I think it's really something that could go either way. Both ideas are plausible, so it's a "which theory do you prefer?" kind of thing, IMO.
The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
JudgeDredd
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Since I've had Kirk's final log entry memorized since 1991, let's see what it suggests about the E-A:
"Captain's log, 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 do we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun, and journey to all the 'undiscovered countries,' boldly going where no man-where no one-has gone before."
I think the issue of the ship's decommissioning stems from one poorly-written segment of an otherwise beautiful bit of writing. "This ship" was likely intended to refer to the legacy of the Enterprise name, not the E-A herself. Even if there was no buzz or indication that there would be an Enterprise-B, Kirk would have known (and anyone else for that matter) that the addition of a suffix meant that there would likely be more ships named Enterprise.
"This ship, and her history" could have been better rendered with something along the lines of "The legacy of the Starship Enterprise will shortly become the care of another crew." This would avoid singling out the E-A in particular and suggest what was intended with TUC, namely, passing the baton; this is most obvious is the line "where no man-where no one-has gone before," i.e., the TNG wording of the Starfleet Charter.
I take this minor problem of association to be at the heart of this argument. I also think the Enterprise-A was in fact a brand new ship though with a different name. She hadn't launched yet and was given the new commission of Enterprise 1701-A.
I also don't think she was either recommissioned for further use after repairs OR put in a Starfleet Museum to make way for the "next generation."
And let's get one thing straight: Captain James T. Kirk was a hero, along with his crew. If anyone at Starfleet hated/disliked him as much as some seem to indicate in this thread, then they were just jealous losers who wanted the glory for themselves.
I prefer to think they were seen as legends. The E-A was a gift, albeit one that had all the problems of a brand-new vessel with experimental tech (going on the Guide to the Enterprise) and was in no way a "punishment."
And it's clear to everyone assembled at the end of Star Trek IV that demoting Kirk was an honor and a reward, not a punishment.
Finally, I think Kirk and Co. went on various missions aboard the E-A, but were also doing other things as well. Kirk did bring a bag to his quarters, indicating he didn't live aboard the ship. However, I think Spock did spend a lot of time there, maybe even live there, going by the painting in his quarters and other decor.
"Captain's log, 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 do we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun, and journey to all the 'undiscovered countries,' boldly going where no man-where no one-has gone before."
I think the issue of the ship's decommissioning stems from one poorly-written segment of an otherwise beautiful bit of writing. "This ship" was likely intended to refer to the legacy of the Enterprise name, not the E-A herself. Even if there was no buzz or indication that there would be an Enterprise-B, Kirk would have known (and anyone else for that matter) that the addition of a suffix meant that there would likely be more ships named Enterprise.
"This ship, and her history" could have been better rendered with something along the lines of "The legacy of the Starship Enterprise will shortly become the care of another crew." This would avoid singling out the E-A in particular and suggest what was intended with TUC, namely, passing the baton; this is most obvious is the line "where no man-where no one-has gone before," i.e., the TNG wording of the Starfleet Charter.
I take this minor problem of association to be at the heart of this argument. I also think the Enterprise-A was in fact a brand new ship though with a different name. She hadn't launched yet and was given the new commission of Enterprise 1701-A.
I also don't think she was either recommissioned for further use after repairs OR put in a Starfleet Museum to make way for the "next generation."
And let's get one thing straight: Captain James T. Kirk was a hero, along with his crew. If anyone at Starfleet hated/disliked him as much as some seem to indicate in this thread, then they were just jealous losers who wanted the glory for themselves.
I prefer to think they were seen as legends. The E-A was a gift, albeit one that had all the problems of a brand-new vessel with experimental tech (going on the Guide to the Enterprise) and was in no way a "punishment."
And it's clear to everyone assembled at the end of Star Trek IV that demoting Kirk was an honor and a reward, not a punishment.
Finally, I think Kirk and Co. went on various missions aboard the E-A, but were also doing other things as well. Kirk did bring a bag to his quarters, indicating he didn't live aboard the ship. However, I think Spock did spend a lot of time there, maybe even live there, going by the painting in his quarters and other decor.
If anything, they were giving Kirk what he'd really wanted for years--command of a starship again. Roddenberry's novelization of TMP even suggested that Kirk didn't really want a promotion to the admiralty in the first place. In TWOK, Spock flat-out told Kirk that it hadn't been a good move for him:
SPOCK: If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first best destiny. Anything else is a waste of material.
SPOCK: If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first best destiny. Anything else is a waste of material.
Last edited:
This is why I never liked the Enterprise A. I LOVE the NCC-1701, greatest ship of all times, and I have no issues with Starfleet naming other ships after her. But what is the chances of Starfleet naming a ship in the same class after her? Its like a guy losing his wife and marrying someone that looks just like her and forcing her to change her name.
The Enterprise was destroyed saving the crews lives. Honoring it is about moving forward not trying to give us a campy ending to STIV. I wonder what Kirk would have really said seeing the E-A? Now one cavot to this would be what was the service life of the Connie class after STVI, now this would be hard since the treaty may have ended their life span earlier then expected, but that may not be true since the D-7 is seen in TNG.
For one thing, its considered bad luck to rename a ship so if its the Ti Ho or the Yorktown, its just a bad idea, hence ST V. Two, the E-A should have been a Excelsior class. It does just seem that the E-A was about giving Kirk what they thought he wanted. But really Kirk is a CAPTAIN he did not want a token Enterprise, hence his getting the E-A in to some adventures, one being worth seeing
The Enterprise was destroyed saving the crews lives. Honoring it is about moving forward not trying to give us a campy ending to STIV. I wonder what Kirk would have really said seeing the E-A? Now one cavot to this would be what was the service life of the Connie class after STVI, now this would be hard since the treaty may have ended their life span earlier then expected, but that may not be true since the D-7 is seen in TNG.
For one thing, its considered bad luck to rename a ship so if its the Ti Ho or the Yorktown, its just a bad idea, hence ST V. Two, the E-A should have been a Excelsior class. It does just seem that the E-A was about giving Kirk what they thought he wanted. But really Kirk is a CAPTAIN he did not want a token Enterprise, hence his getting the E-A in to some adventures, one being worth seeing
Umm, no. It's a time-honored custom to rename ships, especially warships that change ownership. You just have to do a silly little ceremony to appease the gods of the sea, if you're into that stuff.
Or what he deserved. They did give him a ship of somewhat aged type that wasn't working properly and got decommissioned half a decade later. And then they gave him an assured-failure mission to perform with her, in ST5:TFF. And after he succeeded against odds, they gave him another assured-failure mission, in ST:TUC, hoping that he'd die and/or ignite a war. And then it turned out that the ship would be decommissioned, after barely half a decade of service.
Those are the apparent facts; whether they should be interpreted as Starfleet really liking Kirk or Starfleet really hating Kirk is for everybody to personally decide...
Timo Saloniemi
Indeed. Why not? Unless the intent was to see Kirk fail. Everybody else appeared to send ships or people there specifically to fail...
This Admiral "Bob" seemed to be sympathetic to Kirk, but the decision to send him to the doomed mission in a doomed ship was probably out of Bob's hands.
Timo Saloniemi
This Admiral "Bob" seemed to be sympathetic to Kirk, but the decision to send him to the doomed mission in a doomed ship was probably out of Bob's hands.
Timo Saloniemi
There are those who feel it's bad luck to rename a ship, even though it happens all the time. The escort carrier USS Midway had its name changed to USS St. Lo in early October 1944 and then became the first ship sunk by a kamikaze plane just a couple of weeks later.
Then again, the Deutschland was renamed the Lützow and fared significantly better than the rest of the German surface navy in WWII.
Perhaps more relevantly, she was given a "working name" before completion, a custom observed in many navies. Just like she was "Preussen" before becoming Deutschland, the Enterprise could have been anything from an uncompleted Ti-Ho to a barely commissioned Insufferable to an already serving Yorktown.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps more relevantly, she was given a "working name" before completion, a custom observed in many navies. Just like she was "Preussen" before becoming Deutschland, the Enterprise could have been anything from an uncompleted Ti-Ho to a barely commissioned Insufferable to an already serving Yorktown.
Timo Saloniemi
Well the renaming is a matter of opinion. One does have to wonder, I mean even Kirk's logbook broke? I mean how do you screw that up?
It just seems that, if they really wanted to honor Kirk they would have given him command of the Excelsior. The future of the Federation commanded by their greatest hero. If they really wanted to rename a ship that would have been the one to rename.
It just seems that, if they really wanted to honor Kirk they would have given him command of the Excelsior. The future of the Federation commanded by their greatest hero. If they really wanted to rename a ship that would have been the one to rename.
...Whereas renaming a surplus older cruiser is a win-win situation if we make the assumption that Starfleet wanted to punish Kirk but was told to reward him instead. It looks like a reward to the rest of the Federation, and Kirk himself might need some time to realize he has actually been insulted, but the end result would be Starfleet sidelining Kirk and preventing him from making much of an impact on anything, what with his substandard hardware and a string of hopeless missions.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
That is an interesting point. I always wondered how much Star fleet really appreciated Kirk. I mean if you reward him, its like giving a green light to officers to disobey orders. He stole a command cruiser. Yes he did save Earth but demoting him down was not really punishment, He wanted to be a Captain. He reluctantly accepted promotion in the first place.
It seems they are in a pickle, you want to reward him for his service but at the same time let people know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
It seems they are in a pickle, you want to reward him for his service but at the same time let people know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
I made it to page 8, and need to get back to work so I dont know if anyone on the latter pages brought this point up or not yet. But, I always thought it went something like this:
"We have high hopes, that if this is successful, it will generate enough power to keep us alive".
From TVH, after Cartwright hails the Yorktown.
Why is everyone so worried about the captain and crew of the Yorktown losing their ship to Kirk when its entirely possible they lost their lives to the probe?
Suddenly, Starfleet has a damaged, yet salvable ship with no crew to man her -- and the crew of the Enterprise just happens to deserve a ship. Rename her Enterprise, fix what appears to be broken (which, didn't happen obviously), and send them on their merry way.
I mean its kind of morbid, but it works....
"We have high hopes, that if this is successful, it will generate enough power to keep us alive".
From TVH, after Cartwright hails the Yorktown.
Why is everyone so worried about the captain and crew of the Yorktown losing their ship to Kirk when its entirely possible they lost their lives to the probe?
Suddenly, Starfleet has a damaged, yet salvable ship with no crew to man her -- and the crew of the Enterprise just happens to deserve a ship. Rename her Enterprise, fix what appears to be broken (which, didn't happen obviously), and send them on their merry way.
I mean its kind of morbid, but it works....
I suppose one could chalk up all of the technical problems plaguing the ship in STV to be the restless spirits of the deceased Yorktown crew. Starfleet may have been forced to retire the ship, not because of age or damage, but due to the fact that everyone was too scared to serve aboard her.
Last edited:
A thought... there are probably a few admirals that are mad at Jim. They wanted revenge. They got it. 
i always subscribed to the yorktown theory. yes its a little grim that the crew might have perished and they are getting a ghost ship, but it can explain a great multitude of things in the next few movies:
the pristine condition of the bridge at the end of TVH = starfleet gave it a good scrubbing after the events of the probe crisis and yorktown crews demise.
the problems in TFF = issues with equipment failing because of the probe and/or yorktown's crew doing whatever they can to survive
the retirement of the enterprise at the end of TUC = its an old and now severely damaged ship
granted nothing backs up this theory, but it plausible.
the pristine condition of the bridge at the end of TVH = starfleet gave it a good scrubbing after the events of the probe crisis and yorktown crews demise.
the problems in TFF = issues with equipment failing because of the probe and/or yorktown's crew doing whatever they can to survive
the retirement of the enterprise at the end of TUC = its an old and now severely damaged ship
granted nothing backs up this theory, but it plausible.
