ST VI & VII both took place in the same year???

[Pauln6]

KIRK: "I took this horse out for a ride eleven years ago ...on a spring day, ...like this. If I'm right, this is the day I met Antonia."

11 years before the launch of the Enterprise Bee, Kirk meets Antonia while horse back riding.

9 years before the launch of the Enterprise Bee, Kirk cooks eggs for Antonia to soften the news that Kirk was returning to Starfleet.

7 years before the launch of the Enterprise Bee, Kirk's dog Butler dies.

In order for Kirk to return to Starfleet, he would have first have had to of left Starfleet. Following the Enterprise A's change of command to a new Captain, retirement would seem to make sense for Kirk. It not clear how much time elapsed between Kirk leaving Starfleet and his meeting Antonia.

Certainly enough time for the Enterprise A to have a couple of five year missions under another Captain (or two), be permanently decommissioned, have a year or few go by and then have the name Enterprise assigned to a brand new ship.

Uhura message from Starfleet mentioned decommission, Kirk final log suggests otherwise.

from TUC

Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, stardate 9529.1.

This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command.
This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew.
To them and their posterity will we commit our future.
They will continue the voyages we have begun ...

The dates don't necessarily tally precisely because someone in the Nexus might not have a clear sense of when now is. Kirk must have retired for a period after the second 5 year mission I suppose before returning to his training assignment in TWoK. This adds an additional period of time (at least 2 years) between the end of that mission and TWoK so I think 2273 for TMP is closer to correct rather than the 2278 suggested by the actual Stardate.

The second 5-year mission would then finish in 2278 and Kirk can retire after another period of administration bores him to submission. Assuming 2 years of admin is enough to give him itchy feet as in TMP, this would give us a 4-year period of retirement.

Still, the Enterprise A was a relatively new ship, fitted with new equipment. It seems silly that she would be retired after such a short period of active service compared to the 30+ years of the original, especially when Kirk indicates clearly that a new senior crew would be taking over.

 

[Timo]

In order for Kirk to return to Starfleet, he would have first have had to of left Starfleet.

Why?

I mean, he wasn't at, in, on or with Starfleet when he was in that cabin with Antonia - but he might well have been on Starfleet payroll, just as he'd been for virtually his entire life. All he was going to say to Antonia was that he wasn't going to the office the next Monday...

the second 5 year mission

But Kirk considered his first one a unique achievement. Apparently, Starfleet doesn't normally do 5-year missions.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS KG5]

There are loads of easy possibilities, my favourite is that as part of the peace treaty with the Klingons Starfleet agreed to withdraw all Constitution class ships and put them into mothballs. The Enterprise-A therefore could have spent thirty years in the mothball fleet while the shiny new Enterprise-B cruised around with the same name.

The other option is that at some point the Ent-A was recommissioned with a different name, and in fact was around in the 24th century, as a training ship. Alternatively she could be in the fleet museum.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I like the idea that the Enterprise-A was a recently refitted or extensively repaired Constitution-class ship that was only about a decade or so younger than the original Enterprise. Starfleet slapped that old ship out so fast that not even all the doors worked and the new lettering on the hull was still wet...

 

[Pauln6]

I like the idea that the Enterprise-A was a recently refitted or extensively repaired Constitution-class ship that was nearly as old as the original Enterprise. Starfleet slapped that old ship out so fast that not even all the doors worked and the new lettering on the hull was still wet...

Yes that could explain an earlier retirement of the ship and it would also explain how the ship was ready just a few months after the original was destroyed when it took 18 months to refit the original, let alone build one.

 

[Timo]

Starfleet might also believe in keeping the production lines open for old types till a given date, even if the design by that date could be expected to be completely outdated. The E-A might have been built with tooling that was primarily intended to create spares for the already rather rusty Constitution fleet, and was slapped together without much care or enthusiasm because everybody knew the Constitutions would be retired by 2300 anyway, and probably many of them sooner. And of course any ship of that outdated class that had suffered damage would be refused repairs in the 2290s.

Personally, though, I prefer the idea that the E-A was an ages-old hull refitted from TOSish to TMPish specs, with just a few minor differences to the fate of the E-nil (such as the refit taking place later). She'd not only be an outdated design, then, but also a structurally fatigued specimen; the refit probably wouldn't "zero-hour" her.

Whatever Scotty said about the E-A being a "new ship", we should remember that Decker said the same about the E-nil in ST:TMP...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Therin of Andor]

When, where and how was the E-A lost?

Shatner himself destroyed it in "The Ashes of Eden" Pocket hardcover novel and matching DC Comics comic adaptation.

Memory Beta: "The Enterprise-A is ordered to be decommissioned by Admiral Androvar Drake and is scheduled to be destroyed in a live fire exercise. However, the government of Chal requests that they be given the Enterprise to use in their system defense forces. When Chal's population takes control of the vessel, they retrofit the ship with disruptors. Retired Captain James T. Kirk is appointed commanding officer of the vessel, which is renamed Enterprise (without a registry or registry prefix) as it makes way for Chal. The Enterprise is then destroyed over planet Chal by Admiral Drake in an act of revenge against Kirk."

 

[FormerLurker]

Ah. I'm not one to read the novels, so I was unaware of these events.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I generally put the launching of the Enterprise-B in mid 2294 so that Scotty can be lost later.

The Enterprise-A was decommissioned for whatever reason and the Enterprise-B was renamed in honor of the vessel. I think that Capt Harriman was the original ship's commander prior to the renaming of his future command and he was retained for whatever reason.

 

[Tulin]

I know it's readily accepted by many people, but I have to be honest here, I've never felt comfortable with the idea that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the Enterprise-B portion of Star Trek: Generations took place within the same year, 2293.

Who said it does?That would be stupid.

It doesn't in my personal timeline.

 

[Timo]

I think that Capt Harriman was the original ship's commander prior to the renaming of his future command and he was retained for whatever reason.

"Retained"? Why would he have to change ships if ships changed names?

Kirk wouldn't be commanding any Enterprises any more anyway, or starships by any other name - that much was made clear in ST6. So there'd be no competition to the center seat of the E-B from him.

And even if Kirk didn't retire, it'd be unlikely Starfleet would give him a starship named Enterprise again; the fleet must have plenty of ships, most of them not named Enterprise, so the odds would be that Kirk would get one of those instead.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Galileo7]

I know it's readily accepted by many people, but I have to be honest here, I've never felt comfortable with the idea that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the Enterprise-B portion of Star Trek: Generations took place within the same year, 2293.

Who said it does?That would be stupid.

It doesn't in my personal timeline.

I always consider the ST VII 1701-B launch with Kirk, Scotty and Chekov as the true final scene of ST VI. I just wished they would have confirmed how much time had past.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Stardates are not reliable, there wasn't any organized system designed for them until TNG and even after that there are numerous times where they have been inconsistent.

But GEN is one of the few movies where we are given fairly specific and solid references that allow the E-B launch's year to be calculated. Year one of TNG was 2364 as stated in "The Neutral Zone" --> the 24th century part of GEN is 7 years later as stated by Geordi, so that's 2371 --> the E-B launch was 78 years earlier, so that's 2293.

 

[Magellan]

There are loads of easy possibilities, my favourite is that as part of the peace treaty with the Klingons Starfleet agreed to withdraw all Constitution class ships and put them into mothballs. The Enterprise-A therefore could have spent thirty years in the mothball fleet while the shiny new Enterprise-B cruised around with the same name.

The other option is that at some point the Ent-A was recommissioned with a different name, and in fact was around in the 24th century, as a training ship. Alternatively she could be in the fleet museum.

I've been going with this theory myself also. It kind of explains the early retirement of the Soyuz also. Maybe the Feds offer to retire/mothball all the Constitutions and Soyuz class vessels(and possibly other older classes yet unseen) in exchange for the Klingons reducing their fleet. The Feds give up a couple of aging vessels they'd likely replace with Excelsiors anyway and the Klingons get a symbolic cold war victory.

 

[Timo]

Really, an entire generation of starships was taken out of service sometime after the TOS movies: basically all the ships with engines like those of the TMP-refitted Enterprise were supposed to be either retired, or then old and decrepit and relegated to sixth-tier duties, in the TNG era. Examples include Constitution, Soyuz, Sydney, Constellation, and of course each and every noncanon, fan-made but still popular design from the TOS movie era.

It's not really a question of what happened to the Constitutions; it's more a question of why the Miranda persists, so that some examples are built with registry numbers in the 31000 range, possibly corresponding to the 2320s-30s, and appear to serve in frontline roles in the 2370s.

Year one of TNG was 2364 as stated in "The Neutral Zone" --> the 24th century part of GEN is 7 years later as stated by Geordi, so that's 2371

We have no reason to think that TNG seasons would correspond exactly to Terran years, though. That is, they are probably one year long (which the TOS seasons obviously weren't, as evidenced e.g. by "Day of the Dove), but they don't begin on January 1st.

Indeed, we have three fixpoints between TNG episodes and real annual calendar events, plus one fixpoint between the movie ST:FC (and its supposed anniversary in VOY "Homestead") and a real calendar date - and all those support a season starting in late summer or early autumn of the year, just as seasons start in the real world.

Thus, TNG's first season probably ran from the latter half of 2363 to the first half of 2364, as the latter year was indicated in the very last episode of the season.

Now, the TNG era part of ST:GEN takes place just after the midpoint of the "eighth season", around stardate 48600, and thus should happen in the early spring of the relevant calendar year. (April is 200 stardates later in "Homestead".) Subtract 78 years from that, and you may end up with either 2371-78=2293 or 2371-78=2292, depending on how approximate this 78 years is. (Had the scenes of orbital skydiving not been cut from ST:GEN, we'd have learned it wasn't early spring in North America in the prologue, FWIW...)

So 2291 is too early and 2294 is too late, but there's a range between those for the ST:GEN prologue.

Stardates are supposed to be reliable in the TNG era, and generally are (the first season of TNG itself possibly notwithstanding). The stardate for TUC, around SD 9500, could actually well be considered reliable as well: something with 9 as the fourth-from-the-right digit ought to be about X8-X9 years before an event with 8 as the fourth-from-the-right digit, with X an arbitrary number of decades. Since the TUC date has no decade digit (and I wouldn't fault the heroes for dropping those), we can choose that X=7 and be happy with it.

Also, since the third-from-the-right digits are almost the same (5 and 6), it's more or less exactly 78 years, so TUC could have taken place in the early spring of 2293, followed immediately by the prologue of ST:GEN. No conflicts of dating there, not even on the oft-cursed stardates!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[brandomack]

They could have had Scotty and Spock play a major role in the TNG era of the movie, and that way Spock could have also appeared at the beginning since he would be more than just a cameo.

you should read "Engines of Destiny" then.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Engines_of_Destiny

 

[Galileo7]

They could have had Scotty and Spock play a major role in the TNG era of the movie, and that way Spock could have also appeared at the beginning since he would be more than just a cameo.

you should read "Engines of Destiny" then.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Engines_of_Destiny

This would have made a good NG movie.

 

[Satyrquaze]

I was under the impression that TUC took place in 2293 and GEN took place in 2294, actually.

 

[Roboturner913]

It's not really a question of what happened to the Constitutions; it's more a question of why the Miranda persists, so that some examples are built with registry numbers in the 31000 range, possibly corresponding to the 2320s-30s, and appear to serve in frontline roles in the 2370s.

Been wondering this myself....

Theory: Maybe they did actually retire the design, only to discover many years later it was too useful to abandon. You can probably build 5 or 6 Mirandas for the same price as one Nebula, for instance. And they would pretty much perform the same roles.

There is a huge gap in the registry numbers. Reliant, Lantree, the original Saratoga and Trial all had numbers in the 1800-1900 range. After that the next known examples are in the 21000's, then Sisko's Saratoga, Sitak, Majestic, etc. all come in around 31000.

If you believe that registries are chronological, then maybe they started building Mirandas again 30 or 40 years after originally retired them. At the same time they would've reactivated several that had been mothballed all those years ago (Lantree and Trial appeared in the TNG/DS9 era.)

 

[UssGlenn]

There is a huge gap in the registry numbers. Reliant, Lantree, the original Saratoga and Trial all had numbers in the 1800-1900 range. After that the next known examples are in the 21000's, then Sisko's Saratoga, Sitak, Majestic, etc. all come in around 31000.

If you believe that registries are chronological, then maybe they started building Mirandas again 30 or 40 years after originally retired them. At the same time they would've reactivated several that had been mothballed all those years ago (Lantree and Trial appeared in the TNG/DS9 era.)

If we assume that the Miranda class was mothballed in a fleet drawdown per agreement with the Klingons, then it's possible that all the high numbered registries are the old ships re-commissioned and relaunched, with new numbers to get around the agreement. relaunching them as the same ships would breach the treaty but there may be a loophole involving refits of a certain magnitude allowing them to be called new ships.