Was NCC-1701 active for 40 years?

[Dukhat]

Fact is that the ship sustained heavy damage in the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and next (the VFX model) underwent some noticable design changes, thus I never really dismissed the possibility that the "new" Enterprise seen in "The Corbomite Maneuver" could have been a new ship.

From a retroactive point of view that could explain Admiral Morrow's "20 years old" remark in ST III (though I still think that was a stupid line. Khan had severely damaged the Enterprise in TWOK, so if Harve Bennett wanted a plausible reason to have her decommissioned he should have better taken another look at the previous film...)

So you're implying that the ship we saw in the pilot and the ship we saw in "TCM" were two different ships, just to justify Morrow's retarded remark? Interesting theory, but I agree that it was just a stupid thing to say when other reasons for the decommission were prevalent (the damage, the fact that the Excelsior type was the new thing, etc.)

Personally, I go with the Enterprise-B was around the longest, about 50 years, and had several different captains and crews during her time.

That would actually make a lot of sense, seeing as how other ships like the Hood, Intrepid, Lexington and Potemkin (probably contemporaries to the Ent-B) were still active by TNG.

Whilst it is possible the Ent-B was around for 50 years. I don't think that's likely for the following reason. We know it's commissioning date is ~2293. The Ent-C had a date of loss circa 2344. Now of course it is possible the Ent-C was only around for a year.

Going along with C.E. Evans's idea, that would give a "Babylon 4" vibe to the situation; that is, that the Ent-C was a brand-new ship that mysteriously disappeared. Unfortunately the episode never really gave that impression.

And yeah, I hated that decision also, but it was easily fixed. The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".

They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.

See, I don't quite buy the rumor that the ship wasn't good enough for filming. What did the Enterprise-E model do in FC that the Ent-D couldn't have done? And by INS and Nemesis, the physical model had been replaced with CGI, so that became a non-issue. No, I think they just wanted a new ship for the sake of having a new ship. Which I suppose was a given after GEN, but then it kinda became silly that the entire bridge crew was still serving on the same ship for the next three movies.

I thought that was the one before, not after the "D".

Sorry, have to disagree with you there. The NX-01 is hands-down the worst Enterprise.

 

[SeerSGB]

The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".

They actually did, not knowing what the producers had in mind for Star Trek VIII at the time.
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/_...en/images/9/98/Enterprise-E,_galaxy_class.jpg

What was that supposed to be for?

IRC, it for the sequel to Generations (what become First Contact). It was assumed that the studio would just order them to relabel and reuse the Enterprise D models. Turns out the TPTB ordered a whole new Enterprise be built.

 

[Maurice]

They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.

Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff? Did Andy Probert say the ship was designed for TV aspect ratios of the time? Or are you working backwards from someone saying the E was long and flat to work better in widescreen or something?

 

[MacLeod]

I would have thought aspect ratio had nothing to do with it, after all isn't aspect rato more to do with how something is framed. Besides wasn't TNG shot on film?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

They were flat-out ordered by the producers to destroy the D, in in small part because the D was designed for television aspect ratios (being about as tall as she was wide/long) rather than film.

Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff? Did Andy Probert say the ship was designed for TV aspect ratios of the time? Or are you working backwards from someone saying the E was long and flat to work better in widescreen or something?

A glance at the fore/starboard elevations shows that the claims about the Ent-D's dimensions are completely wrong, anyway.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I have no problem with the original Enterprise having a lifespan of 40 years.

Same here.
Personally, I go with the Enterprise-B was around the longest, about 50 years, and had several different captains and crews during her time.

I also wasn't all that crazy about the 20 year absence of an Enterprise between the C and the D.

I favor the idea that the fairly new Enterprise-C was the only starship with the name to be lost with all hands aboard and that Starfleet wasn't quick to replace her so fast. At the same time, Starfleet wanted the public to know that the Enterprise would live on by announcing that one of the still-in-the-idea phase Galaxy-class ships would be the Enterprise-D.

Whilst it is possible the Ent-B was around for 50 years. I don't think that's likely for the following reason. We know it's commissioning date is ~2293. The Ent-C had a date of loss circa 2344.

Which doesn't make it unlikely an idea at all--the longest-lived Enterprise followed by the shortest-lived Enterprise.

Now fo course it is possible the Ent-C was only around for a year.

Exactly. Since we don't know when the Enterprise-B ended and the Enterprise-C began, any idea is valid.

Going along with C.E. Evans's idea, that would give a "Babylon 4" vibe to the situation; that is, that the Ent-C was a brand-new ship that mysteriously disappeared. Unfortunately the episode never really gave that impression.

Well, in my idea she wasn't a totally brand-new ship (it had been in service for at least a year and long enough to be considered a plum assignment), but still new enough to have went far before her time.

The Enterprise-E could have been another Galaxy class ship, just like, when Kirk lost his first one, they gave him an identical replacement. The same could have happened to Picard. That way, Moore and Braga could have had their jollies, and we could continue to have the best starship design Star Trek ever had. It would have been cheaper to the production too. All the modelmakers would have had to do was slap an "E" sticker over the "D".

They actually did, not knowing what the producers had in mind for Star Trek VIII at the time.
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/_...en/images/9/98/Enterprise-E,_galaxy_class.jpg

What was that supposed to be for?

For Star Trek VIII (a.k.a. First Contact). They didn't know at the time production on Generations wrapped if the producers were going to have the Enterprise-E be a Galaxy-class ship or not, so someone decided to change a few decals just in case it was the former (the decals on the rest of the model still read NCC-1701-D however).

 

[Manticore]

It's possible that I conflated the sets and the model aspect-ratio wise. It has been a while since I watched all of the documentaries.

At the same time, it's a matter of record that virtually every single story beat - including the destruction of the -D - was dictated to Moore and Braga by the producers.

Even as much as I love the Enterprise-E, it does make a little sad. The -D was absolutely beautiful in Generations.

 

[Wingsley]

A couple of minor considerations for this timeline:

1: In "The Menagerie, Part I", Spock said of the Talosian "movie" of Pike's voyage to the Talos Star Group: "the was thirteen years ago." If we assume that the Enterprise's spacejacking by Spock took place in 2267, that would mean Pike's encounter with the Talosians took place in 2254.

2: Just because a space vessel receives a refit doesn't mean it's always laid-up for a year or more. As a result of the Battle of Coral Sea, the American aircraft carrier U.S.S. Yorktown was damaged, but the naval yards at Pearl Harbor were able to restore Yorktown in just days. I would suggest that major reconstruction efforts such as the one nearing completion in TMP could be the exception, not the rule, and that several smaller, quicker mini-refits may have taken place during the pre-TOS-through-TOS-era.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I would have thought aspect ratio had nothing to do with it, after all isn't aspect rato more to do with how something is framed. Besides wasn't TNG shot on film?

It was shot on film, yes, but for a television aspect ratio, the same as for every other TV series back in the day.

When I first saw the picture of the Galaxy Class E, I'd thought it may have been made as a possibility for TNG's season seven, as Braga originally wanted to crash the Enterprise saucer section in "Descent." I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.

(No fair mentioning DS9's Defiant.)

 

[Tribble puncher]

I don't hate the "E", but the "D" is a better ship to me as well.

 

[QuinnTV]

I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.

Ever watch ST II and IV? Two different Enterprises, one model. Slightly changed registry.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.

Ever watch ST II and IV? Two different Enterprises, one model. Slightly changed registry.

I think it would have absolutely looked derivative and insulting to perform the same "ressurection maneuver" twice.

I disliked this stunt at the end of ST IV (after Spock's ressurection). At least they could have tried to exchange the warp nacelles against new ones in Excelsior style to sell us the idea that this was a different and truly "new" ship.

Considering that the "A" was supposedly brand new (put together by monkeys according to Scotty in ST V), I found it interesting that 11 years (?) later in ST VI, that new ship was already to be decommissioned. Apparently even less than those stupid 20 years.

Bob

 

[anh165]

Or introduce the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A as an Excelsior class.

 

[Dukhat]

Or introduce the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A as an Excelsior class.

In-universe, that was probably the plan all along. The original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned in STIII, and Starfleet Command was most likely going to make the next Excelsior class ship the Enterprise-A (just like they did in Generations with the Ent-B). But the events of the next movie changed their plan, and instead in tribute to Kirk and his crew, they hastily renamed and re-registered an older Connie that was probably going to be decommissioned in a few years anyway (and right around the time the crew was scheduled to retire, hint hint), which would make the scene at the end of STVI make more sense.

Considering that the "A" was supposedly brand new (put together by monkeys according to Scotty in ST V), I found it interesting that 11 years (?) later in ST VI, that new ship was already to be decommissioned. Apparently even less than those stupid 20 years.

Again, it was never mentioned that the ship was brand-new. IIRC, Scotty only referred to the ship as "this new Enterprise," which while true, doesn't mean that the ship itself was new, just that it was the newest Enterprise. I prefer to believe that all Connies were being phased out by this point, which was why we never saw the design again after STVI. So why would Starfleet have just suddenly decided to build a new one, just to decommission it a few years later? Having the ship be older would also have explained why it had so many problems.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ While I do like the basic explanation (refitting the newer TOS Enterprise Starship Class worked out fine but refitting an older Constitution Class starship meant trouble), Scotty seemed to suggest something different: "All I can say is they don't make 'em like they used to."

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

So why would Starfleet have just suddenly decided to build a new one, just to decommission it a few years later? Having the ship be older would also have explained why it had so many problems.

Not necessarily unheard of. The last Essex-class aircraft carrier, the USS Philippine Sea, was commissioned in 1946 and decommissioned in 1958 after serving a short 12 years. The 1701-A could've been the last Connie ordered and have a shorter career than her older sister ships.

 

[Dukhat]

...Scotty seemed to suggest something different: "All I can say is they don't make 'em like they used to."

All that means is that Scotty prefers the TOS version of the Constitution class Enterprise to the TMP version, a feeling borne out in "Relics." As for the Ent-A, as I said there's really no evidence for the ship being brand-new (As a matter of fact, when we first see the ship's bridge at the end of STIV, it's mostly made from the older TMP-style bridge; the newer bridge in STV-VI was most likely a bridge module replacement like what Okuda speculated in the TNG tech manual).

Not necessarily unheard of. The last Essex-class aircraft carrier, the USS Philippine Sea, was commissioned in 1946 and decommissioned in 1958 after serving a short 12 years. The 1701-A could've been the last Connie ordered and have a shorter career than her older sister ships.

Sure, I can accept that reasoning. It's just that I find it unusual that Starfleet decided to build one more Connie in just the three months between the destruction of the original Enterprise and the end of STIV, and coincidentally have it ready for Kirk and crew at the conclusion of their trial. I think it would make more sense for them to have just found an old ship and changed the name and registry.

 

[blssdwlf]

I think it was just coincidental that the last Connie came off the assembly line at about the same time Kirk gets busted down to a Captain. Given that the Feds and the Klingons were still in a state of a semi-warm war with each other, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple more Connies under construction around the time of TVH only to be retired shortly after the end of TUC.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I'm still puzzled why anyone at ILM (or wherever the change from D to E was made) would assume that the same model was going to be used in the movie following "Generations." Why blow up the Enterprise in the first place if they were just going to get the same ship like nothing happened.

Ever watch ST II and IV? Two different Enterprises, one model. Slightly changed registry.

Touche.

At least no one suggested going with NCC-1701-D-A.

 

[Unicron]

Or introduce the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A as an Excelsior class.

In-universe, that was probably the plan all along. The original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned in STIII, and Starfleet Command was most likely going to make the next Excelsior class ship the Enterprise-A (just like they did in Generations with the Ent-B). But the events of the next movie changed their plan, and instead in tribute to Kirk and his crew, they hastily renamed and re-registered an older Connie that was probably going to be decommissioned in a few years anyway (and right around the time the crew was scheduled to retire, hint hint), which would make the scene at the end of STVI make more sense.

I rather like how DC actually used this idea very effectively, for a while at least.