Was *this* lost era ever dealt with?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Specifically: The reason why there was such a long gap (almost 20 years) in between the destruction of the Enterprise-C and the launch of the D. Did any novel ever deal with this - i.e. mention why Starfleet waited so long to commission a new vessel named Enterprise?

 

[Corran Horn]

Yes, "The Buried Age" by Christopher L. Bennett.

 

[Christopher]

^That took place within that period, but I don't recall giving a specific explanation for the gap between ships named Enterprise.

But then, I don't think there needs to be one. As Trek fans, we consider the Enterprise to be the most important ship in the universe and assume there should always be ships named in its honor; but in-universe, as famous as the Enterprise is, it can't be the only famous ship in the whole damn galaxy. Maybe after four consecutive Federation ships of that name, Starfleet wasn't as nostalgia-happy anymore and didn't feel any pressing need to commission a fifth. Or maybe after the tragic loss of the E-C, they decided to retire the name for a while. I don't think there's any reason to assume there's supposed to be a ship named Enterprise in Starfleet at any given time, so I don't think there needs to be any special explanation for a period where there isn't one. Because the people who actually live in the Trek universe are not Trekkies. They don't automatically have the same priorities and standards of importance that we do.

 

[Corran Horn]

ah, I thought I remembered a remark from that book. It might've been from the TNG Tech manual or something else though...basically saying (as you did) that it was as a 'tribute' to the Enterprise-C.

 

[Christopher]

Anyway, I'm puzzled by the thread title, considering that the period being discussed is solidly within the "Lost Era" as defined by the books -- namely, the interval between the launch of the Enterprise-B in 2293 and the launch of the E-D in 2364. So yeah, it's been dealt with. Books taking place partly or entirely between the death of the C and the launch of the D include Vulcan's Heart (depicting the destruction of the E-C and its aftermath), The Art of the Impossible (a little bit), Terok Nor Books 2 & 3, The Buried Age, Defy Thy Father, and Catalyst of Sorrows.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't mean just the general events taking place in that time frame, I mean that specific question - why was there no Enterprise for almost twenty years?

I agree though that it is most likely a tribute to the destruction of the Ent-C with all hands lost - the only Enterprise (real or fictional) to suffer such a fate that we're aware of, right?

 

[Christopher]

I don't mean just the general events taking place in that time frame, I mean that specific question - why was there no Enterprise for almost twenty years?

Then why not ask the question that way instead of calling it a "lost era?"

 

[MichaelS]

There's an explanation in the short story "Meet With Triumph and Disaster" in the anthology The Sky's the Limit - this may be what Corran Horn is thinking of. Mr. Laser Beam's assumption isn't so far off the mark, I can say that much.

 

[tmclough]

Then why not ask the question that way instead of calling it a "lost era?"

I think it was just a matter of poor wording in the thread title.

 

[Timo]

If I were the guy designing these starships that are supposed to last for the better part of a century, and some idiots kept blowing up the ones named Enterprise after just a few years of operations, I might indeed forward the motion that the next one be named something else. The USN isn't too keen on reusing the name Intrepid, either... (Diane Duane once inserted the "Evil I" remark into a Rihannsu book, now didn't she?)

OTOH, it is interesting how Starfleet had so many back-to-back Enterprises on two occasions in its history. Have novels touched on why the E-B was named that, after the seemingly premature retirement of the E-A? Or why the E-E got the name even though the E-D was lost in something of a disgrace?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't mean just the general events taking place in that time frame, I mean that specific question - why was there no Enterprise for almost twenty years?

Then why not ask the question that way instead of calling it a "lost era?"

Because it IS a lost era... What, has that phrase somehow become trademarked?

 

[Guardian Bob]

My guess was that Galaxy class star ships we're such a big undertaking (they are huge) and took so long that they kept the name for a Galaxy class.

 

[Kaziarl]

If I were the guy designing these starships that are supposed to last for the better part of a century, and some idiots kept blowing up the ones named Enterprise after just a few years of operations, I might indeed forward the motion that the next one be named something else. The USN isn't too keen on reusing the name Intrepid, either... (Diane Duane once inserted the "Evil I" remark into a Rihannsu book, now didn't she?)

OTOH, it is interesting how Starfleet had so many back-to-back Enterprises on two occasions in its history. Have novels touched on why the E-B was named that, after the seemingly premature retirement of the E-A? Or why the E-E got the name even though the E-D was lost in something of a disgrace?

Timo Saloniemi

I'm actually reading the bloodwing voyages now, the Diane Duane book you refer too. And yes, she mentioned there was a history with that name dating back (I believe) to the civil war era, and also mentioning the USS Intrepid from TOS lost with all hands, and the USS Intrepid in this book being captured by Rihannsu.

Quite a fascinating book really, and I could easily see why naming something after a ship, or rather the idea that name engenders, could be considered bad luck.

Haven't there been other gaps, granted not as long as 20 years. I got the impression that it was several years after TUC when the Enterprise B was finally launched. That could have been due to construction time. And the similar construction time for the D, plus a "proper" amount of time for respectful mourning seems reasonable why there would be such a gap between the C and D.

(When was the D actually launched? Do we have a time frame on that?)

 

[T J]

Wasn't there nearly an 80 year gap between the NX-01 and the 1701? That's a hell of a long time.

 

[Christopher]

Haven't there been other gaps, granted not as long as 20 years. I got the impression that it was several years after TUC when the Enterprise B was finally launched.

Nope. Several years in real time between movies, but the same year in-universe, 2293. Presumably the decommissioning of the E-A in TUC was to pave the way for the E-B.

(When was the D actually launched? Do we have a time frame on that?)

It was commissioned in 2363 according to the TNG Technical Manual.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Haven't there been other gaps, granted not as long as 20 years. I got the impression that it was several years after TUC when the Enterprise B was finally launched. That could have been due to construction time. And the similar construction time for the D, plus a "proper" amount of time for respectful mourning seems reasonable why there would be such a gap between the C and D.

I've wondered from time to time if the producers and writers really intended for there to be a two decade gap between the -C and the -D. There's no sense in the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation that the Enterprise is a new ship, and at times there are implications that the ship had a history prior to "Farpoint." But then revelations later in the series, like "Yesterday's Enterprise," put hard dates on events and led to unintended "gaps."

 

[TheAlmanac]

Haven't there been other gaps, granted not as long as 20 years. I got the impression that it was several years after TUC when the Enterprise B was finally launched. That could have been due to construction time. And the similar construction time for the D, plus a "proper" amount of time for respectful mourning seems reasonable why there would be such a gap between the C and D.

I've wondered from time to time if the producers and writers really intended for there to be a two decade gap between the -C and the -D. There's no sense in the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation that the Enterprise is a new ship, and at times there are implications that the ship had a history prior to "Farpoint."

"Farpoint" seemed to make it pretty clear that the E-D was a new ship, and IIRC, Picard had a line in "Lonely Among Us" about the ship being less than a year old.

OTOH, the E-C need not have been lost that long ago, and the establishment of the 2344 date did create the gap, when it would have been just as easy (theoretically) to have it lost in 2354 or even later, if the story details had been different.

 

[Christopher]

I think that's kind of getting it backward. If we look at it in terms of real-world chronology, the long gap between C & D was established well before the short gaps between A & B and D & E. So at the time "Yesterday's Enterprise" was written, it wasn't the exception to the rule because the rule didn't exist yet. For all we knew at the time, the short gap between the original and the A could've been the exception.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Wasn't there nearly an 80 year gap between the NX-01 and the 1701?

We have no idea when the NX-01 will be decommissioned (or destroyed).

 

[Sci]

Wasn't there nearly an 80 year gap between the NX-01 and the 1701?

We have no idea when the NX-01 will be decommissioned (or destroyed).

I thought I remembered "These Are the Voyages..." implying that the NX-01 was decommissioned and made into a museum ship upon the signing of the Articles of the Federation -- presumably because of the important role Enterprise had played in bringing about the founding of the Federation.

Besides, if the NX-01 remained in service after the Federation was founded, that presents us with a problem: The canon has consistently portrayed the NCC-1701 as being the first Federation starship Enterprise. But if the NX-01 continued in service after the Articles were signed, that would mean that the NX-01 became a Federation starship -- and that it would therefore have been the first Federation starship Enterprise.

However, it is true that there's no particular reason to think that other NX-class can't have continued serving after the founding of the Federation. The Daedalus-class ships (which the ENT Relaunch has established is much older than the NX-class) apparently served into the 2190s. Unless every NX-class ship gets destroyed in the Earth-Romulan War, they certainly could continue serving well into the 2200s.