when is a ship no longer itself.

[Santaman]

The refit of the 1701 isn't even that bothersome spaceframe wise.

The thing is, 100% of the ship's structure was altered in shape and dimensions, which is very different from inserting new hull sections or superstructures into oil tankers. It's more akin to making the tanker two inches narrower than before overall - a staggeringly massive engineering project that is in no way comparable to the insertion of hull plugs or, say, the conversion of the ship into a floating casino or an aircraft carrier, or some other such near-trivial undertaking.


Timo Saloniemi

There have been ships that have been cut in half horizontally, the upper halve raised and an entire new build section inserted inbetween the two halves so the hull would be deeper, IIRC it was a great lake freighter, can't remember the name of the ship, also a Spanish steam passenger ship ended up being rebuild into a flat hulled barge without superstructure whatsoever, and there have been plenty of battleships around that have been refitted far more extensively, heck some even became aircraft carriers.

As for the 1701, extending the saucer section isnt a biggie, only a new ring was fitted, deck hight and number of decks didn't change, fitting a new bridge probably wasn't all that difficult either, the changes made to the secundairy hull were more extensive but not such that you had to build a new hull either, a new neck and nacelle pylons were probably fitted though.

Fitting a new powerplant is done quite often to ships, some battleships even changed from a 4 prop plant to a two prop plant with the replacement of all boilers and turbines to boot, I guess it all depends on what the owner wants with the ship.

 

[YARN]

If the gold standard is exact structural/material sameness, then no ship is the same from day to day or even from moment to moment. From this perspective we must acknoweldge that the line is inherently fuzzy and that there is no direct answer to the question or offer an arbitrary criterion (e.g., 85% of the original parts still in place and functioning without replacement or refurbishment). The latter view says very little ontologically, but does allow for us to make important distinctions on occasion. It is, for example, arbitrary to say that at the very moment you turn 18 you are ready to have consensual sex, to vote, and to serve in the military. But the line has to be drawn somewhere and the clearer that line is, the easier it is for society to observe and respect that line.

From a systems view, a thing might exist so long as the system is still functioning "The King is Dead. Long live the King!" is somewhat contradictory thing to say unless you reallize that what is being stresed is the continuity of power.
From this point of view, one might argue that 1701 through 1701-E are the same ship.

The practical answer is that it is no longer the same ship when virtually no one claims her as such we can be reasonably confident that quite a bit has changed, and for all practical purposes the question is answered.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

The aircraft carrier USS Midway looked completely different from the day she was launched to the day she pulled into her final berth as a museum. They rebuilt the deck several times, ditto for the island tower, added and removed turret cannons and elevators, moved around the catapults more than once (she wasn't fitted with them at launch - they must have arrived on a Tuesday come time later), and replaced various antenna arrays and spinny things up top as radar advances required. To say nothing of internal retrofits to accomodate ever-larger aircraft, crew size, new bathrooms, etc.; building and removing rooms for storage of parts, ammunition and fuel to support them; and a fresh coat of paint every couple years to fight corrosion.

While explaining the extent of the refits of the Enterprise this way is also a stretch, hey - it IS science fiction. If it werent' for the "41" onthe hull of Midway, I'd be hard-pressed to call it the same ship from its looks over the years.

Mark

 

[B.J.]

moved around the catapults more than once (she wasn't fitted with them at launch - they must have arrived on a Tuesday come time later)

...but for those that don't know, the aircraft she carried at the time of her launch didn't need a catapult (and weren't built for it anyway). She was launched in 1945, but catapults didn't come into common use until the mid-1950s, necessary for launching the newer jet aircraft.

 

[yenny]

Here's a link of the battleship Texas, Which she herself has a history of going through a refit phase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Texas_(BB-35)

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

...but for those that don't know, the aircraft she carried at the time of her launch didn't need a catapult (and weren't built for it anyway). She was launched in 1945, but catapults didn't come into common use until the mid-1950s, necessary for launching the newer jet aircraft.

Oh, absolutely - and she went from zero cats up to four, then back down to three by the time she had to be slinging Hornets off her deck. SImilarly, I'd expect that for whatever reason the TOS shuttlecraft would really need a turntable, but that the ones in use later would rather have a clear passage all the way back to the cargo bay.

Mark

 

[Captain Rob]

Another prime example would be the remaining Essex class aircraft carriers. Most notably the USS Lexington; along with Hornet, Intrepid, and Yorktown. The Lexington, on display in Corpus Christi, was comissioned in early 43 and decomissioned in late 91. She's the oldest remaining aircraft carrier and doesn't look anything like how she looked in '43. I remember on the tour they show you portholes that open to blank bulkheads because they were original and were covered over when the ship was heavily modified to handle jets. As built the Lexington and her many sisters had mechanical catipults that were later upgraded to steam cats.

 

[jayrath]

An even better (worse) example is the U.S.S. Constitution. When I toured her, I was told that there was virtually nothing of the original ship left. Supposedly its last restoration at least un-Disneyfied her a bit.

 

[blssdwlf]

Another prime example would be the remaining Essex class aircraft carriers. Most notably the USS Lexington; along with Hornet, Intrepid, and Yorktown. The Lexington, on display in Corpus Christi, was comissioned in early 43 and decomissioned in late 91. She's the oldest remaining aircraft carrier and doesn't look anything like how she looked in '43. I remember on the tour they show you portholes that open to blank bulkheads because they were original and were covered over when the ship was heavily modified to handle jets.

Now that would be funny to see Kirk touring the interior of the Enterprise, opens a shuttered window to see... the interior of the movie Enterprise!

 

[Methos]

when is a ship no longer itself?

Typically about three seconds after the Chief Engineer begins to shout "We've got a warp core breach in progre..."

M

 

[Birdog]

As for the 1701, extending the saucer section isnt a biggie, only a new ring was fitted, deck hight and number of decks didn't change, fitting a new bridge probably wasn't all that difficult either, the changes made to the secundairy hull were more extensive but not such that you had to build a new hull either, a new neck and nacelle pylons were probably fitted though.

The saucer was extensively changed. The upper profile changed from convex to concave for example. There isn't a profile single line on the ship that is original.

 

[Gagarin]

My vote is you had a network of structural members, the primary and secondary hull keel, and several 'strongback' points, maybe some vestigial conduit runs that couldn't be removed as they were inside the structural members, and that's it. New structural members were tied onto the old with whatever the 23rd century equivalent of welding and with 'mechanical' clamps. Maybe when the corridors were redesigned, they hid a bunch of structural members we used to see in TOS.

Oh, and fanwank: The blue/green/differently-colored hull parts on the dorsal and secondary hull were cast rodidium plates.

But it's not the same ship when the people in charge say it's not a new ship. There's tradition, politics, and whatever else at stake.

 

[MacLeod]

Perhaps one way to look it as others have mentioned is this way.

If I peel away the hull of a ship, leaving most of the core structural membranes in place or cut it in half and insert a new section. Put new hull plating on, redo the interior. Do I need to change the name?

 

[Timo]

Well, there's no rulebook on the subject. Some people believe in elaborate ceremonies whenever the name of an already christened ship is tampered with, but the general practice nowadays is for ships to change names frequently and without much reason. Typically, names change when ownership does; OTOH, refits and modifications typically also happen when ownership changes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[yenny]

Talking about ships getting their name change. Here is link about a ship that had got her name change twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Majestic_(1914)

 

[nightwind1]

All of this reminds me about the old lumberjack who was showing his favorite axe to a friend:

"I've had this axe for forty years. I've replaced the handle four times and the head twice."

 

[Blip]

^ see BK313's link on page 1

I would have preferred they only destroy half of the Ent-D in Generations, (most likely the stardrive) so that the remainder could be towed away, refit, and given an "uprated" stardrive. The result being an extensive refit that allows the same ship name/registry to remain, and is a tad easier to swallow (for some) than the equivalent 1701 refit.

And IMO it's certainly a better fate than the dreck we were palmed off with in Gen.


On a (sort of) related note: Did the Ent-D Battle Bridge ever feature a plaque ala the Main Bridge?

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Not on the set, no. But that doesn't mean anything, as we've seen the dedication plaque in odd places before, e.g. in Captain Maxwell's ready room aboard the USS Phoenix.

Mark

 

[Knight Templar]

Don't some people consider it bad luck to change a ships name?

 

[The Librarian]

Don't some people consider it bad luck to change a ships name?

Sailors do, but that's never stopped the Navy from doing it.