The names don't matter. If they do, tell me how.
New series: Enterprise-B or -C?
- Thread starter MarsWeeps
- Start date
Are you really asking me to tell you why it matters that ships have different names?
Yes.
Very well. To avoid confusing one with another, especially if there's more than one. People have different names too for that same reason.
Still, other than the insignificant names, there are no other differences that I have not already listed in section 4.
So why should they be treated differently if they have the same technology (both Constitution-class starships).
Names are not insignificant. Couldn't care less about the technology since it isn't relevant to the conversation about ship names.
But even with your significant names, why would two starships with identical technology be treated differently?
When did you stop? When did you understand?
I'm not sure. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Kirk relinquished command of Enterprise after TUC, we know the ship was retired (at least under that name) by Generations. Do you suggest it remained in service under another name, or that there was a longer time between TUC and Gen than commonly assumed?
Both, possibly. I'm not sure which.
I don't get it. Why the Federation want to rebuild and continue the tradition of a Ship that has been hijacked by someone? What good is the "legendary" Reliant, to have the Reliant A, Reliant B, etc?
That make me wonder too. How old was the Enterprise A after TUC? Why they decide to retire and replace her with an Excelsior Class? Because She was brand new when Star Trek IV was ended.
Was she?
To him, it was a new ship. That doesn't mean it was a new build.
Is it not?
One theory proposed by Roddenberry was that the Enterprise-A was a quickly renamed older ship (which would still make her new to Kirk and the gang). But the idea that she was a totally new ship could work too. There's not really a consensus, so people can go with whatever idea they want.
The whole point of that line was to tribute TNG. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
However, if one feels the nerdish obsession to take every little thing at face value, then here's a few ways one could interpret that line based on the fact that the Ent-B was launched later that same year:
1. Kirk is referring to a "decommissioning crew" that will be in charge of the ship's ultimate fate.
2. The Ent-A will be decommissioned and then recommissioned with another name and registry number, perhaps of whatever ship it was before it became the Enterprise-A. It would then have a different crew but would no longer be the Enterprise.
3. He's referring to whoever the new crew of the next Enterprise (B) will be.
Again, we don't know ANYTHING about the Enterprise-A. We don't know if it was a new ship or an old ship given a new name. We don't know what happened to it after TUC. Anyone trying to give a definitive answer to those questions is wasting their time. The ONLY thing we know is that the Ent-B succeeded it the same year it was stated that the Ent-A was to be decommissioned. Since it would be illogical to have two ships with the exact same name in service, then the Ent-A would either have to have been decommissioned totally, or recommissioned under a different name as I stated above.
Last edited:
But clearly the Enterprise A was a new ship based on the revisions done to the interiors and the state of the art warp core. Sure this could've been done through standard upgrades but there's nothing to imply the ship was old and rebranded with another name.
Even if it was a spanking new build, it obviously wasn't intended to be the Enterprise. Construction of a new ship would've started at least 18 months prior to the ship launching.
With that in mind, I'm partial to what we were given in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. That the "A" was originally the transwarp testbed ship USS Ti-Ho.
Similar threads
