The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

[Timo]

those who are high ups at Starfleet Command have served on or commanded their own ships

...So they know the perils of perverse attachment to hardware all too well. That's how it works in the real world, too - if there's an emotional compromise brewing, it's time for some weaning action before it's too late.

It just appears utterly ridiculous that the feelings of the former Yorktown CO would enter the picture in any way. He would have been due to leave the ship in X years anyway; getting transferred at a somewhat different date, dictated by higher-ups who don't take requests or listen to complaints, is what you sign up for when you decide that Starfleet is for you.

...Yeah, we could have some sort of an episode where the crew has difficulty adapting when their beloved series-hero CO gets transferred. Like "Chain of Command". But that episode is widely reviled for its portrayal of Riker, Troi and to some degree even Data as disgustingly unprofessional crybabies who bring shame to their organization.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Maurice]

Each of the captains see their vessel as something tangible, almost human and alive.

But due to their profession, they simply have to be capable of transferring their affectations to the next vessel when they themselves get transferred.

Ummm...I think you mean affections, not affectations. The latter would be a weird thing to transfer.

affectation |ˌafekˈtā sh ən|
noun
behavior, speech, or writing that is artificial and designed to impress : the affectation of a man who measures every word for effect | she called the room her boudoir, which he thought an affectation.
• a studied display of real or pretended feeling : an affectation of calm.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin affectatio(n-), from the verb affectare

 

[Dukhat]

I've never believed for a minute that the Enterprise-A and the Yorktown were the same vessel. Star Trek V gives every indication that the Ent-A is a brand-new ship.

The only reason why this debate even exists is because of the Ent-A's decommissioning at the end of Star Trek VI, and why Starfleet would decommission a seemingly brand-new ship after only a few years of service. But there are in fact several reasons:

1. The ship was faulty from the start. If the vessel was found to have a major design flaw after a certain period of time, that would justify a quick decommission.

2. Starfleet's attitude was clearly that the Excelsior class was where it's at, and older vessels could have been decommissioned to be broken up for raw material to build the new ships.

3. Starfleet already had the Enterprise-B under construction and wanted to decommission the older vessel before the new one was completed.

4. To go along with #3, Starfleet could also have recommissioned the Ent-A with another name so as not to step on the toes of its newer namesake, and to still be able to utilize a relatively new ship for some other duty. To me, this seems the most logical idea of what happened to the Ent-A after STVI.

 

[SeerSGB]

Each of the captains see their vessel as something tangible, almost human and alive.

But due to their profession, they simply have to be capable of transferring their affectations to the next vessel when they themselves get transferred.

It cannot be a rare event, and it doesn't seem plausible Starfleet would in any way acknowledge the perverse love its skippers feel towards the government hardware. If anything, any overt expression of such attachment would be followed by disciplinary action, almost certainly beginning with a transfer!

Timo Saloniemi

Um I don't think so since most of those who are high ups at Starfleet Command have served on or commanded their own ships. The Chief Of Starfleet operations gives Sisko special dispensation to change Sao Paulo to Defiant and when Sisko got sentimental about it I didn't see Admiral Ross throwing Sisko into the brig.

Changing Sao Palo's name could have been as much a PR stunt as the "A" in the Enteprise-A registry: The ship had a rep, it survived a lot of shit that put other ships down. The name meant surviving at all costs, the Dominion might be bad ass but we'll keep coming back. Who knows, maybe after the war the ship reverted to Sao Palo (no EU please) and Defiant went on to another ship

 

[Shane Houston]

There is no basis that the Defiant/Sao Paulo's name change was for PR. If you watch the episode you'll see it was to honor the previous ship and her crew. PR doesn't win wars. Sisko would have still won the same way had the name change never taken place.

 

[SeerSGB]

There is no basis that the Defiant/Sao Paulo's name change was for PR. If you watch the episode you'll see it was to honor the previous ship and her crew. PR doesn't win wars. Sisko would have still won the same way had the name change never taken place.

I'd say more than a few propagandist would probably debate you on whether or not PR and morale wins wars.

 

[BK613]

I've never believed for a minute that the Enterprise-A and the Yorktown were the same vessel. Star Trek V gives every indication that the Ent-A is a brand-new ship.

implicit in the ending of TVH as well IMO: "Let's see what she's got!"

The only reason why this debate even exists is because of the Ent-A's decommissioning at the end of Star Trek VI, and why Starfleet would decommission a seemingly brand-new ship after only a few years of service. But there are in fact several reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5. Constitutions, a dated design in the process of being replaced, are retired instead of repaired if they are severely damaged. Remember that Spock intended that Valeris replace him:

"This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me."

So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.

 

[SeerSGB]

I've never believed for a minute that the Enterprise-A and the Yorktown were the same vessel. Star Trek V gives every indication that the Ent-A is a brand-new ship.

implicit in the ending of TVH as well IMO: "Let's see what she's got!"

The only reason why this debate even exists is because of the Ent-A's decommissioning at the end of Star Trek VI, and why Starfleet would decommission a seemingly brand-new ship after only a few years of service. But there are in fact several reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5. Constitutions, a dated design in the process of being replaced, are retired instead of repaired if they are severely damaged. Remember that Spock intended that Valeris replace him:

"This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me."

So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.

Well she was banged up pretty bad. Even if she was fresh off the assembly line, it's likely Starfleet might figure on decommissioning her. Older design, either waste resources on rebuilding her or just shunt that money over to new ship.

Of course that begs the question of whether the 1701-B was always slated to be the 1701-B or was renamed when the name Enterprise opened up.

 

[Dukhat]

5. Constitutions, a dated design in the process of being replaced, are retired instead of repaired if they are severely damaged. Remember that Spock intended that Valeris replace him: "This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me." So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that. The Ent-A was in battle, but it wasn't as if she lost her nacelles or had huge chunks of saucer blown away a la Wolf 359. She was relatively intact and fully functional at the end of the movie. While it's true that Spock and the others clearly were unaware of Starfleet's plans to decommission the ship, I think it's more likely that the politicians simply said, "We're unveiling this new ship soon, so we need the old one out of here."

Of course that begs the question of whether the 1701-B was always slated to be the 1701-B or was renamed when the name Enterprise opened up.

As with the above theory, I think the plan was to always name the new ship Enterprise, thereby necessitating the early decommissioning of the older one.

 

[Uxi]

So it makes sense that the ship was intended to continue beyond the current mission, otherwise Spock's statement is a meaningless gesture. So what changed? Battle damage.

And a treaty. Logically, the treaty was a greater factor than the damage. Even with the hull breach, Enterprise is able to return home under her own power.

 

[Timo]

It should be noted that ST6 does not exactly indicate a change in the ship's status yet. True, Uhura receives a message saying that "they" are to be decommissioned, yet Kirk responds with a log entry that refers to the ongoing mission of this very vessel under future crews.

OTOH, we already knew that "they", as in our heroic officers, were to be retired very soon...

Perhaps Starfleet revokes the commissions of all its retiring officers? Or perhaps revoking of commission was to be punishment for Kirk and his team (although apparently not followed through since the heroes still have their uniforms in ST:GEN).

The decision not to repair the ship would then come later, supporting the theories of political pressure and downplaying those relating to Starfleet's original plans on the ship or the class.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

It should be noted that ST6 does not exactly indicate a change in the ship's status yet. True, Uhura receives a message saying that "they" are to be decommissioned, yet Kirk responds with a log entry that refers to the ongoing mission of this very vessel under future crews.

I recall being very confused about that sequence of events when I first saw ST VI. The decomissioning message seems to come out of nowhere & then Kirk's log entry seems to indicate that he believes that the ship will be passed on to another crew. It is only because of the launch of the 1701-B in Generations that we now assume that the ship was being decomissioned, but it wasn't so clear upon first viewing.

 

[Ronald Held]

Off to the Starfleet museum for the E-A?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Not necessarily. It might have been a much later ship. If it had been the Enterprise-A, I believe Picard would have mentioned that to Scotty.

 

[tighr]

Perhaps Starfleet revokes the commissions of all its retiring officers? Or perhaps revoking of commission was to be punishment for Kirk and his team (although apparently not followed through since the heroes still have their uniforms in ST:GEN).

I don't think that's the case. In ST:TMP, we get McCoy complaining about his "reserve activation clause". He was essentially re-instated at his previous commission.

Also, we see Kirk, Scott, and Chekov in uniform at the beginning of Generations. Presumably that means they haven't been decommissioned, and are still on active service, or maybe in a reserve role.

 

[Timo]

Kirk is definitely retired in ST:GEN, as per Scotty's words. He just gets to keep his uniform, like is the case today in many (most?) militaries.

Scotty is probably retired as well, considering his age and the backstory of "Relics"; Chekov might still be in active service.

Interpreting Uhura's line as referring to the decommissioning of the veterans Kirk, McCoy, Spock and Scotty, rather than to the decommissioning of the ship, would do away with an inconsistency. Although since Uhura says "we", she would then have been facing retirement as well, despite probably being only as old as Sulu who was still going strong.

It might have been a much later ship.

Much earlier, probably - a holo-simulation of a pre-refit, TOS-style bridge was what prompted Picard's mention of the museum ship in "Relics".

The fact that the museum held such a ship need not have come as news to Scotty; the museum ship might have existed for decades before Scotty's retirement. Picard was only mentioning it to explain how he knew about Constitution class ships, not because he thought Scotty would need to know about what ships were in the Starfleet Museum and what were not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

It might have been a much later ship.

Much earlier, probably - a holo-simulation of a pre-refit, TOS-style bridge was what prompted Picard's mention of the museum ship in "Relics".

Not necessarily, because Picard would have still known it was a Constitution-class bridge--regardless of it being original or refit--by both the ship display near the turbolift and, of course, by Scotty being there.

The fact that the museum held such a ship need not have come as news to Scotty; the museum ship might have existed for decades before Scotty's retirement. Picard was only mentioning it to explain how he knew about Constitution class ships, not because he thought Scotty would need to know about what ships were in the Starfleet Museum and what were not.

Or, it was the last of the Constitution-class ships to be retired from active duty and was placed in the Museum after Scotty's disappearance.

 

[Timo]

Picard would have still known it was a Constitution-class bridge--regardless of it being original or refit--by both the ship display near the turbolift and, of course, by Scotty being there.

Quite probably so. But if Picard considered any arbitrary bridge layout "Constitution class", the scene would lose much of its meaning. And so far, visual proof still supports (or allows for) the view that TOS era bridges might have been class-distinct and thus the holo-simulation could have been specific to Constitution, whereas TOS movie era and later bridges have a great variety of arbitrary layouts that tell nothing about class identity.

Or, it was the last of the Constitution-class ships to be retired from active duty and was placed in the Museum after Scotty's disappearance.

I find it difficult to believe that Starfleet would keep any TOS configuration ships in active duty in the 2290s, two decades after the first verified refit of one. This was a time of heightened tensions with the Klingons, so the UFP would be pouring resources into Starfleet - and every ship we saw in the movies (regardless of class) was of the "refit era", without remaining TOS aesthetics to either the exterior or the interior.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Picard would have still known it was a Constitution-class bridge--regardless of it being original or refit--by both the ship display near the turbolift and, of course, by Scotty being there.

Quite probably so. But if Picard considered any arbitrary bridge layout "Constitution class", the scene would lose much of its meaning.

I see no reason to believe that. Picard would have known it was the original Enterprise bridge no matter what simply by Scotty's presence there.

Or, it was the last of the Constitution-class ships to be retired from active duty and was placed in the Museum after Scotty's disappearance.

I find it difficult to believe that Starfleet would keep any TOS configuration ships in active duty in the 2290s, two decades after the first verified refit of one.

Exactly my initial point, they wouldn't, so it would have been a refitted version in the Museum.

 

[Timo]

Picard would then essentially be lying to Scotty. Which is something I could see him doing naturally enough, of course. But if Picard ever revealed that he was equating a Museum specimen of the refitted type with Scotty's painstakingly recreated "original", the engineer would not be pleased in the slightest.

If we take Picard at face value, then he is saying that he is recognizing what he sees because he has seen it before, in the Museum. If he has seen a refitted bridge, then he has not seen what the simulation is now showing him.

Timo Saloniemi