Why the gap between Enterprises C and D?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I have probably asked this before, but forgotten. If this is so, please forgive. Anyhoo:

Is there any mentioning, in any Trek novel, as to why Starfleet waited so long after the destruction of the Enterprise-C before the Enterprise-D was built and launched? IIRC, almost 20 years went by. Does any novel give an explanation as for why a replacement vessel was held up for that long?

I mean, the 'real' reasons could be anything - either Starfleet did it deliberately as a memorial to the Ent-C's crew, or they were already working on the Galaxy class and wanted to save the next Enterprise for one of them. Or both. I'm just curious as to whether any novel gave any kind of explanation at all.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^I've always thought the decision was based on the Federation's desire to honor the sacrifice of the vessel's crew. The Enterprise-C was lost with all hands (save a few survivors). Starfleet probably thought building a new ship so soon after the loss of the old wasn't appropriate. It's sort of analogous to leaving a board member's seat open for a time after his or her death as a way of remembering the deceased (no one can replace him, in affect).

And with the Galaxy-class designs likely in the works as far back as the late 2340s and early 2350s, it's possible Starfleet thought it would be better to wait until the new design was ready before making the Enterprise an active ship again.

--Sran

 

[Nob Akimoto]

Well if the TNGTM's to be believed, the Galaxy class project had started by the 2340s. Once the E-C was lost, I'd guess the result was that Starfleet Command decided they'd reserve the name for the biggest and greatest (most ambitious?) ship in Starfleet history.

 

[Christopher]

In real life, there have often been decades between consecutive naval vessels named Enterprise. In the US Navy, there was no USS Enterprise between 1777 (actually the Continental Navy) and 1799, between 1844 and 1877, between 1909 and 1917, between 1919 and 1938, or between 1947 and 1961. The latest Enterprise was decommissioned last year and its replacement isn't due to be commissioned until 2025.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise

So it's not unusual for there to be gaps of c. 15-30 years between consecutive ships of the same name. Therefore, I don't see it as something that needs a special explanation. If anything, going immediately from one Enterprise to the next, as was done with the A, B, and E, is the anomaly. The gaps between the B and C (maybe up to a decade) and the C and D (about 20 years) are more normal.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

Well there's also the gap from 2161 - 2245 of 84 years between ships named Enterprise, I guess.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ True dat. But at that point, the Federation was brand new, so they get a pass.

 

[timothy]

They explaine that in enterprise archer did'nt want another enterprise while he was alive. So they went with the endevor.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ When did they say that?

 

[Angstromdweller]

^ When did they say that?

In Rise of the Federation: A Choice of Futures.

 

[Christopher]

Actually I said it was a mix of factors. Partly it was that there were a lot of politicians jockeying for ship-naming privileges, so their preferences might crowd out names like Enterprise (there's some precedent for this in reality, according to my research). Partly it was because NX-01 was a controversial ship to the Klingons and others, and the Federation didn't want to anger them any more than they already had by making Archer an admiral. Sure, I did say that Archer preferred not having another Enterprise in his lifetime, not wanting his own ship to risk being overshadowed; but it's not like he had the power to make that decision all by himself.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

I liked that little piece in the In a Mirror, Darkly backstage info about Archer dying the day after he went to commission NCC-1701...

On the ship-naming privileges, I've often wondered whether a number of the "generic" sounding names like Defiant or Reliant or what not weren't just english names, but also reflected equivalent names from various other fleets. I understand the inclination of people not wanting to name ships in gibberish, but it's always kinda bothered me that so many of the names for Starfleet ships are explicitly either English, American, or some western navy. Like why would Starfleet ever name a ship "Cortes" or for that matter "Tirpitz"? I mean Hernan Cortes is probably the very antithesis of Starfleet ideals, and Alfred von Tirpitz isn't exactly a shining figure in history, either. (Magellan, too for that matter, even if he was an important age of sail figure)

Oh, P.S. Christopher, I sent you a PM a couple days ago, did you get it? Or do you take a "no PMs" policy?

 

[Sci]

I liked that little piece in the In a Mirror, Darkly backstage info about Archer dying the day after he went to commission NCC-1701...

On the ship-naming privileges, I've often wondered whether a number of the "generic" sounding names like Defiant or Reliant or what not weren't just english names, but also reflected equivalent names from various other fleets. I understand the inclination of people not wanting to name ships in gibberish, but it's always kinda bothered me that so many of the names for Starfleet ships are explicitly either English, American, or some western navy.

One of the things I liked about Rise of the Federation: A Choice of Futures is that we see ships of the early Federation Starfleet that originated from non-Human fleets, like the U.S.S. Thejal and the U.S.S. Vinakthen. And we also find that there are other Federation languages with terms often used as ship names with roughly the same meaning as "Enterprise:" Vol'Rala (Andorian) and Hrumog (Tellarite).

I hope these kinds of non-Human names are followed up on in future TrekLit. I like to imagine that the Federation Starfleet is so big that there's a whole lineage of ships out there named U.S.S. Hrumog, from NCC-1703 to NCC-1703-D, with just as many legendary adventures as the lineage of the Enterprise. We just haven't heard about them because it's such a big quadrant.

Like why would Starfleet ever name a ship "Cortes" or for that matter "Tirpitz"? I mean Hernan Cortes is probably the very antithesis of Starfleet ideals, and Alfred von Tirpitz isn't exactly a shining figure in history, either.

Umm. Umm.... Don't be silly, that wasn't named after Hernán Cortés! That ship was named after Paulo Cortés, early Federation Councillor from Mars!

I never got why DS9 introduced the Cortés, either. I didn't know who von Tirpitz was until I looked him up in response to this post, but now I'm curious why David Mack introduced a ship named after him in Destiny. Memory Beta says the ship name was first used in a video game; perhaps David was just looking up ship names on Memory Beta and used it without knowing its origins?

 

[Admiral Rex]

Well there's also the gap from 2161 - 2245 of 84 years between ships named Enterprise, I guess.

Whose to say that there wasn't another Enterprise between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701?

 

[Christopher]

Whose to say that there wasn't another Enterprise between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701?

There have been plenty of references making it clear that there was no Federation starship named Enterprise prior to 1701. The dedication plaques on several of the Enterprises have said "Nth starship to bear the name" with a count consistent with 1701 being the first (e.g. the E is called the sixth to bear the name). Kirk's ship has been explicitly referred to in dialogue as the first Enterprise, in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and possibly elsewhere. Of course, the existence of NX-01 is a retcon, but this can be handwaved by assuming that the earlier references were to Federation starships of that name, since NX-01 was a United Earth ship. But that rules out the possibility of UFP Enterprises between NX-01 and NCC-1701.

 

[Leto_II]

If anything, going immediately from one Enterprise to the next, as was done with the A, B, and E, is the anomaly. The gaps between the B and C (maybe up to a decade) and the C and D (about 20 years) are more normal.

This -- and in the cases of the A, B, and E, it was real-life production-reasons dictating the super-short gap between Enterprises (a mere two years between feature films), but since the Ent-B and Ent-C were "non-hero" starships at the time (i.e., not crewed by "leading" cast-members; and existing mainly to advance backstory, and little else), there could be lots of storyline-spacing between the B, C, and D.

Well there's also the gap from 2161 - 2245 of 84 years between ships named Enterprise, I guess.

Whose to say that there wasn't another Enterprise between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701?

There was in the Abramsverse split-timeline -- Robert April's predecessor to the new movie-Enterprise in the comics (commanded by him in 2229, and XO'd by Alexander Marcus), which fell between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701.

 

[NightJim]

I've not looked at the timeline at all, but I assumed that was the NCC-1701. After all April was the first captain of the version from the Prime Universe, and the NuPike/Kirk version was a brand new ship on it's maiden voyage. I've taken this to include the theory that Starfleet used sensor scans of the Narada, taken from the destroyed Kelvin, to make a few jumps in technology.

Especially as it seems another new Enterprise was launched at the end of Into Darkness hence the size difference.

It's more Nu-Trek isn't following the A, B naming convention.

 

[Christopher]

There was in the Abramsverse split-timeline -- Robert April's predecessor to the new movie-Enterprise in the comics (commanded by him in 2229, and XO'd by Alexander Marcus), which fell between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701.

Except the timeline split didn't occur until 2233. So when April said he'd been captain for ten years, maybe he didn't mean he'd been captain of that specific ship the whole time.

And of course the comics aren't canonical, so we can't be certain that ship definitely existed in the Abramsverse. There are some continuity issues between Countdown to Darkness and STID (for instance, Sulu taking the conn, something he says in the movie he hasn't done before).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

another new Enterprise was launched at the end of Into Darkness

No, that's the same alt-1701.

 

[NightJim]

another new Enterprise was launched at the end of Into Darkness

No, that's the same alt-1701.

Oh... I figured with the size change in tech details and the massive amounts of damage it took in the film it made more sense for it to be yet another Enterprise. Or are those tech details something we should just ignore?

 

[Christopher]

^The ship was heavily repaired and refitted, of course, but it was the same ship. Remember the differences between the pilot and series versions of the original 1701, or the more drastic differences between the series version and the TMP refit.