I realise this has probably been discussed before, but I've heard it said that the Constitution class starship that's under contruction at the Riverside Shipyards in 2255 is intended to be the Enterprise, and there's supposedly a signpost somewhere in those scenes that confirms this. This is only my opinion, but I don't think that is very likely. The Enterprise was launched in 2258, meaning it took four years to finish building it, but it seems to me from other Trek sources that starship construction generally takes less time than that; the Enterprise-A of the original timeline was decommissioned in 2293, and the Enterprise-B was ready to launch later that same year (according to the official chronology, that is). And when plans for the Columbia in ENT were approved, construction only took, what, a year? So with this in mind, I believe that the vessel seen in '55 was not the Enterprise but rather one of her predeccesors. Just seems more reasonable to me.
The Constitution class ship in Iowa
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
According to screen caps posted in another thread, it was indeed the Enterprise as 1701 is visible.
Does building starships on the ground make a lot of sense? Does cadet to captain in a few days make a lot of sense? Did most of the movie make a lot of logical sense? LOL! There are lots of inconsistencies but I had forgotten about this one. No wonder starfleet's strength is so severely reduced after a loss of seven ships if it takes 4 years to build a ship!
Maybe it does; it could have been in space for a while on shakedown cruises or some excuse. Everything worked extremely well on the Vulcan trip -- unlike the NX-01 for example, which was definitely not ready for prime time for quite a while. And no telling how much new stuff they had on the 1701 to work bugs out.
Plus the six-month electricians strike of 2256 really through production behind schedule. Combine that with the coup on Rigel VII a few weeks later, which delayed delivery of vital metal alloys, and it could take four years to build the ship. See? Sometimes you just have to fill in the blanks.
I like this one; it makes good sense to a Chicagoan.
You're assuming that construction on the ENT-B didn't start until the A was decommissioned.
The long held figures are that the 1701 took four years to build and the ENT-D took twenty years. Though, I don't recall where those figures originally came from.
It's incidental, though, as the new 1701 is larger and more complex than the original ever was. I think it's unrealistic for that ship to have been built in only four years.
It still takes roughly four years to build an aircraft carrier, and that's taking into account fifty years of technological improvements since World War II. I think even with Federation technology, some things can't just be slapped together unless we're talking about a kitbash from existing vessel parts. To me, three or four years is about the right length of time for a brand-new Constitution-class ship from the keel up.
In regards to the Galaxy Class Project timeline in the TNG Tech Manual, part of that 20-year period included seven years of research and development before the first spaceframe segments were even put together on the Enterprise-D. There was also a number of design modifications and inescapable trial & error along the way that added to the delay. It's conceivable, though, that after the construction of Galaxy, Yamato, and Enterprise-D, later Galaxy-class ships were built in a fraction of the time as the design problems had all been worked out by then.
In regards to the Galaxy Class Project timeline in the TNG Tech Manual, part of that 20-year period included seven years of research and development before the first spaceframe segments were even put together on the Enterprise-D. There was also a number of design modifications and inescapable trial & error along the way that added to the delay. It's conceivable, though, that after the construction of Galaxy, Yamato, and Enterprise-D, later Galaxy-class ships were built in a fraction of the time as the design problems had all been worked out by then.
It's probably the same reason why it took over a decade longer to commission the 1701 in the Abramsverse than it's Prime universe counterpart. Like the Galaxy class, the Abramsverse Constitution class probably required more R&D and time to get technical issues worked out. The Abramsverse 1701 probably isn't much newer than the class ship USS Constitution either.
I personally had found that whole bit a bit of a stretch, it just so happens that it's the Enterprise of all ships being constructed in Riverside, Iowa. I had always assumed they were built in space, for a wide range of reasons, mostly from the onscreen evidence that ships were done as such, and the massive amounts of energy it must take to break the atmosphere from the ground. Most people I know seem ready to accept this, saying that the original plaque said San Francisco, therefor it could have been built on the ground in San Francisco. As for construction times, they never really said how long they take but I would imagine the larger ships take a few years, mostly from a common sense standpoint, and the evidence seen on screen (otherwise, would the Dominion War really have been that much of an issue?). As for Columbia NX-02, I think it took around two years or so, as it was pretty far into construction when Archer saw it in...March of 2153, but I could be wrong. Enterprise NX-01 took from 2149-April 2151 when it was launched and wasn't totally done yet, so that's about two to three years, depending (dialogue suggest that the ship had some trial runs prior to it's commissioning). Anyway, my whole thought was that it probably started earlier then 2255, or what we saw was just the space frame and the outer shell and the rest took until 2258 when an official comissioning was apparently pretty close (Pike's words about that being a reward for a safe return). On the other hand, considering the stuff Starfleet and the Federation can do technological wide I can see why some might think it's a streatch that, especially by the 24th century, would take a very long time. I think it does however, considering the heavy losses they take on from the Borg and the wars that followed, and the fact older ships were seen in service still. The Enterprise-D I believe was meant to have a long, drawn out design and construction history, but evidence seen onscreen in TNG suggest otherwise as final components were apparently designed and constructed a year prior to launch.
I've kind of gone on a rant here, oops...
I've kind of gone on a rant here, oops...
I have to admit, I'm not a Chicagoan, although I hear I'm eligible for grandfathering in due to being here 15 years now.
But I don't feel like one; I just note in current events that McCormick Place is losing big trade shows at the rate of about one a week to states with right-to-work laws.
But I don't feel like one; I just note in current events that McCormick Place is losing big trade shows at the rate of about one a week to states with right-to-work laws.
Part of the problem is that the naval construction timelines were made with Microsoft Project 2249. Riverside being a new shipyard, their computers were pre-loaded with Microsoft Project 2253. Unfortunately, some backwards compatibility issues had to be handled by the Daystrom Institute, which took some time.
...and we all know how many problems Vista Project 2253 had! I am still using MicroSoft XP Project 2249 which has fewer problems.
You're talking about technology capable of bending space-time to enable faster-than-light travel and of dampening inertia itself in order to keep crews from being flattened like pancakes every time they go to impulse. There's nothing particularly implausible or irrational about building starships on planetary surfaces when they have command of such powerful forces.
Actually, previous canonical sources have indicated that it can take much more than four years to build a ship -- the Galaxy class was implied to have taken over ten years to build.
The power of coincidence is a long-established literary tradition, and there's nothing wrong with ST09 continuing it.
