I found that intelligence insulting. What about that entire cloaked minefield??
In the "Yesterday's Enterprise" timeline, Tasha says the Enterprise was the first Galaxy-class ship built. Anything's possible.
No USS Constitution?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
NCC-1700 appeared on-screen in STIII, pages of Franz Joseph's old Tech Manual used to represent the Enterprise when Chekov finds lifesigns in Spock's quarters. As I quoted in the OP, "On the drawing board, the ship is Number 1700. The actual vessel is 1701". It's almost like Diane Carey was trying to explain away that little oddity. Shame it's still the pre-refit Enterprise on the monitor.
I would guess that it's a lot easier to cloak a mine than an entire Romulan starship. Assuming each mine has its own cloaking generator. The power output would be comparatively small.
Here's the actual line:
The wiggle room comes in when you figure that the USS Galaxy was not a warship, but a conventional starship. The official timeline has the Enterprise-C disappearing at around the same time as the Galaxy class project just getting started, so it could be that while the Galaxy was locked, Starfleet decided to reconfigure the Enterprise as a dedicated warship.
Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens addressed this in "Collision Course". The Romulan War forced Starfleet to abandon the more exotic, and expensive, weapons technology (like phase cannons and photonic torpedoes) in favor of stuff they could more easily mass produce, like nukes, particle beam weapons, and laser guns. Afterward, research picked up again on the fancier stuff, and we eventually got phasers and photon torpedoes.
Or perhaps that timeline's version of the USS Galaxy was destroyed by the Klingons before it could be completed. Thus the Enterprise-D was indeed the first one that was actually built - as in finished.
That works too.
Or Tasha was right and the Enterprise-D was the first (in that timeline, at least).
The simplest answer, like what's said on-screen, is often the correct one.
The simplest answer, like what's said on-screen, is often the correct one.
No one's saying Tasha was wrong. All the possibilities given still have Tasha being right. It's just a question of how specifically you interpret the line.
If the Enterprise-D was a warship and the USS Galaxy was not, then it is correct to say that the USS Enterprise is the first Galaxy class warship and still have it not be the first Galaxy class ship.
If the Galaxy was destroyed before completion and the Eneterprise-D was the first one made, then it is correct to say that the USS Enterprise is the first Galaxy class warship because the USS Galaxy was never a completed ship.
These are all going with what was said on screen.
Class names taken from the first ship is a purely American invention, and the Europeans generally name a class by either Project number like the Russian Project 61M Class (Kashin Class) or class group identifier like the RN's Tribal Class.
So, the AU Galaxy Class meant something else like most, powerful with the USS Enterprise than the Galaxy Class, where there is a USS Galaxy.
or AU Galaxy Class was like real world Thresher/Permit Class SSNs of the 60s, where the Thresher was lost and the next ship took the name of class.
So, the AU Galaxy Class meant something else like most, powerful with the USS Enterprise than the Galaxy Class, where there is a USS Galaxy.
or AU Galaxy Class was like real world Thresher/Permit Class SSNs of the 60s, where the Thresher was lost and the next ship took the name of class.
But taken literally, Tasha's line makes no logical sense. If the Enterprise was the first of its kind, then it must be Enterprise class. There must be a Galaxy to have a class of that name. Otherwise, the name means nothing.
Not necessarily. Like ProwlAlpha's example, there was no Tribal class RN frigate named the HMS Tribal. Classes could similarly just be a descriptive category name in Yesterday's Enterprise's timeline.
(Why yes I am arguing both sides of the argument at once.)
Similar threads
