^ For all we know, the ENT-A did gallivant around the galaxy with a new crew for a year ago and was blown up or decommissioned some time before the launch of the B. And I'm not sure if the year's gap you mention is set in stone.
The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
Or maybe not. The interval between Star Treks VI and VII is unknown. The decommissioning of the Enterprise-A and launch of the Enterprise-B could very well have been in the same year, only months apart.
^Agreed.
I'd have to say that when I first saw GEN, I did think it a bit odd that they'd be launching a new ENT when the ENT-A didn't really seem to be particularly old and was last being seen handed over to a new crew. But ultimately, the time gap between TUC and GEN is unknown, as are the reasons for the (apparent) decommissioning of the A and the launch of the B.
I just think that while there's an ambiguity, it should be resolved in favour of what's onscreen and we should assume that there's a simple explanation that means that what appeared onscreen makes sense. For me, there's nothing that's been said or shown onscreen that rules out the premise I've suggested.
I'd have to say that when I first saw GEN, I did think it a bit odd that they'd be launching a new ENT when the ENT-A didn't really seem to be particularly old and was last being seen handed over to a new crew. But ultimately, the time gap between TUC and GEN is unknown, as are the reasons for the (apparent) decommissioning of the A and the launch of the B.
I just think that while there's an ambiguity, it should be resolved in favour of what's onscreen and we should assume that there's a simple explanation that means that what appeared onscreen makes sense. For me, there's nothing that's been said or shown onscreen that rules out the premise I've suggested.
^^^
It just means it's not the only premise available.
From onscren material we can gather that the Enterprise-B was launched in 2293 (the once every 39 years appearance of the Nexus would match up perfectly with Picard and the gang 78 years later in 2371). McCoy's statement that he'd been CMO of the Enterprise for 27 years would also make Star Trek VI being in 2293 fit nicely too since it would make his start in 2266, so that's another possibility.
It just means it's not the only premise available.
From onscren material we can gather that the Enterprise-B was launched in 2293 (the once every 39 years appearance of the Nexus would match up perfectly with Picard and the gang 78 years later in 2371). McCoy's statement that he'd been CMO of the Enterprise for 27 years would also make Star Trek VI being in 2293 fit nicely too since it would make his start in 2266, so that's another possibility.
^Nope, it's not the only premise. There are many which people can go for and, again, there's nothing concrete to rule most of them in or out. Really, I think it's a matter of whatever works for each viewer.
In a nutshell, yes.
I guess that is a good point, regarding the service life of the Enterprise A after STVI. There is no established time line between STVI and STVII. I think some things that would influence the Enterprise A's life span would be:
What was the stipulations in the the Khitomer accords, regarding ship building. Now for me I think the notion that Starfleet decommissioned all the constitution class star ships is total crap. Starfleet did not consider them "battlecrusiers" the Klingons did but their a war like race. Besides we see D-7/Kitinga class crusiers in the TNG. So what kind of deal was that? We have to give up ours but you can keep yours???
Nope really I see the Connies just being destroyed or slowly decommissioned as the front line ship as the Excelsior class replaced them as the "starship" class. So the A could have served on. Perhaps when the Ent B was commission they renamed the Ent A again?? Why not? Might have even gone back to its original name.
What was the stipulations in the the Khitomer accords, regarding ship building. Now for me I think the notion that Starfleet decommissioned all the constitution class star ships is total crap. Starfleet did not consider them "battlecrusiers" the Klingons did but their a war like race. Besides we see D-7/Kitinga class crusiers in the TNG. So what kind of deal was that? We have to give up ours but you can keep yours???
Nope really I see the Connies just being destroyed or slowly decommissioned as the front line ship as the Excelsior class replaced them as the "starship" class. So the A could have served on. Perhaps when the Ent B was commission they renamed the Ent A again?? Why not? Might have even gone back to its original name.
Well we know the Federation gave up the right to pursue cloaking technology from TNG for peace with Romulans. They aren't the brightest bunch when negotiating treaties.
Well to be fair cloak technology has huge draw backs so its not like they gave up this plum tech that changes the balance of power? But that is a fair point its amazing that no one has just walked in to the Federation considering if that is true, the federation gave up battle cruisers and cloaking tech? How are they even formidable? Its like the Klingons and Romulans are just to internally stupid and weak to take advantage.
But it represents a formidable first strike weapon. You could sneak up on an opponent and reduce their home world to molten lava before they knew what hit them. So, if you have the technology, other powers would have to commit additional resources to vital areas to prevent such an attack.
A Klingon Bird-of-Prey sat right on the doorstep of Romulus for several days without being detected in Unification.
One might argue this is an excellent reason to give up cloaking: it's a strategic weapon of immense deterrence, so great in fact that anybody judged insane enough to use it must be treated with velvet gloves. After all, its deterrence value lies solely in strategic bombing of soft targets, while it is not very effective in ship-to-ship fighting. Anybody possessing a cloak and threatening you with it is thus directly threatening your helpless civilians with it. The only way to counter that is to threaten back - and if you aren't ready to bomb the opposition's helpless civilians, that doesn't work - or sidestep by appeasing and then indeed concentrate all resources on anti-cloak defenses.
Doesn't mean Starfleet wouldn't unilaterally retain the right to operate individual cloakships for spying purposes. They just won't tell the Romulans, and both sides win.
...Although how much of that happened because Pardek and Neral allowed it to happen, we don't really know.
Timo Saloniemi
Doesn't mean Starfleet wouldn't unilaterally retain the right to operate individual cloakships for spying purposes. They just won't tell the Romulans, and both sides win.
...Although how much of that happened because Pardek and Neral allowed it to happen, we don't really know.
Timo Saloniemi
Becaus you give up cloaking ships does not mean you do not research the ability to detect them, so the ability to use them in an emergency.
...And if you give up something under blackmail, you can then counter-blackmail by threatening to return to your old ways if the balance of power shifts. We don't know what the Romulans threatened the Feds with in order to get them to drop cloaks - but after the Romulans get used to there being no cloak threat from the UFP, Starfleet could threaten the now complacent Romulans with a readopting of cloaks!
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Excellent point. The Feddies did have their tachyon detection grid that could detect the Romulans coming so the first strike potential was reduced dramatically.
If you plan on spreading it over thousands of light years...
Decker tells Kirk that he hasn't logged a star hour in two and a half years and Scotty said the refit took eighteen months. So there's about a year gap there where someone else could've been in command.
