Was there any indication of how long the Enterprise-D mission was supposed to last for? Or was it just open ended until the ship got destroyed or decommissioned or something.
The Mission Length
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
I think it was indefinite, as you say perhaps until the ship needed refitting a la TOS Enterprise or was actually decomissioned. I don't think its unreasonable to say that had the Enterprise - D not met with an unfortunate end in Generations, then Starfleet could have expected to get another 5 years out of her before any serious refitting was required.
I think the original concept called for the E-D to be on a ten-year mission. Such a long-term mission justified the inclusion of the crew's family, supposedly. Why they didn't want to send singles, I don't know.
After the Bandi failed to actually provide a Farpoint base to support the long-range exploration of the E-D, though, the mission seems to have been canceled. Instead, the E-D was obviously roaming around Federation space, with some forays to the borders and beyond occasionally. They made it back to Earth often enough to make me wonder why the crew bothered to keep their kids and family on board.
After the Bandi failed to actually provide a Farpoint base to support the long-range exploration of the E-D, though, the mission seems to have been canceled. Instead, the E-D was obviously roaming around Federation space, with some forays to the borders and beyond occasionally. They made it back to Earth often enough to make me wonder why the crew bothered to keep their kids and family on board.
I always thought the Enterprise should have been more of a deep space exploratory vessel. You know, the type that goes off by itself for long stretches of time in unexplored territories.
But we've seen the ship being used to ferry diplomats and other silly missons. With all the ships in starfleet, you'd think they wouldn't have to keep giving the Enterprise these milk runs.
Sean
But we've seen the ship being used to ferry diplomats and other silly missons. With all the ships in starfleet, you'd think they wouldn't have to keep giving the Enterprise these milk runs.
Sean
I think TNG TM mentions something about Galaxy class being fit for long duration exploration missions, extended voyages out there exploring away.
That accounts for families coming along, the vast size, and the hotel-like qualities.
The ship may be all you have for quite some time, better make it quite livable.
Anyway, what exactly would determine a "mission length"?
A specific assignment or general orders?
Tour of duty under one captain?
It seems USN captains serve only about a year or two at most before someone else takes command.
Why couldn't the Enterprise be given a twenty year mission of exploration, with captains and crews and personnel rotating out as needed (assuming they are within range of a base somewhere)?
That accounts for families coming along, the vast size, and the hotel-like qualities.
The ship may be all you have for quite some time, better make it quite livable.
Anyway, what exactly would determine a "mission length"?
A specific assignment or general orders?
Tour of duty under one captain?
It seems USN captains serve only about a year or two at most before someone else takes command.
Why couldn't the Enterprise be given a twenty year mission of exploration, with captains and crews and personnel rotating out as needed (assuming they are within range of a base somewhere)?
The Tech Manual says the galaxy-class was intedned for 20-year mission spans.
Sort of like how they did the original Enterprise during Kirk's 5-year mission?
A multiyear exploration mission may incorporate hundreds of individual "probes" into unexplored space, but also include other kinds of deep-space missions for the Federation as well--including some that may not be considered exactly glamorous, but are vital nonetheless, IMO.
But the Enterprise-D had families on board, Kirk's ship didn't. That alone told me that the E-D was set up to be a deep space exploratory vessel that could be sent out on its own for extended periods of time. But that's obviously not what happened. What's the point of having a deep space vessel with an experienced captain in command if they were continuously micro-managed from back home?
Sean
Sean
I don't think it's a case of micromanagement at all but more to do with a ship's operational limits. A Galaxy-class ship can probably go on a general deployment (or general mission) lasting 10-15 years at a time, but I very much doubt it can actually go for more than a few years without having to return to a starbase for supplies, repairs, crew rotation, etc. That was definitely the case for both the original Enterprise and the Enterprise-D. As far as the whole family issue on the Enterprise-D is concerned, I think that's only for those personnel who are going to be aboard the vessel for its entire tour of duty, even if the ship itself stays relatively close to Federation space the whole time.
Speak fer yerself.
Truthfully, there's nothing to agree or disagree on. We're both just expressing our opinions on something that is--at best--non-canon, because the mission length of a Galaxy-class ship has never been announced onscreen.
We're all just basically guessing here...
Truthfully, there's nothing to agree or disagree on. We're both just expressing our opinions on something that is--at best--non-canon, because the mission length of a Galaxy-class ship has never been announced onscreen.
We're all just basically guessing here...
And like ah said, speak fer yerself. Ah haven't agreed to anythin'.
It's all just harmless speculation...
It's all just harmless speculation...
When Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek did he intend it to last only five seasons? Wouldn't a mission length in Star Trek: The Next Generation determine the number of seasons the show would run?
I also thought that the emergency saucer separation idea was supposed to safeguard civilians and minors who could potentially be put in harm's way.
Maybe the show would have been different if David Gerrold and DC Fontana had stayed on staff.
I also thought that the emergency saucer separation idea was supposed to safeguard civilians and minors who could potentially be put in harm's way.
Maybe the show would have been different if David Gerrold and DC Fontana had stayed on staff.
And like ah said, speak fer yerself. Ah haven't agreed to anythin'.
It's all just harmless speculation...
By saying this, you are basically saying "We agree to disgree".
Thanks for agreeing with me on this point over and over and over.....
Sean
Except that I didn't.And like ah said, speak fer yerself. Ah haven't agreed to anythin'.
It's all just harmless speculation...
By saying this, you are basically saying "We agree to disgree".
You're thanking someone other than me, I guess.Thanks for agreeing with me on this point over and over and over.....
I don't agree to disagree--primarily because there was nothing to disagree on in the first place. No right or wrong answer here. No onscreen evidence. Nothing to officially support either viewpoint. It's conjecture. Can't really agree or disagree on stuff like that, IMO.
But...I do think this conversation has now run its course.
Will you agree on that?
The Titan novel Orion's Hounds has Riker musing about how he's fifteen years late to explore this section of the galaxy and there was supposed to be a long-term exploratory mission for the Enterprise-D, but that the ship got called back further and further into the heart of the Federation (Check on the SS I-can't-spell-it, the plague on Styris IV, the Ferengi's theft of the power converter, etc) and the original mission was scrubbed.
Similar threads
