How is 20 years old for a ship?

[Praetor]

I would say that the stresses of being a refit 40 year old ship was what doomed the 1701nil, and that other Constitutions were less complex refits that were more reliable and easy to maintain while still resembling the 1701nil. I like to think the A was a testbed thrown together from leftovers from the refit program (not unlike the construction of the Space Shuttle Endeavour) to test technology developed by the Excelsior program, was not entirely successful (perhaps explaining the absence of Constitutions in the 24th century) and ultimately was given to Kirk more of an honor than anything else until another Enterprise could be built.

 

[Gagarin]

This thread got me thinking about the Space Shuttles (thinks for the ref. somebody!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shuttle_profiles.jpg

Even today's warships of the same class are not "identicle" inside or out - though they have a specific range of capabilities, and I'm sure the USN is trying to move toward greater flexability and commonality.

Anyway - the space shuttles were not all alike, Challenger had a upgraded heat shield compared to Columbia, and thus went on more missions because it could carry more payload.

The Constitution-refit program (Like what Enterprise went through) could have rendered ships which had less cargo/floor plan space because of the existing old structural members or the addition of extra frames that a new built ship wouldn't have needed.

Not to meantion that if it was an early-run Constitution class, I'm sure it had lots of baggage from old overhauls and it didn't benefit from lessons learned while building the last of the 12 (if you agree that they're were only 12, or however you take the 'only 12 like her' comment )

And yes--- I realize comparing a Starship to a Space Shuttle is uh, Apples and Oranges. Or rather stone knives to Pentiums. And that Trek's technology is magic compared to ours. But even so - that's my point - the Space Shuttle was magic compared to what we had in 1900. And even in 1900 ships of the same class weren't identical. So look up Challenger's wiki profile and whenever it meantions a change, just swap out that word with some Trek technobable, and you'll get the idea =).

 

[Krieg1981]

Most modern ships don't last longer than 25/30 years, mostly because technology moves so fast now, ships become obsolescent much quicker. Case in point....The US Navy's Gearing class destroyer was in service from 1944 to 1984(all the way to 2005 in the taiwanese navy!). The Spruance class destroyer was in service from 1975 to 2005. Technology gets old a lot faster these days! In the Star Trek universe, however, spaceframes obviously have a lot more longevity(they don't get the crap beaten out of them by the ocean!) and can be equipped with the latest technology, keeping them viable for longer. Regarding Admiral Morrow's statement, I'm sure it was just a flub. Enterprise would have been 40 years old, and the refit only 15 years old!

 

[Timo]

Case in point....The US Navy's Gearing class destroyer was in service from 1944 to 1984(all the way to 2005 in the taiwanese navy!). The Spruance class destroyer was in service from 1975 to 2005.

It's also case in the point that politics matter more than technology on such things.

The Gearing class was never meant to be upgraded - it was built solely for WWII combat, without provisions for swapping of weapon or sensor suites. Still, it ended up getting a couple of FRAM treatments plus whatever the Taiwanese and Mexicans and so forth did with their respective ships afterwards, and serving a decade longer than the Spruance, which was designed primarily with constant upgrades in mind.

There'd be nothing wrong as such in still using Gearings for sub-hunting today, or for coastal bombardment and interdiction duties. Structurally, they might still have some life left, and their machinery would be relatively simple to refurbish or replace. The limiting factor is that they can't be fitted with modern, very bulky anti-aircraft weapons and sensors to the level that an oceangoing subhunter or a littoral sentinel now needs. I guess something similar would have been a big factor in dooming the tiny Constitutions, too: perhaps ships that small couldn't receive modern strip phasers, and thus couldn't get frontline roles, except in desperate moments - for which Starfleet preferred to stockpile just one obsolete midget design, in this case the Miranda.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Krieg1981]

Case in point....The US Navy's Gearing class destroyer was in service from 1944 to 1984(all the way to 2005 in the taiwanese navy!). The Spruance class destroyer was in service from 1975 to 2005.

It's also case in the point that politics matter more than technology on such things.

The Gearing class was never meant to be upgraded - it was built solely for WWII combat, without provisions for swapping of weapon or sensor suites. Still, it ended up getting a couple of FRAM treatments plus whatever the Taiwanese and Mexicans and so forth did with their respective ships afterwards, and serving a decade longer than the Spruance, which was designed primarily with constant upgrades in mind.

There'd be nothing wrong as such in still using Gearings for sub-hunting today, or for coastal bombardment and interdiction duties. Structurally, they might still have some life left, and their machinery would be relatively simple to refurbish or replace. The limiting factor is that they can't be fitted with modern, very bulky anti-aircraft weapons and sensors to the level that an oceangoing subhunter or a littoral sentinel now needs. I guess something similar would have been a big factor in dooming the tiny Constitutions, too: perhaps ships that small couldn't receive modern strip phasers, and thus couldn't get frontline roles, except in desperate moments - for which Starfleet preferred to stockpile just one obsolete midget design, in this case the Miranda.

Timo Saloniemi

You really know your stuff! The Spruance class was designed to be upgradeable, but their lack of Aegis spelled they're doom. I'm still surprised that none were sold abroad.....it's still a viable platform. The mexicans are the only Gearing operator left, and they use theirs for drug interdiction and ops with other navies(I have a fantastic pic of the ex.Steinaker operating with the USS Ronald Reagan CVN 76). I think you are right about the Constitution class, There comes a point when a ship simply cannot be upgraded further.

 

[Patrickivan]

There's always a better design on the boards, and it can be less expesive to build new then maintain over the long run. Problem is, no one wants to spend in the short term to save in the long...

My point is, if my country was running Starfleet, then 20 years is a drop in the bucket. After all, we're still flying Sea Kings and Tudors.

On the other hand. I have no problem with a well maintained fleet that was obviously designed to be long serving. They built them to be upgradable and long lasting. The best proof comes from the Excelsior type where they were used for over a century, yet there are obvious changes in hull, bridge, impulse, and nacelles, between the 2200's and the 2300's... Other examples would be the Enterprise 1701 being radically refitted over it's lifespan up until its destruction :-( Even after that, when the 1701-A came around, it had many bridge changes (no doubt swapped out) until its decommission. The Oberths were the only unchanged (on the outside).

I don't really want to apply present or past examples of armed forces equipment longevity just because Star Trek takes place too far in the future. Our technologies and armed forces SOP's change to much to make it really relevant.

 

[Gagarin]

I was thinking about putting this in fan-fiction... but...

2269
The selected upgrading of existing Starship hulls to Starfleet’s emerging “new-technology” configuration is proposed by the Federation President’s office seeking to compromise with the Council’s hesitancy to approve new-designs and building programs. It was thought that a perceived maximization of current resources would help approve other at-risk appropriations.

By this time several light cruisers and lesser starships had been introducing new drive systems and design-lines that would become Starfleet’s new standard. But none of the technologies had yet been integrated into one platform, nor had many of them been fully realized. There was also no new approved heavy cruiser design as large-ship design programs had been reluctantly stalled.

To make the most out of the “upgrade” proposal – in both publicity and fleet strength Starfleet proposes to first reconstruct selected Constitution-class Starships – and agree to freeze the construction of four new heavy cruisers early in their construction phases which would then be altered to the new configuration.

Starfleet shrewdly reasoned that they could sink development costs for their new cruisers and other “new-technology” systems under the now Counsel-mandated “upgrade” program – while also show how resilient Starfleet’s most versatile design and most recognized symbol were, even after 30 years of service. Adapting the design changes to other Class 1 Starships could happen thereafter – as they had been derivatives of the Constitutions, furthering real savings. Starfleet’s General Staff and engineers reasoned that they could produce superbly capable vessels through reconstruction, though many doubted the program’s actual cost effectiveness.

The San Francisco Division was among those that were thoroughly optimistic about the project. They had on previously researched and designed several proposed design changes for new-built Constitutions since 2265 from consulting with current-Constitution-class Chief Engineers – and had even given proposals for mid-life upgrades.

Another factor in favor of choosing Constitution-class ships for the reconstruction program – especially the surviving early-builds – was the classes’ notoriously, yet unintentionally, “overbuilt” components. The ships were intended to be very durable in order to reach “dangerous” areas of space quickly and safely and to be effective ships-of-the-line in combat against unknown threats. The original design specifications also called for previously unreached levels of warp and impulse performance. Since no ships of comparable scale, speed, or and endurance had been built, the designers and builders unknowingly overestimated stresses and strain and thereby inflated structural requirements. In service it was found that the actual strains and forces imposed at warp speeds and maneuvering were less than anticipated due to the excellent design of the engines, the smooth warp dynamics of the classes’ design, and new understanding of high-warp subspace. The classes’ structural members consistently performed better than anticipated and designed – making the Constitution Class more versatile and adaptable to deep-space missions than imagined, though officers had strict orders not to exceed certain limitations, such as the Warp 8 Emergency Speed. Relative “aging” of the class was also significantly better than anticipated. As later ships in the class were built, lighter and stronger alloys were incorporated and they were designed to meet closer-to-observed requirements, without so much of CH 1700 – CH 1707’s “structural redundancies” – yet many were retained. These “structural redundancies” are what made the surviving early build ships the candidates for the upgrade program.

2273 – Enterprise (1701) becomes the first re-constructed Constitution-class cruiser to be completed.

Re-Construction Program –

Major space-frame components were retained – the primary hull’s keel and the secondary hull’s keel and strong-backs became the basis for new anchoring frames and stanchions. Old and new materials were mated together mechanically and chemically.

Although the deck-by-deck arrangement and layouts were drastically different throughout the ship, Constitution-class architecture remained behind the new bulkheads. In all cases – the new components were lighter and stronger than what they replaced or augmented.

Re-Construction Limitations –

Because of the structure-on-structure re-design, actual deck space compared to comparable newly-built ships was markedly different. Newly built ships also had less mass – and therefore, more mission capacity – than the upgraded hulls. This later contributed to the premature retirement of many upgraded Constitution-class hulls in the 2280's.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

The Enterprise was commissioned in 2245... Star Trek II seems to take place somewhere from 2280 to 2283

Kirk was 34 when he got command of the Enterprise, which was in 2264 or 2265, which would have him born in 2230 or 2231. In Star Trek II he was either 50 or 52 years of age. That would mean the year would have to be 2280 or 2281 if he was 50, and 2282 to 2283 if he was 52.

I don't know how far Star Trek III was after Star Trek II, but assuming it was the same year, and assuming the ship first flew in 2245 (and it could have been engaged in trial runs before that), and 2280 to 2283 was Star Trek III: The Enterprise was anywhere from 36 years-old to 38 years-old assuming the commissioning was the same time as it's first flight. If it was undergoing trial runs a year before that, it could be up to 39-years old assuming Star Trek III was the same year as Star Trek II. If it was a year later, the Enterprise could indeed be 40 years old at max.


CuttingEdge100