The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
Yup. Haters exist even in the 23rd-Century...
Which is better from a public POV, giving Kirk and crew a ship of the same class, Constellation or Excelsior class?
Probably the Connie, since that's the one he's been associated with his whole career.
I'm on board with the Yorktown being renamed as Enterprise-A following a refit. As has been pointed out, it's happened canonically with the Sao Paulo, so I am willing to believe that it could happen off-screen with the Enterprise. It could also have been any other Constitution class ship. I simply don't think they would have given him a brand new Constitution, even if they thought he deserved a brand new ship (which he didn't).
That being said, by renaming the Yorktown to Enterprise-A, they're effectively killing the Yorktown. As we know, it later gets new ships as well. There is at least one Yorktown in 2293, because Tuvok's father serves aboard it. Other than the Enterprise and the Yamato, I don't know of any other ships that have letters after their registry (including the Defiant).
Meanwhile, I was flipping through Memory-Alpha to reacquaint myself with the time period, and I was shocked to realize that there is essentially zero time lapse after the events of ST:VI and the events of ST: Generations. Both take place in 2293, so it would stand to reason that the Enterpise-A was indeed decomissioned that year to make way for the Enterprise-B.
That being said, by renaming the Yorktown to Enterprise-A, they're effectively killing the Yorktown. As we know, it later gets new ships as well. There is at least one Yorktown in 2293, because Tuvok's father serves aboard it. Other than the Enterprise and the Yamato, I don't know of any other ships that have letters after their registry (including the Defiant).
Meanwhile, I was flipping through Memory-Alpha to reacquaint myself with the time period, and I was shocked to realize that there is essentially zero time lapse after the events of ST:VI and the events of ST: Generations. Both take place in 2293, so it would stand to reason that the Enterpise-A was indeed decomissioned that year to make way for the Enterprise-B.
IMO, is a refit or new build and not the Yorktown. Makes more sense time-wise if the construction was already underway when the whale probe arrives.
Also, don't know if someone has mentioned it but it might not have been Starfleet that decided to rename the ship. Could have been the Federation Council that made the call. I like to think that the FC legislated in perpetuum the whole Enterprise is NCC-1701-x thing as part of the "punitive reward" the crew gets. And so Starfleet can never change the association.
Also, don't know if someone has mentioned it but it might not have been Starfleet that decided to rename the ship. Could have been the Federation Council that made the call. I like to think that the FC legislated in perpetuum the whole Enterprise is NCC-1701-x thing as part of the "punitive reward" the crew gets. And so Starfleet can never change the association.
That's pretty much my take on it too.
I'm totally with you. Until I read posts on this thread, the idea of them being fobbed off or punished never ever dawned on me in 26 years of seeing this movie on and off.
STIV is a feelgood movie and my take on the end was that we were seeing the crew getting their reward, that we were going to see them back out having adventures in the flagship where they belong. To my mind, the idea that they're being given a hand-me-down as a PR exercise is totally at odds with the cheerful, almost triumphant ending of the movie. It's like 'here's the bad news Kirk, you're being demoted. Now here's the good news....' The 'demotion' is really a blessing in disguise, returning him to his rightful destiny.
I never got the idea that the ship he was given was a second piece of bad news. His last line is 'We've come home', for goodness' sake.
I also don't get this "wanted to get Kirk out of their hair" attitude. He was never that much of a pain in the ass and the only big thing he did to piss them off was in Star Trek III. Otherwise, he was a hero of the Federation, over and over. In Star Trek IV they cleared him and gave him back the life he craved with the crew he wanted (I imagine a few of them would have retired if not assigned back on the Enterprise). That's no punishment.
I think a lot of this attitude comes from the DC comics series of the time. They kinda made Kirk something of a thorn in the side of the brass, but the films didn't.
The Enterprise A was a dud because it was "funny." Or, because they slapped the ship together so fast they didn't get anything right. Was an old ship? If it was, the controls were more advanced than before, with the touch screens and stuff.
I think a lot of this attitude comes from the DC comics series of the time. They kinda made Kirk something of a thorn in the side of the brass, but the films didn't.
The Enterprise A was a dud because it was "funny." Or, because they slapped the ship together so fast they didn't get anything right. Was an old ship? If it was, the controls were more advanced than before, with the touch screens and stuff.
The DC comics were really reflecting the way Kirk was being depicted in the films. But more than anything, it seemed as if whenever there was something big going on, Kirk was involved in it somehow.
A recently refitted ship would explain that. But then some old-fashioned controls were back in place for the Enterprise-A in Star Trek VI, go fig.
It was a win win situation for the Federation.
1.>From a diplomatic point of the view, they could say to the Klingons we punished Kirk for voilating orders.
2.>From a Federation PR point of view they have the person who saved Earth not once but twice in command of a starship
3.>Kirk was happy he was back where he wanted to be in the centre seat. Scotty was Chief Engineer of the Enterrpise again.
Every one was a winner, except maybe the Klingons who might not have liked the punishment. After all they had no legal leg to stand on so to speak. Their vessel did voilate the Neutral Zone (a possible act of war), their vessel did fire upon a Federation vessel (another act of war), it's crew did murder Federation citizens etc...
Though the Klingon Ambassador did have to eat his words a few years later. "There can be no peace as long as Kirk lives"
1.>From a diplomatic point of the view, they could say to the Klingons we punished Kirk for voilating orders.
2.>From a Federation PR point of view they have the person who saved Earth not once but twice in command of a starship
3.>Kirk was happy he was back where he wanted to be in the centre seat. Scotty was Chief Engineer of the Enterrpise again.
Every one was a winner, except maybe the Klingons who might not have liked the punishment. After all they had no legal leg to stand on so to speak. Their vessel did voilate the Neutral Zone (a possible act of war), their vessel did fire upon a Federation vessel (another act of war), it's crew did murder Federation citizens etc...
Though the Klingon Ambassador did have to eat his words a few years later. "There can be no peace as long as Kirk lives"
One wonders how this one works. If Genesis / Mutara was neutral space, and Klingons were spotted there, and it stood to reason that in order to get there they had to take their armed vessel through the Klingon Neutral Zone and thus violate its neutrality, but nobody saw the Klingons at the KNZ... Would the Feds have a legal leg to stand on?
Depending on what Maltz confessed to, the Klingons could claim that all they did was in self-defense. Kirk verifiably fired first, after all, and Saavik didn't see what happened to the Grissom.
Saavik did see that one stabbing. Then again, Kirk killed two Klingons on the planet, and blew up plenty more in apparent violation of rules of war (using surrender as a ploy is definitely something that gives the opponent moral and arguably legal justification for forgetting about the rules, too).
Not that Klingon law would have a priori objections to killings of that sort. But we're not talking about law as a neutral entity, but specifically as a tool of politics.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, real world, I'm sure the producers intended it to be a new ship. But they went with the refit Constitution because (a) it would be instantly recognizable as the Enterprise to the moviegoing public and (b) they didn't have to spend a boatload of cash to build a new model for what was a two minute scene at the end of a movie. Therefore, since I assume that's what was intended real world, I prefer to think that in-universe it is a brand new ship as well.
So your idea has it as a testbed vessel (the Ti-Ho) prior to be renaming Enterprise? I could buy into that.
So your idea has it as a testbed vessel (the Ti-Ho) prior to be renaming Enterprise? I could buy into that.
Still doesn't explain why StarFleet would give such a ship to a proven commander of one. No matter if you have the best engineer or crew. I mean what would happen in a combat situation if the ship went into catastrophic failure because it was a "testbed" vehicle? BBOOOOMM, there goes your most competent Starship Captain...
So your idea has it as a testbed vessel (the Ti-Ho) prior to be renaming Enterprise? I could buy into that.
Still doesn't explain why StarFleet would give such a ship to a proven commander of one. No matter if you have the best engineer or crew. I mean what would happen in a combat situation if the ship went into catastrophic failure because it was a "testbed" vehicle? BBOOOOMM, there goes your most competent Starship Captain...
Probably because of two things: they probably don't have active starships floating around without command crews already in place and, like it or not, Jim Kirk and most of his senior staff were on the backside of their careers. Starfleet no longer saw them as front line warriors anymore.
The way The Undiscovered Country plays, it seems like they are already in semi-retirement. And who knows how long that's been the case?
Last edited:
That sounds similar to the Mr Scotts Guide where the name Ti-Ho came from. In the book the ship which was renamed Enterprise was a test bed for a Transwarp Drive system along side the Excelsior, the explanation being two competing companies were working on the project one of which was the manufacturer of the Constitution nacelles.
I can buy the idea that this could be a new ship built to test new technology in a proven space frame before being installed in newer classes, whether that include a Transwarp or a new Warp Drive system. That could attribute to some of the issues she had leading into STV.
I can buy the idea that this could be a new ship built to test new technology in a proven space frame before being installed in newer classes, whether that include a Transwarp or a new Warp Drive system. That could attribute to some of the issues she had leading into STV.
So your idea has it as a testbed vessel (the Ti-Ho) prior to be renaming Enterprise? I could buy into that.
Still doesn't explain why StarFleet would give such a ship to a proven commander of one. No matter if you have the best engineer or crew. I mean what would happen in a combat situation if the ship went into catastrophic failure because it was a "testbed" vehicle? BBOOOOMM, there goes your most competent Starship Captain...
But it might explain why the ship was decomissioned so quickly, prototypes are usually build without much standard equipment so maintenance and the like would be more expensive for such a ship than for a standard model..
