed for a wave of new build Constitution, and other associated classes of starships based on common components, and not intended to serve a particularly long active service career herself, hence her demotion to training duty by the time of Star Trek II.

Given that she was so badly damaged, and almost certainly undersized for the task of front line duty in the late 23rd century, I'm not surprised Starfleet thought it would be more economical to retire rather than repair her, and have her replaced with a new build vessel.

This situation has a vague real world parallel in the Royal Navy's decision to replace the 20,000 tonne Invincible class aircraft carriers with the 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth/CVF class. The Invincibles aren't especially elderly (Illustrious was was commissioned in 1982, and Ark Royal in 1985, making them around half the age of the USS Enterprise CVN-65) or in poor repair, but they are undersized for Britain's stated foreign policy goals of being able to project effective air power anywhere around the world.

Consider the Enterprise as the Invincible class, and the Excelsior as the CVF.

Damn, that's exactly what I was going to say and then you went and backed it up with actual historical precedence. Well done, sir.

Why thank you... I do like to be thorough!

 

[SoM]

Perhaps the new engine design could stem from the Excelsior project. Even though the "transwarp" aspect failed, there could still be other design improvements that could be implemented in other shipe designs, that decrease the wear and tear on the ship from warp speeds.

Was it ever proven that it DID fail long-term? (As opposed to TNG Warp = Excelsior Transwarp. c.f. - there's a plaque at Alexandra Palace in London commemorating the world's first "high definition" TV service - which was 240i B&W, less than today's "standard definition" 480i/576i never mind current definitions of HD.)

 

[Philo]

^ I always preferred the idea of TNG warp = Excelsior transwarp.

Why thank you... I do like to be thorough!

 

[C.E. Evans]

Perhaps the new engine design could stem from the Excelsior project. Even though the "transwarp" aspect failed, there could still be other design improvements that could be implemented in other shipe designs, that decrease the wear and tear on the ship from warp speeds.

Was it ever proven that it DID fail long-term?

The thing that seems to support that it did fail was the frequently maligned VOY episode "Threshold," in which Tom Paris is declared as the first to ever fly at transwarp speed. I don't think that claim would have been made if transwarp existed in any form prior to that episode.

But I do like the idea floated about here and there that lessons learned from the initial transwarp project resulted in more enhanced conventional warp engines and eventually a recalibrated warp scale...

 

[Timo]

'Course, it might be that "transwarp" is a generic term for "significantly better than current warp", and the 24th century folks pass that term on with each advance in warp drive, rather than inventing nonsensical overwords such as today's "multispectral" (sensor that sees at two wavelengths) to "hyperspectral" (sensor that sees at three).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Philo]

Yeah, that'd be my argument too. Language evolves, and it adds verisimilitude anyway.

 

[SoM]

'Course, it might be that "transwarp" is a generic term for "significantly better than current warp", and the 24th century folks pass that term on with each advance in warp drive, rather than inventing nonsensical overwords such as today's "multispectral" (sensor that sees at two wavelengths) to "hyperspectral" (sensor that sees at three).

Exactly - that was what I was getting at with my HD example - 80+ years ago, 240 line B&W *was* HD. Now HD screens have over four times the vertical resolution, and almost no-one would call 240 lines "high definition". With 80 or so years passing between the TOS movies and Voyager in-story, it's the same deal.

 

[Gagarin]

Why so young (even at 40)?

The refit was a reconstruction. It tore down the systems, lots of substructure, and left the basic structural components and the 'hardback' spines (the keels of the primary and secondary hull). So after the build-down they built it up again. And it's great! But even though the structural members are refurbished - they're still clocking in about 20 years of use. I can't even imagine what Kirk's second fire year mission had in store. That must have added a lot of wear! So the Enterprise was given over to training command. This is like what used to happen with CVs - the oldest would be designated a trainer.

Over time Starfleet inspects and checks out the stress and fatiuge on the structural members and notes how the hull plates were doing. You can fix and patch and replace only so much and it's very expensive to replace things all at once. It was decided that Enterprise wasn't going to last much longer as a frontline ship so it was relegated to training. And then it got shot to hell.

Starfleet still had many Constitutions / Enterprise-class ships and was still building many heavy cruisers in the upgraded configuration - even at ST III. There may have been bigger cruisers and smaller cruisers at this time, and the frigates sure were there. But Enterprise, herself, became less and less economical to keep on frontline duty and was a liability after Genesis.

Added to the repair and the condition problems, because she was a upgrade/reconstruction there would be slight changes she didnt' benefit from that a new-build ship would have - or sisterships that were reconstructed after her. Maybe a few hundred cubic meters of storage in new built ships. Maybe lighter weight alloys in the keel of the later ones. Maybe less offsets in the conduit routing because they weren't working around existing structures.

Command decides it's no longer worth keeping the Enterprise going.
Just because we love the Enterprise, it's the crew that make the difference.

Why decommision after ST VI?

Well obviously to aide in the 'hand off' moment that the movie was! BUT...

Peace-talks: The Federation would have to remove installations and cut back it's force - Heavy Cruisers would surly be part of this. Constitution/Enterpise class heavy cruisers were highly political and projections of power. There would need to be force reductions. And since Excellsior class would or was beginning production you'd want to use those new ships.

BUT what would be bad or out-dated about the 1701-A class of starships? The Enterpise-A was new - it wasn't put out to pasture...why so soon?

I don't think very much, really, was wrong with the ship. They were great ships - great, so much, that the Enterprise-A was a member of a new production-run of the class.

But they were, just like the original Constitutions, very, very, expensive to maintain and operate. They had tones of equipment, resources, people, and technology. They had to go where no one had gone before and come back - and they did it successfully! Back when the original configuration was designed it was done so right: it had the right amount of power, speed, weapons, equipment, durability, and range. And best of all, it came in a package that had only 2 warp engines. Those are expensive - and 2 helps give it great range, and it wasn't mamothly huge as to need a third or fourth engine (like so the FJ dreadnaught or several tech-manual exploration/battlecruisers). It had great sickbays, great computers, great shuttlecraft, great transporters - big ones if they needed them! And it had some workshops that could make specialized equipment if needed.

But a fleet can specialize. Eventually you can give some of mundane roles to cheaper frigates. You can build smaller scouts which are more capable, or sea worthy, in 2280 than they were in 2240. And these don't have to be loaded to the brim with every kind of gadget you can field.

And you can build a bigger ship that uses better power production facilities and warp drive systems - and streamlined to have better warp dynamics - to make it go faster for longer and carry more mission capability more easily. Maybe it would take 1.5 or 2 Enterprise-like ships to match what NCC-2000 could do. But the 1.5 or 2 Enterprises would use up a lot more crew and have a lot more expensive fixed-cost materials (Dilithuim, matter-anti-matter reactor, torpedoes, sensor units, shuttle craft, etc). And following what the failed DDX/DD21 design the USN is doing, I think the Excellsior would make strides in automating and streamlining starship operations to cut regular 'sailors' and add mission specialists. Quality of life also becomes greater because there's more space.

So while the Enterprise-A was a great ship - it was mighty expensive to operate, more than the Excellsior, or the Mirandas, or the Constellations (perhaps).

There were also political and publical relations things to consider - remove Kirk from a ship and put a new captain in it? Imagine the scrutiny. Mothball the Enterprise? Kirk and the Enterprise were the most visible symbols of the things that the Klingons feared. It was best that they wipe the slate clean. Starfleet, too, works on a budget, and I imagine they'd be scrambling to keep the NCC 2000 ship program going even if it means first sacrificing hulls that were only 10 or 15 years old.

 

[Timo]

Agreed on a lot of things, nitpicking or dissenting on a few:

So after the build-down they built it up again. And it's great!

Or then a complete lemon. For all we know, Starfleet never (re-)built a second ship like that. The E-A had major internal differences, at any rate.

I can't even imagine what Kirk's second fire year mission had in store.

Then again, Starfleet might have disapproved both of sending out this dud of a ship, and of letting Kirk steer. An Admiral's place is not on the center seat of a starship.

BUT what would be bad about the 1701-A class of starships?
I don't think very much, really. They were great ships no doubt. I think the batch the A came from were totally ground-up designs. Lightning in a bottle twice.

Then again, the shuttlebay looks more TOS-like than the ST:TMP version - perhaps implying that the E-A was a less ambitious refit of a TOS in that respect than the TMP ship was?

Whether the powerplant refit was more or less ambitious is unknown. It may well be that the TOS ship originally had a powerplant almost exactly like the TMP one, or the E-A one, only nobody went there even in radiation suits, and all we saw in TOS was the shirtsleeves control room. It's up to us to decide which of the movie engine rooms represents a greater tech leap, then.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gagarin]

Agreed on a lot of things, nitpicking or dissenting on a few:

Or then a complete lemon. For all we know, Starfleet never (re-)built a second ship like that. The E-A had major internal differences, at any rate.

Hahaha - wow, that was more nitpicking than I expected!
I've never heard someone postulate that the TMP Enterprise was a one-off or a lemon... interesting! I'm sort of proud that Timo replied because I've loved reading his posts/your posts!

Then again, Starfleet might have disapproved both of sending out this dud of a ship, and of letting Kirk steer. An Admiral's place is not on the center seat of a starship.

Again, never had someone postulate that there wasn't a second 5 year mission. Surprised! =)

Then again, the shuttlebay looks more TOS-like than the ST:TMP version - perhaps implying that the E-A was a less ambitious refit of a TOS in that respect than the TMP ship was?

We saw a cargo bay opening into the shuttebay - and it's closed in STV like TOS was. That could even be more ambitious - instead of having access for workbees into the cargobay I could postulate that there was an advanced cargo handing system that loaded cargo from the two smaller doors on each side, or that the rear wall could be opened for easy cargo operations. So it could be more advanced or the same as TMP.

Whether the powerplant refit was more or less ambitious is unknown. It may well be that the TOS ship originally had a powerplant almost exactly like the TMP one, or the E-A one, only nobody went there even in radiation suits, and all we saw in TOS was the shirtsleeves control room. It's up to us to decide which of the movie engine rooms represents a greater tech leap, then.

That's true. The impression I got from the film was that it was something new - "almost a totally new Enterprise", I feel, would have a new kind of power plant. Personally I'd like to think that the Enterprise-A had a powerplant based off of what was going on with the NX-2000 program (hence the TNG-like engine room on TUC). (yeah yeah, budgets...)

Timo Saloniemi

Timo, thanks for replying! I love your posts.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Personally I felt that the 1701A was retired was due to it was not as rugged and prosdigious as the newer ships. If you look at the 1701A or TMP version of the ship this hull is not as sturdy and more prone to be resistant to punishment as that of the Excelsior and 1701B. And the 1701A looks rather delicate in a side by side comparison next to these "Next Generation" ships. And rugged translates into greater longevity and cheaper to maintain over the long term. It was time to bring on the bigger and badder as the new "Gold" standard for frontline combat capable starships. And the TOS refit to TMP version and the 1701A served that role way past the time for bigger and badder. And you know it when your enemies are beginning to field bigger more powerful ships than you have been using for the past 40+ years. Time to make newer, bigger and badder to restore and maintain the balance. But the 1701B types gave way to the 1701C types. And then the 1701C types gave way to the 1701D types. And the 1701D types gave way to the 1701E types when the upper threashold of size, cost and durability was reached and they fell back to a cheaper and easier size to maintain, man and pay for. And budget pressures in the end will drive or restrict the development over the long term in these types of things. There is a breakpoint in the pressure to go smaller and cheaper when your enemies are not presenting a current threat, and thus explains why the 1701E and the Voyager types are smaller. Threat trumps cost. When there is safe eqilibrim, cost trumps size and teeth. It's a simple means of Greater than...Less than.....as a logic tree. Obviously going bigger meant that Star Fleet was looking for a long term rugged investment to pay for itself in the long haul in the form of increased security in tougher ships to withstand long term wear and tear and short term combat damage survivability. And bigger is better when looking at it from the standpoint of which of 2 adversaries have the bigger damage sponge toting the bigger painful "bangstick." Back to the old addage of which caveman had the bigger club....until that is one of them started throwing stones and the other responded with a slingshot. And then the other responded with a bow and arrow. What a fitting parallel that is poiniant and poetic. And a perfect description of these types of "contraction" growing pains throughout the ages the ages. To understand how these things pan out further into the future you have to look even further back into the past historically to get a cleared picture. Pre-dreadnoughts gave way to Dreadnoughts. Dreadnoughts gave way to carriers. And fleet doctrine and battlegroup doctrinal tactics changed as these stages passed over time. And so forth. History repeats itself. The mroe things change...the more they stay the same.

Good discussion guys. I'm loving it.

 

[Gagarin]

Personally I felt that the 1701A was retired was due to it was not as rugged and prosdigious as the newer ships. And you know it when your enemies are beginning to field bigger more powerful ships than you have been using for the past 40+ years. Time to make newer, bigger and badder to restore and maintain the balance. But the 1701B types gave way to the 1701C types. And then the 1701C types gave way to the 1701D types. And the 1701D types gave way to the 1701E types when the upper threashold of size, cost and durability was reached and they fell back to a cheaper and easier size to maintain, man and pay for. And budget pressures in the end will drive or restrict the development over the long term in these types of things.

In general, I agree.

But as we see, the Kingons still field D-7 sized ships for a long time, and BOPs of various sizes, and there's also their Galaxy-sized ships in TNG. The Romulans also have their huge warbirds. But I'm not sure there were lots of upsizing between 2287-2299 by the Romulans or the Klingons.

So overtime - yes, the 1701A type of ships must have been superceded as ships of the line, but I don't think it's because of the advancements of the enemy.

The NCC-2000 class would have only been in production for a very short while - we don't even know if there's another besides the Excellsior and Enterprise-B at that point.

The budget question is an interesting one - Starfleets budget would have been slashed following the collapse of the Klingon threat. The Constellation-class Starcruiser would be a cheaper addition to the fleet than an Excellsior - overworked and underpowered, and perhaps wouldnt' have been subject to treaty that asked for a limited number of 'cruiser' ships.

By TNG the classification system was changed quite a bit from naval tradition that we like to talk about. 1701D was an explorer, etc.

The Enterprise-C and Enterprise-D and the Nebula class ships look AMAZING - but who ends up doing most of the work in TNG? Starfleets ship production may have been scaled back dramatically in the early 23 century.

As far as durability: I always noticed ST VI torpedo strikes on a shielded Enterprise yeild surface damange to the hull and deflector grid. The torpedo strike on the Excellsior explodes but doesn't mark the hull. That's an improvement.

 

[Philo]

Robert Simmons, you've written enough text that I'm interested in reading it, but until you separate it into some paragraphs, I won't.

 

[Timo]

The budget question is an interesting one - Starfleets budget would have been slashed following the collapse of the Klingon threat.

Or perhaps multiplied, now that the peaceniks in control of the purse strings no longer saw Starfleet as a classic military organization hell-bent on self-justification...

Funds might also have to be multiplied when the Klingons no longer restricted the range of Starfleet operations, and large volumes suddenly opened up for exploration.

Interestingly, some of the "earliest" post-Klingon ships, in the registry number order, come from the massive Ambassador class, while a large number of Excelsiors appears soon "thereafter". It's as if Starfleet suddenly got the funds to do what they had always dreamed of doing.

Or then it could be more like the post-WWII situation where the only ships deemed worth building were twice the size of their prewar counterparts, because the war had taught that this was the way to go.

Certainly one could argue that the Khitomer peace represented a clear cut in procurement policy, and that many of the types that had been kept artificially alive through refits and modernizations were allowed to die at this juncture.

Timo Saloniemi