How many ships did Starfleet send into deep space?

[Robert DeSoto]

The deep space vessels sent to meet Voyager, and rendevous in 5-6 years thing always confused me.

At this point, Voyager was still a good 30 years journey from home. In 5-6 that would be about 25 years still...yet these deep space ships can get there from the Alpha Quadrant in a fifth of the time? Wasn't voyager already meant to be one of the fastest ships in the fleet??

also - one would assume those ships are still on course to rendevous with Voyager, after it returned home. If they're going so fast that they can meet Voy in the Delta Quadrant in 5 years, they'll pretty quickly be out of communications range, and will be moving away from the source of the signal.....

so how will they know that Voyagers home, and not to keep ploughing deeper into the DQ?

What, 10 years later they stumble across an asteroid, and Neelix tells them "Sorry, you just missed them..."

hahah I wondered about that too. Maybe they could use the MIDAS Array to contact them?

I mean I'd be pissed if I dragged my ass all the way to the Delta Quadrant and Neelix's tells me the USS Voyager was home a long time ago.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's no different a situation that it was with the Enterprise-D in "Conspiracy." Subspace radio can only travel so fast, so it's to be expected that ships and outposts farther out from Earth would not be capable of realtime communications and would be out of touch with the latest news. News travels more slowly out there, and the farther out they are, the more out of touch they are.

The Enterprise has never been out of contact for anywhere near an entire year.

Who said anything about the Enterprise being out of contact for an entire year?

The edge of Federation space is still Federation space. I don't really see the difference.

You don't think there are outposts, starbases, or member planets at the edge of Federation space? You think that there's nothing out there that could be years away from Earth (or the core Federation systems) at maximum warp, and yet still be in relatively close proximity to each other?

In any case, two to three years is still considered a long time to be away from port by 23rd and 24th Century standards.

And actually, that's my entire point. I think most ships can operate without support for two or three years (which as you said, is a long time by itself), but will then need to "tank up" at a starbase or with a tanker if they want to stay out there even longer, IMO.

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that a starship can go 2-3 years without refueling. Why not four years? Six?

Because two to three years between refueling and resupplies sounds feasible. More than that sounds more and more fanboyish and unrealistic to me. Despite being magnitudes more powerful, I don't think matter/antimatter reactors are nowhere near as fuel efficient as today's nuclear reactors. I think starship fuel tanks are a certain size and contain a certain amount of both matter and antimatter fuel. And the smaller the ship, the smaller its fuel tanks, IMO. Even so, deep-space starships can still operate a long way from Earth, but still within range (say, a few hundred light-years) of a starbase at the Federation border. That's still deep-space. And with space being three-dimensional, that's an incredible amount of space for a single ship to explore.

In any case, the question wasn't how long a starship can go without refueling, but how many were sent away from port for an extended period of time.

That question was already answered by myself and others. There's no official number.

And by extended period of time, I mean longer than the typical TOS, TNG and DS9 exploration mission (which on average lasts an episode or two).

For all intents and purposes, it could be most of them by that definition. Most deep-space starships could be sent on missions that may last anywhere from a few weeks to even several years during their time in service.

So for a ship that spends a full year away from Federation space (which even you think is plausible) that is already way longer than what we've typically seen with Kirk, Picard or Sisko's missions.

Kirk's Enterprise spent five years exploring space. They may not have been stranded out in space like the Voyager was, and may have performed other duties as one of the few Federation starships out where it was, but they were still presumably able to explore a lot of worlds during that time.

And Picard's Enterprise wasn't really a slouch in the exploration department either. While the ship made several return trips to Earth, the Enterprise-D still made an impressive number of first contacts during her short time in service (even though later shows kind of took the Borg and the Ferengi away from her).

And while Sisko may have been stuck on an old space station, you could say that quite a few aliens came to him, and that his major discovery--the Bajoran Wormhole--was a doozy, with consequences for the entire Federation as well as the other major galactic powers in this part of the Galaxy...

 

[Ablative_Oberth]

Ok so they have bussard collectors to collect hydrogen/deuterium from space... or they could refuel from a gas-giant... or crack the stuff from water from a class-M planet.

Getting hydrogen/deuterium isn't the problem. Antimatter is.

The Enterprise D in the tech manual has an antimatter generator. This would be an enormously inefficient device. Good for an absolute emergency but it wouldn't be able to totally refuel the ship.


There would also be limits to the amount of spare parts they could carry too. Some things (for whatever reason) can't be replicated therefore they have to carry spares. And sometimes it would be more cost-effective (energy-wise) to go get one out of a box rather than spend megawatts to replicate one.

All kinds of reasons that a ship would need to "come home" from time to time.

 

[Timo]

It would have helped if ENT had established what NX-01's mission was in the first place! Explore the perimeter of Earth space? Explore all systems between here and Vulcan? Investigate a specified series of star systems that we pulled from the Vulcan database when Soval had his back turned? Wander aimlessly and see what trouble you can get into?

Onscreen evidence suggests that only one of these options is correct. Guess which one.

And it's the only one that makes sense, really...

There'd be nothing left to systematically explore in "nearspace" within the Vulcan zone of influence. At most, our heroes could check for errors or differing interpretations in the data the Vulcans had supplied on that space. The capabilities of NX-01 would be wasted on that sort of work; her main attribute (even as per the launching speech) was the ability to span vast distances quickly, vastly adding to the volume of space Earth could study.

But "study" would be too academic a pursuit to justify building and arming NX-01. The project must have had political goals. And the foremost would be parity: NX-01 would be the first Earth vessel (barely) capable of challenging vessels from other star empires, especially from the Vulcan one. She'd be the tool to carve out a niche for Earth in the interstellar community. And the first thing to do would be to catch everybody's attention.

It sounds pretty likely that UESF chose Archer to command the ship specifically because they knew he "intensely disliked" Vulcans, and as a consequence had a desire to do everything the opposite way - in practice meaning he'd be noisy as hell. Sending Archer out there in Earth's first parity starship would be sure to catch some attention. And the best possible mission profile for that would indeed be "Wander aimlessly and see what trouble you can get into"...

Kirk's Enterprise spent five years exploring space.

And the interesting thing is, what defined the five-year length? Kirk didn't spend five years doing one particular thing, or operating in one particular direction, or in company of a particular flotilla of sister ships. He underwent resupply and overhaul and crew rotation during those five years. His ship was subjected to experimental modernization in that time as well.

The one thing that stayed constant for those five years (of which we only saw three seasons' worth, but perhaps that spanned the whole five years?) was the command crew. Does Starfleet perhaps base these five-year missions on how long a command team can stay effective (or sane) on a stretch?

OTOH, one is tempted to think that NCC-1701 was indeed like a nuclear sub, fueled at the beginning of the mission, and then not refueled until the next major teardown and refit. Five years could be the fuel endurance of a Constitution class starship, after which she would have to return for a reinvigorating dockyard session. The events of TOS (starbase layovers, visits to Earth) already eliminate most other needs for returning after a set time, after all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Kirk's Enterprise spent five years exploring space.

And the interesting thing is, what defined the five-year length? Kirk didn't spend five years doing one particular thing, or operating in one particular direction, or in company of a particular flotilla of sister ships. He underwent resupply and overhaul and crew rotation during those five years. His ship was subjected to experimental modernization in that time as well.

I believe that Constitution-class ships are multipurpose vessels that can carry out a wide variety of deep-space missions. Exploration may have been the primary mission for the Enterprise, but it certainly wasn't the only mission the ship carried out. Still, within those five years, the amount of space the Enterprise explored was likely considerable.

Ideally, I think the Enterprise generally operated along the outer reaches--which could be anywhere--and went to specific regions to explore before heading back to Federation space. In between these individual sorties into the unknown (or sometimes even during), the ship may be called upon to perform other duties as it may be the only or nearest Starfleet vessel in a given sector. During the course of these missions, the Enterprise likely logged an unimaginable amount of light-years going here and there and back and forth, and probably consumed an enormous amount of fuel and other supplies in the process. It would need frequent replenishment, repairs, and upgrades over a five-year mission to keep going like that, IMO.

Five years may simply have been an arbitrary time length chosen by Starfleet for the Enterprise to stay on deployment or it may be the recommended time between yard overhauls for Constitution-class ships if they are subject to a high degree of wear and tear. But as the ship was still within range of a starbase or Federation world at any given time, it could have kept going for considerably more than five years with Starfleet/Federation support, much like today's oceangoing ships do with replenishment/supply ships and naval bases.

 

[Timo]

That doesn't really explain why it was a five-year mission, though. What defined its start? What defined its end? It didn't consist of a single sortie to space, it didn't consist of any known set number of sorties - so the ship returning to port would not be sufficient for indicating that a mission had "ended". What stopped happening at the five-year mark? What began happening at the zero mark that hadn't been happening until then? Was the "arbitrary five-year length" so completely arbitrary that nothing at all happened at the zero-year or five-year marks?

Was the mission simply defined as "the time James T. Kirk commands the ship", and would it have failed if Kirk died after year two? Was it defined as "the time USS Enterprise is active", and the ship would have been mothballed at the five-year mark, for several years at the very least? Any shorter layover would obviously not have met the criteria, because several of those already took place within the five years.

It would seem odd for Starfleet to so completely idle the ship after those five years, but perhaps Kirk was in the very rare position to perform a mission of definite length because the major refitting of his ship had already been scheduled and was known to take place five years in the future. It would seem odder still for Starfleet to define the mission in terms of the tenure of its commanding officer, as commanding officers elsewhere in the military world are considered consumables, to be used as needed and then moved on or thrown away, replaced with others - they are slaves to the mission, not vice versa, and they certainly don't define the mission.

When we lack reasonable explanations to what denoted the end of the five-year mission, we might as well choose arbitrary ones. The idea that the ship would first need refueling at the five-year mark (and that fuel consumption would be independent of what the ship did, and that it would not be possible to refuel while some old fuel still remained in the powerplant - both of these concepts basically hold for nuclear vessels today) is one such possibility.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

That doesn't really explain why it was a five-year mission, though.

As I said before, five years could simply have been an arbitrary decision on Starfleet's part for a deep-space deployment or a recommended interval between overhauls for Constitution-class ships.

What defined its start? What defined its end?

It could just have been when J.T. Kirk took command of the ship. In the prime universe, it's possible that Constitution-class ships were commonly sent on five-year deployments. Pike may have commanded two such missions, but the next one would be commanded by Kirk. Now captains may come and go at anytime, but five-year tours of duty for those ships may have been the norm in those days.

 

[Timo]

The (noncanon) idea of Pike commanding two five-year missions sort of contradicts that concept, though: if Pike was in command for at least eleven years as stated, then by that definition it was an eleven-year mission, not two five-year ones, quite regardless of what the ship did in that time.

Yeah, it could be "arbitrary", but it might have to be completely arbitrary; Pike's speculative first mission might end with him delivering a left hook in the jaw of a Klingon, and his second one begin with him finishing with a kick in the Klingon groin, in the middle of a two-week adventure. Nothing but the calendar date would reveal that a mission had ended or begun - nothing in the ship's or crew's behavior would reflect this. After all, we already saw most of the possible indicators for a beginning or an end during the missions of Kirk or Picard - scheduled and unscheduled overhauls, reassignments, crew rotation and changes of command.

If it's that arbitrary, then why does Starfleet even bother? Why should any mission be "five-yearer" instead of "ongoing"?

The idea that everybody in TOS had a five-year tour of duty (but surprises and exceptions would happen) is one of the better explanations, yes. The other is that the ship would undergo an important event we did not yet see during the show, be it refueling or thorough teardown and rebuilding or perhaps a baryon sweep...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Arpy]

Had the Borg annihilated the Federation once and for all, the Galaxy Class starships Perseus, Crux, Sagittarius, and the rest, sent on multi-year/decade missions to explore the probe-charted arms of the galaxy for which they were named, would be on their own individually to plant the seeds of new Federations wherever they may be, and hope the winds of history do not extinguish those great flames of civilization forever.

 

[Timo]

Uh, don't you mean the dozen or so Zodiac class vessels like Libran, Caprica and Sagittaron...?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

The (noncanon) idea of Pike commanding two five-year missions sort of contradicts that concept, though: if Pike was in command for at least eleven years as stated, then by that definition it was an eleven-year mission, not two five-year ones, quite regardless of what the ship did in that time.

Actually, I always saw it that Pike commanded two seperate five-year exploration missions with a break in-between. During that period--which could be anywhere from six months to a year--the ship underwent a minor refit/upgrade and/or was assigned to non-exploration duties close to home. That would explain the eleven years that Spock served with Pike.

Yeah, it could be "arbitrary", but it might have to be completely arbitrary.

There are quite a few things in real life that are completely arbitrary, IMO.

 

[Penta]

Thought from an organizational POV: 5 years as the length of a set tour of duty seems far too long.

IRL, it's been recommended since Machiavelli (at least I recall seeing it in Machiavelli, not The Prince but one of his other works) that commanders not be assigned to a unit for more than 2 or 3 years, because personnel become loyal to the commander in preference to the wider organization. Obviously SF does a lot differently, but I'd think the general principle holds.

 

[T'Girl]

The (noncanon) idea of Pike commanding two five-year missions sort of contradicts that concept, though: if Pike was in command for at least eleven years as stated, then by that definition it was an eleven-year mission, not two five-year ones, quite regardless of what the ship did in that time.

It was stated that Spock served with Pike for eleven years, four months. Not that Pike commanded the Enterprise for that time period.

If Pike commanded the Enterprise for three, five year tours, then Spock might have joined Pike's crew late in the third year of Pike's first voyage.

Or, not all of Spock's time with Pike was necessarily aboard the Enterprise, Pike (with Spock) might have commanded another ship.

Or, Spock was with Pike aboard the Enterprise from the start. Pike was replaced by Kirk, a year, four months into the third voyage. Kirk finishes the remaining time which nicely fits the TOS/TAS time period.

I like the idea that the five year mission was based on the projected start date of the beginning of the TMP refit.

In Kirk's opening monologue, he said "... Starship Enterprise, IT'S five year mission, to ..."

 

[Nerys Myk]

It sounded goods in a openoing monolog and planted the idea the show would be on for five year.

Its hardly an accurate description of their mission, which included a lot more than exploring, seeking and going unknown places. They also spend time checking up on scientific expeditions and transporting personnel.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Deep space is a relative concept. I often wondered how many Bajorans furrowed their brow at the name of the station orbiting their planet.

 

[Vanyel]

Deep space is a relative concept. I often wondered how many Bajorans furrowed their brow at the name of the station orbiting their planet.

I thought DS9 was outside the Bajoran star system.

 

[neozeks]

I thought DS9 was outside the Bajoran star system.

It's in the system but not orbiting Bajor. It's following the wormhole which is orbiting Bajor's sun.

 

[T'Girl]

I thought DS9 was outside the Bajoran star system.

It's in the system but not orbiting Bajor. It's following the wormhole which is orbiting Bajor's sun.

At the time when the Federation/Starfleet took it over and renamed it "Deep Space Nine" the station
was in orbit around Bajor.

 

[Silvercrest]

Deep space is a relative concept. I often wondered how many Bajorans furrowed their brow at the name of the station orbiting their planet.

On their first meeting, Kira probably assumed that Bashir named it.

 

[Arpy]

Deep space is a relative concept. I often wondered how many Bajorans furrowed their brow at the name of the station orbiting their planet.

On their first meeting, Kira probably assumed that Bashir named it.

Maybe that was his concession prize for being salutatorian. I can just see Kira in the pilot thinking it was probably an ass like him that named it so.

It's too bad that "Deep Space 9" wasn't more of a Starfleet designation attached to a Bajoran name for the thing instead. We'd only need to hear it as often as we did "Terok Nor".